Now #BLMers are rioting in Minneapolis after black murderer kills himself

[Trausti]

Yeah, I like Sowell. He just seems to have the best observations of these things.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Except for the little problem that that desperate need isn't real beyond what's self-inflicted by choosing a life of crime.

"choosing a life of crime"

and that, folks, is a level of ignorance and delusion that there is simply no way to logic someone out of.

Choosing.

Not everyone in the inner cities is a criminal. Survival is certainly possible without turning to crime.

No. That's wrong. It's a variation on the bootstrap fallacy. (I just coined that term! Maybe?) There is not enough legitimate resources available for all but there is for some. That means you get to feel morally superior while not actually being it.

Hey, if the option is available, it's their fault if they don't take it.

Even if there are actually 1000 opportunities for every 5000 people, the bad ones are the ones who didn't figure out a spot. Or who got a criminal record with an adult felony for selling some acid when they were 17 to a guy who set them up as part of a deal he made with cops to cooperate in hopes of a lesser charge for a different drug bust.

Not unusual.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Isn't calling fellow members "racist" a violation of TOU?

this isn't a simple reaction to an incident in a vacuum.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. At the same time, previous grievances are not a valid excuse for wrongdoing today. Each action must be considered by its own merits. And for example looting a Target or a Vietnamese restaurant is not justifiable no matter what what!

it's hilarious to me the extent to which a pack of white people are unable to grasp the idea that rioting and looting are the obvious and inevitable result of people no longer giving a shit about restraining themselves for the sake of the social contract, because they're not getting their end of the deal from it.

Oh, bullshit! They are getting plenty out of it. I mean, what is it that you think they are not getting? What they want is free stuff without working for it. Sorry, but that is not part of the social contract. Society doesn't owe you a Gucci headband or whatever you looted from the mall just because you have a dark skin color!

it's a really simple premise:
there is no feasible way to have private property without society at large collectively all agreeing to let people have private property - as in, there's no way to enforce the idea from a logistics standpoint.
private ownership of wealth and property only happens when everyone else agrees to let it happen, because the natural state of biological life dictates that if so-and-so has resources and you don't, you just murder him in the fucking face (if you can) and take his resources.

Well not everyone else. There have always been lawbreakers. We lock those people up, we do not make excuses for their behavior.

it's a monumental act of collective will to have this idea that one individual can have nothing and be in desperate need, and look at someone with a ridiculous excess of resources, and not take their stuff by force.

You have not shown that these looters have a "desperate need" for the stuff they looted. They are looting because of the fucked up #BLM ideology, not because of need.

that act of will only works if a given person is still better off than they would be alone in the wilds, all things considered... the social contract that protects private property is also supposed to supply resources to everyone so that everyone's life is improved by adhering to the contract.

US has a great deal of government programs. Not as much as Europe or Canada, but still a lot. That is not it. These people are not desperate for necessities.

if you fuck with that dynamic, if you expect others to follow the rules that protect you while systematically refusing them the benefits which are owed them by following the contract, this is the inevitable result.

Except that your analysis fails because there is no evidence of "desperate need" driving these riots.

It's not desperate need driving them. It's the refusal to follow the social compact because it stopped mattering once the cops broke it, thinking as you appear to that the country is and should be ruled by fear. Because fuck you is an entirely valid incentive to act.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

You seem to be advocating giving in to the rioters and looters instead of arresting and prosecuting them.

Would you have the same opinion if say pro-lifers started burning down abortion clinics and looting businesses around them? Would you advocate passing an abortion ban to appease them?
And if a bunch of anti-gay people decided to riot and loot and "burn this bitch down" over gay marriage would you advocate giving in to them and recriminalize homosexuality?
Or does that only work for political violence from the left?


What do you consider "full benefit" and "full measure of their due"? Please be specific instead of waxing poetic!

collectively, white people have been shitting on black people for about as long as white people have known black people exist. frankly i'm astonished that it took this long of being pushed before they started pushing back.

Bullshit. Yes, there has been some horrible treatment in the past. But for the last 50 years, black people are advantaged in many areas of society. Note that these riots are driven mostly by young people whose parents, let along themselves, were not alive during Jim Crow!
Whatever happened in the past does not justify violence today.
And what is your solution? These bouts of violence are triggered not by economic need but by policing - police were seeking Eddie Sole for murder, so he killed himself. Police were trying to arrest Jacob Blake for felony warrants and he resisted, and went for his car, which led to him being shot. So what would be your solution to appease these anti-police rioters? Make black people exempt from following laws such as laws against killing people or against sexually assaulting people?
No, the real solution is to arrest and prosecute these rioters to the full extent of the law. Instead too many fauxgressive cities are coddling them and dismiss most charges and this is the inevitable result. This has been building steam since the Michael Brown I35 blockades in Minneapolis. I told you guys then that this will end badly if the extremists are allowed to take over the interstate with no consequences, and now the city is reaping the whirlwind of the inaction then.

you seem to think this is possible

 

[ruby sparks]

You are not addressing Sowell's point. The Left minimizes responsibility by people burning down buildings or looting things but at the same time they treat all white people as responsible for what some other white people did in the past.

Now, yes, there have been wrongs that happened in the past. But for how long should those wrongs be used as an excuse? For 50 years now blacks are enjoying preferential treatment in college and grad school admissions and also hiring esp. for government jobs under the guise of "affirmative action". How can you have that huge amount of privilege and still claim that blacks are somehow oppressed in this country?

Personally, I would hold you, and people with your attitudes, partly and indirectly responsible for this mess, at least in a small way. And yes, obviously, it is also true that others, such as rioters and many black people, are also responsible. But your 'it ain't me, it's them' doesn't wash, and just makes things worse. If you really want things to get better in your country, and you want to be part of the solution for everyone, you have to budge a bit more from where you're currently at, imo, and I would say you are shirking your obligations if you don't. So take that index finger and point it back at yourself sometimes.

Trausti (or I for that matter) is not in any way responsible for this rioting/looting etc. The rioters, looters and arsonists are.
We will never fix race relations in this country while blacks are assigned to a separate box - different standards for college admissions, different societal privileges (words only black can use, so-called "cultural appropriation" nonsense, can't criticize #BLM without risking losing your job etc.) are driving a wedge through the people and are dividing us by race. It will not stop under the prescription the Left has - the perpetual divisions into the white oppressors and POC "oppressed" is getting us nowhere. We had 50-60 years of left-wing politicians and academicians driving and dominating the racial policies and discourse, and where has it taken us? Nowhere good! It is time for a fundamental rethink of the problem and of the solutions!

You and Trausti are entitled to your points of view, but I would still definitely say what I said, to both of you. All the more because of some of the things you say in that post. Imo, you both understate your level of responsibility, not necessarily your responsibility for racial problems in your country (and I totally disagree that either of you are racists) but your responsibility to help repair them, or even just analyse things in a balanced and reasonable way, taking all factors into account.

And slow down a bit with the endless whataboutism regarding 'the left'. Yes, you are right, imo, in what you say about it (or some of it, the more radical left) but what the left says and does is up to the left. What you say and do is up to you, and two wrongs don't make a right. Imo, you shirk your obligations and responsibilities in some ways and to an extent. What is clearly needed, especially right now, is more movement to the middle ground and an appreciation of both sides. Constantly complaining about the left, or your opponents, is not that. It's not even that relevant when talking to me, because I am not the left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Choosing.

Not everyone in the inner cities is a criminal. Survival is certainly possible without turning to crime.

so here is what i don't get:
ostensibly the US is the most (or near to it) developed, resource rich, land rich, scientifically advanced society in the history of the human race. there is an obscene excess of resources both physical and financial, bursting at the seams in segments of our country... it was just recently announced jeff besos is worth over 200 billion. we have several billionaires. we have dozens of companies routinely making hundreds of billions in profit yearly.

and yet, your standard that you're setting for living in the most opulent civilization this planet has ever witnessed is "survival" - not actively starving to death.
that's it? that's the best you can do? the most you can aspire to is that living in this absolute *ocean* of resources is "don't die too early due to lack of food"

well i for one find that fucking pathetic.

How one fares in life is very dependent on one's actions. When one doesn't care about education or about doing anything more than the minimum at work don't expect to have a very good life.

Society should provide the basics for those who can't care for themselves and for the most part does. Handouts beyond this level are not a good thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

this is diametrically opposed to profit driven capitalism, which necessarily requires the exclusion of resources to the many for the excess of the few.

Capitalism has no requirement of exclusion of resources. It's just it's about earning them rather than being handed them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Choosing.

Not everyone in the inner cities is a criminal. Survival is certainly possible without turning to crime.

No. That's wrong. It's a variation on the bootstrap fallacy. (I just coined that term! Maybe?) There is not enough legitimate resources available for all but there is for some. That means you get to feel morally superior while not actually being it.

Hey, if the option is available, it's their fault if they don't take it.

Even if there are actually 1000 opportunities for every 5000 people, the bad ones are the ones who didn't figure out a spot. Or who got a criminal record with an adult felony for selling some acid when they were 17 to a guy who set them up as part of a deal he made with cops to cooperate in hopes of a lesser charge for a different drug bust.

Not unusual.

This is based on the flawed assumption that the pie is fixed. At any one instant in time it is, but people can grow the pie, getting more for themselves without taking from others.

I disagree on the guy being set up to sell acid, though--while I very much dislike the drug war your scenario isn't realistic. Nobody's going to set you up as a dealer. Fools do get busted as unknowing drug mules but that isn't going to happen to get a lighter sentence. When you're in at a level that someone gives you up to the cops you know you're doing wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not desperate need driving them. It's the refusal to follow the social compact because it stopped mattering once the cops broke it, thinking as you appear to that the country is and should be ruled by fear. Because fuck you is an entirely valid incentive to act.

While we do have some bad cops the social compact hasn't been broken. Substantial wrongdoing by the police almost always involves criminals, not the law abiding.

 

[prideandfall]

Capitalism has no requirement of exclusion of resources. It's just it's about earning them rather than being handed them.

not "capitalism" in the purely neutral sense, but i didn't say "capitalism" i said "profit driven capitalism" which is a distinct subtype that the U.S. adheres to and is incredibly socially toxic.

obviously capitalism always includes the pursuit of profit, but there is a difference between "make a lot of money" and "fuck over everyone and everything around you and destroy as much as possible in order to forcefully maximize every bloody cent it's possible to add to your earnings report."
i currently work for a huge international finance company who openly admitted to its employees that by the end of 2020, they had projected 3.2 billion in profit but after the pandemic this had been recalculated to 2.9 billion and so the company had no choice but to initiate massive layoffs and cut the hours of full time employees in order to make up the difference so their earnings projection wasn't reduced.
they financially damaged thousands of people, not to survive or to make it through, not because they were at risk of going bankrupt, but because their profit projection wasn't holding up.
i consider that to be toxic profit driven capitalism, where "the most conceivable profit physically possible" is the only consideration, and the workers are the first lambs to be sacrificed at the alter of MOAR STOCK PRICE.

 

[prideandfall]

How one fares in life is very dependent on one's actions. When one doesn't care about education or about doing anything more than the minimum at work don't expect to have a very good life.

how one fares in life in the U.S. is very dependent on one's environment they are born into, which will influence the actions that one is capable of choosing to make.
just because you, loren patchel, are a white guy living somewhere that has a job market that caters to your skillset. you simply have no intellectual capacity to understand what it means to be born into a household where you are given zero social advantages and dumped as an adult into a local environment with no jobs that fit your skillsets and even the jobs you can get don't pay enough to even live, much less thrive.

Society should provide the basics for those who can't care for themselves and for the most part does. Handouts beyond this level are not a good thing.

how would you know? this is a baseless assertion based on your imagination on how you wish things were.
the U.S. has never given handouts, so whether it's a good thing or not is pure conjecture.
based on other countries with most robust social programs, there's no evidence it's a bad thing, so with zero evidence for your argument and multiple points of evidence against your argument, your assertion is utterly without merit.

 

[prideandfall]

While we do have some bad cops the social compact hasn't been broken. Substantial wrongdoing by the police almost always involves criminals, not the law abiding.

two things:
1. police involvement is not the extent of the social contract, so this is irrelevant.
2. boy howdy you and derec love landing directly on the heart of the issue and not seeing it.
"almost always" ... you were so close to having a clue, and it just slipped away.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not desperate need driving them. It's the refusal to follow the social compact because it stopped mattering once the cops broke it, thinking as you appear to that the country is and should be ruled by fear. Because fuck you is an entirely valid incentive to act.

While we do have some bad cops the social compact hasn't been broken. Substantial wrongdoing by the police almost always involves criminals, not the law abiding.

WTF? Criminals are persons and persons are part of society. Being suspected of criminal activity (or having engaged in criminal acts in the past) does not exclude someone from the social compact.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not desperate need driving them. It's the refusal to follow the social compact because it stopped mattering once the cops broke it, thinking as you appear to that the country is and should be ruled by fear. Because fuck you is an entirely valid incentive to act.

While we do have some bad cops the social compact hasn't been broken. Substantial wrongdoing by the police almost always involves criminals, not the law abiding.

WTF? Criminals are persons and persons are part of society. Being suspected of criminal activity (or having engaged in criminal acts in the past) does not exclude someone from the social compact.

Yeah, otherwise our president would be excluded from the society he is running

 

[Toni]

WTF? Criminals are persons and persons are part of society. Being suspected of criminal activity (or having engaged in criminal acts in the past) does not exclude someone from the social compact.

Yeah, otherwise our president would be excluded from the society he is running

Well, I'd be all in favor of excluding him by sending him on a nice long time out in...Levenworth? Assuming that he is charged, brought to trial and convicted, of course.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not desperate need driving them. It's the refusal to follow the social compact because it stopped mattering once the cops broke it, thinking as you appear to that the country is and should be ruled by fear. Because fuck you is an entirely valid incentive to act.

While we do have some bad cops the social compact hasn't been broken. Substantial wrongdoing by the police almost always involves criminals, not the law abiding.

WTF? Criminals are persons and persons are part of society. Being suspected of criminal activity (or having engaged in criminal acts in the past) does not exclude someone from the social compact.

The point is that if you're not a criminal you have little to fear from the police beyond harassment. The incidents of unreasonable force are not at all common.

Where the problem lies is the casual use of excessive force against those who are already on the wrong side of the law. For example, George Floyd. It's pretty obvious they were trying to inflict some pain and they didn't realize what could happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WTF? Criminals are persons and persons are part of society. Being suspected of criminal activity (or having engaged in criminal acts in the past) does not exclude someone from the social compact.

Yeah, otherwise our president would be excluded from the society he is running

Well, I'd be all in favor of excluding him by sending him on a nice long time out in...Levenworth? Assuming that he is charged, brought to trial and convicted, of course.

Yup. I'd love to see him "win" the next vote 12 to 0.

 

[laughing dog]

WTF? Criminals are persons and persons are part of society. Being suspected of criminal activity (or having engaged in criminal acts in the past) does not exclude someone from the social compact.

The point is that if you're not a criminal you have little to fear from the police beyond harassment. The incidents of unreasonable force are not at all common.

Tell that to the family of Tamir Rice or Philandro Castile.

Where the problem lies is the casual use of excessive force against those who are already on the wrong side of the law. For example, George Floyd. It's pretty obvious they were trying to inflict some pain and they didn't realize what could happen.

Tell that to Brionna Taylor's family.

 

[Derec]

just because you, loren patchel, are a white guy living somewhere that has a job market that caters to your skillset. you simply have no intellectual capacity to understand what it means to be born into a household where you are given zero social advantages and dumped as an adult into a local environment with no jobs that fit your skillsets and even the jobs you can get don't pay enough to even live, much less thrive.

Sure, some jobs pay little. But US has free public schools K-12. We also have affordable technical and community colleges, and all kinds of grants, scholarships and subsidized loans for post-secondary education. Even if you are born into a disadvantaged household, you can work on bettering yourself.

the U.S. has never given handouts, so whether it's a good thing or not is pure conjecture.

US has been giving a lot of handouts. What are you babbling about?

based on other countries with most robust social programs, there's no evidence it's a bad thing, so with zero evidence for your argument and multiple points of evidence against your argument, your assertion is utterly without merit.

Depends on the program and the implementation. It's not like high-tax, generous-programs European countries are carefree utopias either you know.

 

[Derec]

WTF? Criminals are persons

Not all of them.

and persons are part of society. Being suspected of criminal activity (or having engaged in criminal acts in the past) does not exclude someone from the social compact.

True. At the same time, the social compact dictates that such people face consequences for their actions.
If you have a felony warrant, police will arrest you. If you resist with violence, police will respond with force, up to and including lethal force.
If you kill somebody, police will pursue you and attempt to apprehend you. If you don't want to go to prison, suicide is one way out.