If they were arrested then statistically speaking they are far more likely than the average person to be criminals.
I feel like one of the ultimate sources of tension in western society today is that one side puts far too much faith into the good in people, a perspective that can only come from ivory tower privilege. This comment is a perfect example.
Sure, those who disagree will claim that the real problem is the opposite, but my point is that the side of the protestors lacks nuance in their worldview; often people are bad and you can't just blindly blame society for every criminal.
I wasn't comparing them to society as a whole. I was comparing them to others who made bail. The only difference was money. This isn't about nuance and good faith: any of those they wanted to release was entitled to get out at any moment.
> If they were arrested then statistically speaking they are far more likely than the average person to be criminals.
That was never the comparison - the bit you didn't quote was "than those who had bailed out for the same crimes". According to your argument, they are _also_ more likely than the average person to be criminals, yet we bail them out.
> they are far more likely than the average person to be criminals
Or just have the wrong skin complexion. Getting arrested doesn't increase one's chances of being a criminal, that's not how reality or statistics work. It just increases their chance of being in jail by about 100% but they still have very much the same chances of being a criminal as they did right before being arrested.
>Jack Dorsey's been pretty active on the podcast scene recently, and I feel it's harder to fake your personality in multiple long form conversations. I never got a hint of arrogance from him
I do this all day, every day at work. Pretty sure most of us do to some degree. It's really not hard to put on a near perfect professional mask for extended periods of time, though it can be exhausting for some people.
It's offensive to see this valid point of view dismissed with such shallow accusations of privilege.
The point in bringing up trivial issues like moving monitors is to emphasize the greed and absurdity that ensure that even simple, quick tasks become cash sinks and long term blockers, directly because of common union practices. This is the inefficiency that unions tend to breed, and it is a direct consequence of their purpose: protect members even at the expense of nonmembers and the rest of the corporate collective.
No one is complaining that they aren't allowed to move their own monitors. We are explaining that these ubiquitous policies in sum do more harm than good to greater modern society.
Who exactly is the "rest of the corporate collective"? Also saying "ubiquitous policies in sum" seems like a stretch from extortionist monitor moving. There can be a balance.
What's sorely missing from this discussion is the understanding that different cultures are differently suited for each system of government. There's simply no reason that what works in Sweden will work in the US, or China, or Zimbabwe, etc.
The last two generations of western civilization were raised, out of good intentions, to be culture blind, and now with what's happening in the country we are seeing the result.
This kind of thinking reminds me of biotruths, eugenics, social Darwinism, and other authoritarian concepts which seek to explain why it’s okay to have inequality between and within countries.
We should seek to raise rights and standards of living for all people. The focus on whether other people have cultures compatible with specific forms of government seems very suspect. Such talk keeps people down. Self-determination is a human right; therefore, it is a society’s right to determine government and culture. Your focus on culture is very strange; it suggests that the culture is a thing that justifies itself independent of the people. The culture is a thing people live and do. Your phrasing makes culture seem insidious, seeking to resist changes to status quo. Some monoculture advocates reject alternative cultures and seek to outcompete them. By implying there are singular cultures, you wipe away self-determination.
>kind of thinking reminds me of biotruths, eugenics, social Darwinism, and other authoritarian concepts which seek to explain why it’s okay to have inequality between and within countries.
I don't know where to start with this comment. Perhaps you should stop grouping arguments by stereotype.
At an individual level, different people require different interventions, because they have different personalities. Some people can handle responsibility. Some people need financial motivation. Some people respond to love. Others best learn through violence or fear (I was far too smart to listen to my parents until they threatened a spanking, for example).
If you take all of these different personalities and force them to live under together under a single set of rules, regardless of whether their needs are met, they will compete, if not for resources them for social clout. It is human nature. Particularly in a universe where resources are scarce and time is short.
Though large scale human interaction has a normalizing effect, within the high dimensional space of human belief and behavior there is ample room for these same micro behaviors to be reflected by macroscale cultural trends. And, similarly, because the "ideal" form of government depends ultimately on widely varying beliefs, forcing multiple peoples with significant cultural distance will inevitably lead to inequality and clash - this is not a statement of superiority, sand though it can be used as part justification for some of the antisocial beliefs you raised, that doesn't mean it isn't untrue or that these real problems that we are seeing emerge across the world will simply go away if we ignore them. This pattern has been repeated across time and space and is an unnecessary source of unacknowledged strife in the modern world.
All people should have self-determination, culture be damned. All societies should have self-determination. Period.
That’s why I drew the logical connection to authoritarian concepts. No one is forcing anyone to be more free. That would be impossible. Freedom is a choice one makes for oneself, individually. Keeping someone from being free can be forced upon another. Society can do this collectively through laws. These are nuanced differences between freedoms and liberties, which some people don’t have.
I don’t know why you focus on the culture when people are why the culture exists as it does, not the other way around. The status quo benefits from dominant culture and from keeping established power structures in place. You can’t use the culture as an argument to justify a form of government that removes human rights. Just like I can’t sign a contract that gives up my Constitutional rights. Those in less free countries are not given the choice of more freedom.
> There’s no moral quandary in closing the door to abusers
Doesn't necessarily apply to this conversation, but the moral mistake that people (and societies) frequently make is underestimating the nuance that should be exercised when identifying others as abusers.
They chased police out of a section of the city under threat of violence, with the explicit goal of dismantling the local (and national) police force and upending governed rule of law. They're also armed (video of Raz with an AK variant on site, and public announcements of the gun club being on-site and armed "for their protection") and, of course, making demands.
This objectively meets the definition of both terrorism and criminality. Now, you may agree with their cause, and even their methods, but if we want to document and discuss exactly what's happening, we need to start by calling spades spades.
"Hoping to break through the barricade, protesters attacked officers with bricks, bottles, rocks, and improvised explosive devices, sending some officers to the hospital. At the same time, activists circulated videos of the conflict and accused the police of brutality, demanding that the city cease using teargas and other anti-riot techniques."
Expecting not to be tear gassed while your antifa cohorts are using bricks, bottles, rocks, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against the police seems unreasonable even if people are calling to ban tear gas and rubber bullets. Rubber bullets can kill, but tear gas as an equal response to IEDs seems the lesser of two evils.
I expect they will relinquish control of their "autonomous zone" when they can no longer maintain their own order or clean up the waste that will build up as services fail.
I didn't, but it seems upon following up on your comment they were thrown and not found left overs. Not IEDs, but one of the objects along with bottles and rocks being thrown.
No, you're quoting word for word a heavily biased article, pushed from a site that is publishing "information" without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources, and whose outlandish claims don't match up to multiple reports by news agencies with years if not decades of experience providing news both locally and nationally.
Time, NPR, and several others paint a much different picture, and appear to be able to actually substantiate THEIR articles, unlike this one that you're championing.
>without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources
Are you disputing that the protests have been filled with people yelling about dismantling the system? Have you seen the BLM website? Do you deny that these same people have commandeered an area in Seattle?
Which of these facts is incorrect? And if they are correct, let's look at the definition of terrorism:
>he use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
>Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.
You think the police left peacefully? You think business owners weren't coerced after seeing businesses burned and looted all over the country, including in Seattle by people chanting the same slogans of this movement?
If you've only seen portrayal on the news, I'm sorry that you did not witness the violence on the dozens of livestreams from the first week or so.
If they were arrested then statistically speaking they are far more likely than the average person to be criminals.
I feel like one of the ultimate sources of tension in western society today is that one side puts far too much faith into the good in people, a perspective that can only come from ivory tower privilege. This comment is a perfect example.
Sure, those who disagree will claim that the real problem is the opposite, but my point is that the side of the protestors lacks nuance in their worldview; often people are bad and you can't just blindly blame society for every criminal.