Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

[jamil]

I have the same arguments with my liberal friends and family all the time. I ask them, if the government is terrible, police are brutal, Trump is a facist, and white supremacy is systemic, why would you want to continue to prop up that system and give it more power?

They never have an answer.

I've asked that question. And boy did they answer: 1) Trump shouldn't have power. It's fine to give power to someone who will use it justly. Trump is an illegitimate president, and he doesn't deserve to have that power. 2) There's inherent racism in the system, and we need to progress beyond that. Policies that Democrats favor gets us there. Policies Republicans favor are just regressive.

The problem is, both sides see things differently, interpret things differently and apply different moral standards as they evaluate their interpretation of the world around them. It's the different moral standards that make bat **** crazy leftist **********s say stupid **** like, "Republicans hate kids because they won't implement 'common sense gun controls." And I suppose an equivalent on the other side might be something like "Democrats just want to murder babies." And Libertarians do the same thing, "why do you hate freedom?"

Republicans don't hate kids. They just don't believe that "common sense gun controls" will solve the problem. Democrats don't just want to murder babies, they don't believe that is murder. And people who want any government don't hate freedom, they place the balance point in the linear region between freedom and safety. All of those things are arguable in terms of what is the optimal place where along the left right line policy should be. But making statements like that is faulty logic because you're assigning your own moral reasoning to other people who don't share that moral understanding.

It seems to me the biggest divide is the moral foundation of fairness. Both sides have that. But both place an emphasis on different aspects of fairness. One is equality, the other is reciprocity. Progressives think equality of outcome is most important. Conservatives think reciprocity is most important. What I mean by reciprocity fairness is more along the lines of you reap what you sow, you deserve no more than what you earn, you do what you promise, you get what you give. So, take welfare. If you believe in equalizing outcomes you'll be all in favor of welfare. Conservatives don't think you should get something for nothing. And especially it's not reciprocally fair if I have to pay from the resources I've earned, to equalize someone else's outcome, who's done nothing to earn it.

There's no way to compromise in a way that satisfies both sides' moral foundations if neither side tries to understand the priorities of the other side. So both sides fight for the big-stick-o-power so that they can implement policies that satisfy their own moral foundations. A compromise, if both sides see the other sides's moral needs, would be a social safety net with workfare that tries to respect the sensibilities inherent to each side's moral priorities. Neither side will get theirs fulfilled completely.

 

[tbhausen]

I was in Lowes picking out my riding mower to get tonight during the looting, and someone there said they're going to riot the Walmart on Lafayette road at 10:00.

I don’t see any purple there… Is that a serious rumor? It wouldn’t surprise me.

 

[tbhausen]

If it is true, they just need to take away all the Obamaphones, then no one would know to show up.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yesterday - Riots are the only way these people have left to be heard. Silent protest like Kaepernick isn't working.

Today - It was Nazis and Russians.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I've asked that question. And boy did they answer: 1) Trump shouldn't have power. It's fine to give power to someone who will use it justly. Trump is an illegitimate president, and he doesn't deserve to have that power. 2) There's inherent racism in the system, and we need to progress beyond that. Policies that Democrats favor gets us there. Policies Republicans favor are just regressive.

The problem is, both sides see things differently, interpret things differently and apply different moral standards as they evaluate their interpretation of the world around them. It's the different moral standards that make bat **** crazy leftist **********s say stupid **** like, "Republicans hate kids because they won't implement 'common sense gun controls." And I suppose an equivalent on the other side might be something like "Democrats just want to murder babies." And Libertarians do the same thing, "why do you hate freedom?"

Republicans don't hate kids. They just don't believe that "common sense gun controls" will solve the problem. Democrats don't just want to murder babies, they don't believe that is murder. And people who want any government don't hate freedom, they place the balance point in the linear region between freedom and safety. All of those things are arguable in terms of what is the optimal place where along the left right line policy should be. But making statements like that is faulty logic because you're assigning your own moral reasoning to other people who don't share that moral understanding.

It seems to me the biggest divide is the moral foundation of fairness. Both sides have that. But both place an emphasis on different aspects of fairness. One is equality, the other is reciprocity. Progressives think equality of outcome is most important. Conservatives think reciprocity is most important. What I mean by reciprocity fairness is more along the lines of you reap what you sow, you deserve no more than what you earn, you do what you promise, you get what you give. So, take welfare. If you believe in equalizing outcomes you'll be all in favor of welfare. Conservatives don't think you should get something for nothing. And especially it's not reciprocally fair if I have to pay from the resources I've earned, to equalize someone else's outcome, who's done nothing to earn it.

There's no way to compromise in a way that satisfies both sides' moral foundations if neither side tries to understand the priorities of the other side. So both sides fight for the big-stick-o-power so that they can implement policies that satisfy their own moral foundations. A compromise, if both sides see the other sides's moral needs, would be a social safety net with workfare that tries to respect the sensibilities inherent to each side's moral priorities. Neither side will get theirs fulfilled completely.

 

[tbhausen]

IMPD just went encrypted. Looks like condition red and they’re definitely expecting rain. Be safe tonight, everyone!

 

[jamil]

Like I try to explain to folks, progressivism and capitalism suffer from the exact same philosophical fault.

There's no end point for the ideology.

Once all major goals have been accomplished, new goals must be invented for the survival of the ideology. Those new goals end up becoming more and more incomprehensible and radical, as there's nothing reasonable left for the ideology to accomplish. Luckily the US found a happy way to balance capitalism out, but nations like China have been pedal to the metal with it.

These riots are just an extension of progressives having nothing noble left to fight for.

I think I'd agree with that more if the two opposing ideologies were progressivism vs conservatism. Or maybe even collectivism vs individualism. Those are ideologies. Progressivism, collectivism, conservatism, individualism are all ideologies. Capitalism is an economic system, albeit one that typically conservatives and individualists favor. The attributes of capitalism doesn't really change much and neither do the goals. But it stays stable within that definition.

With ideologies, I think that's some good insight. Ideologies tend to progress towards the extremes, and that the driving force for that would tend to be that the goals are ever progressing towards the extremes. Probably less so with conservatism, because conservatism is basically keeping to what has become traditional. Conservatives only become radical when they've conserved to the point that the left has gone so far left the difference between them is astonishing. I think that's where we are today. What was the goal of progressives 50 years ago is much different from now. If the goals of people who were progressive 50 years ago had never changed, those people would be considered radical conservatives now.

 

[jamil]

You know. I'm just thinking **** through. I don't really care if anyone reads it. Well, I'd like people to read it. But if it's too much words, I wouldn't lose sleep if you said you didn't.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I've seen pictures of looting with whites involved, though they are in the minority in those shots. Look who is busy bailing out the white supremacists:

Colin Kaepernick starts legal defense fund for protesters arrested in Minneapolis
Biden staff donate to group that pays bail in riot-torn Minneapolis

Sounds like they need to up the bail

 

[cbhausen]

This isn’t just about breaking stuff and stealing stuff. It’s about a political agenda and provocation of law-enforcement (both local and federal) to put conservatives and Republicans in a bad light and stir up sympathy for Democrats and liberals. And of course, drive people to the polls in November. Hopefully more of us than them.

 

[MCgrease08]

I can see where outside agitators would not have too difficult a time getting to the scene of the crime so to speak, but to organize across multiple cities in just a couple of days? If that is true there is an even bigger group at the ready waiting for an event that has been preparing for months or years.

It doesn't take much organization or money. There are plenty of antifa chapters all across the country. All it takes is an email looking for comrades willing to be the first to throw a brick or Molotov cocktail through a window. Let the rage of the mob and the lure of free TVs, cigarettes and liquor do the rest.

If you watch the Tim Pool video up thread, in one city it appears someone may have placed a pallet of bricks right on the corner.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You know. I'm just thinking **** through. I don't really care if anyone reads it. Well, I'd like people to read it. But if it's too much words, I wouldn't lose sleep if you said you didn't.

I'm just teasin' ya. You have a lot of good things to say. You just take a lot of words to say them, ya wordy bastage. It could just as easily apply to chipbennet, BugIO, Oak River, or T.Lex. I admire all your abilities to formulate well thought out posts, but my own short attention span gets overloaded

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It doesn't take much organization or money. There are plenty of antifa chapters all across the country. All it takes is an email looking for comrades willing to be the first to throw a brick or Molotov cocktail through a window. Let the rage of the mob and the lure of free TVs, cigarettes and liquor do the rest.

If you watch the Tim Pool video up thread, in one city it appears someone may have placed a pallet of bricks right on the corner.

I didn't watch the video but if that's true, then wow... just wow. Unless there's a construction project going on at that corner, then that's pretty damning evidence of a premeditated intent to riot.

 

[Alamo]

Once again, the Babylon Bee is without mercy:

CNN draws largest crowd in years

 

[jamil]

I can see where outside agitators would not have too difficult a time getting to the scene of the crime so to speak, but to organize across multiple cities in just a couple of days? If that is true there is an even bigger group at the ready waiting for an event that has been preparing for months or years.

I strongly suspect it's several far left groups that work together. BLM, Antifa, BAMN, etcetera. If they act like their organized, I think it's fair to suspect that might be organizing.

 

[jsx1043]

Saw the Facebook posts by Ranitup Tazz. Mall closed at noon apparently. Ranitup might actually be in Atlanta and just stirring the pot. Greenwood PD page has lots of civilians willing to help if things get out of hand. Greenwood ain't Indy. The whole town would never get through a metal detector.

My pals in public safety in Johnson County told me that a town marshal in the county is offering to deputize anyone willing to help. I put 75% veracity to the statement, but pretty cool if true.

 

[Leadeye]

I keep hearing big media blaming this on white supremacists, but I don't see any hoods or sheets in those crowds.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I keep hearing big media blaming this on white supremacists, but I don't see any hoods or sheets in those crowds.

I said something similar earlier. Might have been in the Indy Riot thread over in Gen Pol though. I forget where I am sometimes.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

My pals in public safety in Johnson County told me that a town marshal in the county is offering to deputize anyone willing to help. I put 75% veracity to the statement, but pretty cool if true.

Sounds familiar... Bet these guys would've shown up.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/28/armed-rednecks-stave-off-looters-amid-george-floyd-protests/

 

[BehindBlueI's]

My pals in public safety in Johnson County told me that a town marshal in the county is offering to deputize anyone willing to help. I put 75% veracity to the statement, but pretty cool if true.

A little outside my lane here, but he may want to check with ILEA and his town council on that. I *believe* there's a limit to how many deputies a town marshal can have under just the marshal certification but I could be wrong. State law requires the town council to set a maximum number of deputies. He can, however, per IC code "call the power of the town to his aid", although I don't know exactly what that entails.