US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread II

[Northern Davincia]

No.

Not quite an impartial source, but.

Out of all non-impartial sources, that is among the least impartial.

[Kowani]

Not quite an impartial source, but.

Out of all non-impartial sources, that is among the least impartial.

Shrug

I’m not linking to his shows, and the Wikipedia article doesn’t go into enough depth.

[Valrifell]

Out of all non-impartial sources, that is among the least impartial.

Shrug

I’m not linking to his shows, and the Wikipedia article doesn’t go into enough depth.

Oh geez you know it's bad if someone thinks Turning Point isn't conservative enough

[Northern Davincia]

Shrug

I’m not linking to his shows, and the Wikipedia article doesn’t go into enough depth.

Oh geez you know it's bad if someone thinks Turning Point isn't conservative enough

He might be right on that particular issue.

[Ifreann]

All the destruction that's being done by people who self identify as BLM only reinforces my belief that BLM as an organization should've done far more to organize a hierarchy so they can self-police.

Why would they need a hierarchy for that?

---

I find the narrative that a hispanic boy who shot three white men that were attacking him is a white supremacist quite interesting though.

A lot of people have been gaslighting the kid...

Uh, no they haven't. Gaslighting someone involves being in communication with them in some way, it's a form of abuse whereby the victim is made to doubt their own memory and perception by the abuser. People saying that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist aren't gaslighting him, not unless they're lying to him to convince him that he's a white supremacist and insane for not remembering this about himself.

[Uiiop]

Question: What's the value of police being controlled by local rather than federal forces that would be lost with federal standards of accountability? If none, what's stopping politicians from doing it?

[Grinning Dragon]

Question: What's the value of police being controlled by local rather than federal forces that would be lost with federal standards of accountability? If none, what's stopping politicians from doing it?

Just how the Constitution is framed and who bears responsibility.
Local policing is at the state level since states bear the responsibility for their state's safety.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Number 17 that law enforcement would be the responsibility of the states.

[Uiiop]

Question: What's the value of police being controlled by local rather than federal forces that would be lost with federal standards of accountability? If none, what's stopping politicians from doing it?

Just how the Constitution is framed and who bears responsibility.
Local policing is at the state level since states bear the responsibility for their state's safety.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Number 17 that law enforcement would be the responsibility of the states.

That's a very good answer to my second question thank you. We don't exactly follow the federalist paper as a bible anymore at least if how we treat the electoral college is anything to go by; but i presume this is implicit in the 10th amendment if it's not in the constitution itself, Right?

[Northern Davincia]

All the destruction that's being done by people who self identify as BLM only reinforces my belief that BLM as an organization should've done far more to organize a hierarchy so they can self-police.

Why would they need a hierarchy for that?

---

A lot of people have been gaslighting the kid...

Uh, no they haven't. Gaslighting someone involves being in communication with them in some way, it's a form of abuse whereby the victim is made to doubt their own memory and perception by the abuser. People saying that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist aren't gaslighting him, not unless they're lying to him to convince him that he's a white supremacist and insane for not remembering this about himself.

The public is being gaslit.

[Grinning Dragon]

Just how the Constitution is framed and who bears responsibility.
Local policing is at the state level since states bear the responsibility for their state's safety.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Number 17 that law enforcement would be the responsibility of the states.

That's a very good answer to my second question thank you. We don't exactly follow the federalist paper as a bible anymore at least if how we treat the electoral college is anything to go by; but i presume this is implicit in the 10th amendment if it's not in the constitution itself, Right?

10th Amendment, correct.
Since the whole system is setup to let the states deal with their day to day business as they see fit.
Now that's not to say at some point the federal govt, could try to impose that police are/should be federally controlled, but I would suspect a lot of constitutional challenges, unless of course it would be done via constitutional convention route.

[Bear Stearns]

Question: What's the value of police being controlled by local rather than federal forces that would be lost with federal standards of accountability? If none, what's stopping politicians from doing it?

This implies that federal police are actually any more accountable. Given the recent shenanigans of the FBI, and the bloody history of the ATF, TSA, and ICE, I'd say federal law enforcement is pretty garbage.

[Uiiop]

That's a very good answer to my second question thank you. We don't exactly follow the federalist paper as a bible anymore at least if how we treat the electoral college is anything to go by; but i presume this is implicit in the 10th amendment if it's not in the constitution itself, Right?

10th Amendment, correct.
Since the whole system is setup to let the states deal with their day to day business as they see fit.
Now that's not to say at some point the federal govt, could try to impose that police are/should be federally controlled, but I would suspect a lot of constitutional challenges, unless of course it would be done via constitutional convention route.

Would a federal law demanding each state make their own accountability system face the same problems if the state were given room on what that would look like?

Question: What's the value of police being controlled by local rather than federal forces that would be lost with federal standards of accountability? If none, what's stopping politicians from doing it?

This implies that federal police are actually any more accountable. Given the recent shenanigans of the FBI, and the bloody history of the ATF, TSA, and ICE, I'd say federal law enforcement is pretty garbage.

What the federal side of things look are now while a important point is distinct from what they are able to do to the lower divisions.

It's still fair to point out that the politicians aren't proposing anything sufficient even when they have the power to tho for the stans of the democratic establishment.

[Major-Tom]

Where in the thread has that happened?

We can talk about making a martyr of Rittenfuck, who is being defended by the nation's top watched cable news guy, or we could talk about the plethora of folks here in May who tried to explain alternate explanations for Floyd's death.

Mr Rittenhouse is not a politician, and therefore does not, strictly speaking, come under the purview of 'trolling via political nicknaming'. It's also been a longstanding precedent that, political nicknaming aside, you are all free to insult people who aren't members of this forum.

However, because Mr Rittenhouse's actions have become so highly politicised, and have become important in the current US presidential campaign, the moderation team are likely to consider this type of insulting nickname - of Mr Rittenhouse specifically, not necessarily generally - to constitute trolling moving forward, though as always there's scope for considering context.

Because this is a grey area, and may not have been clear, I'm not handing out a warning (formal or informal) in this instance. I wanted to provide a little clarity and give fair warning before looming sternly or handing out the red text.

I usually don't lose my cool, I shouldn't have here. Duly noted.

[Kubra]

Question: What's the value of police being controlled by local rather than federal forces that would be lost with federal standards of accountability? If none, what's stopping politicians from doing it?

I ain't no american, but frankly if I were in an armed standoff with police, say, after attempting to rob a bank I would str8 up demand they send in the RCMP for me to surrender to, instead of the city cops. I straight up just find them way more chill.

[Gig em Aggies]

Question: What's the value of police being controlled by local rather than federal forces that would be lost with federal standards of accountability? If none, what's stopping politicians from doing it?

I ain't no american, but frankly if I were in an armed standoff with police, say, after attempting to rob a bank I would str8 up demand they send in the RCMP for me to surrender to, instead of the city cops. I straight up just find them way more chill.

well you would be out of luck since the RCMP is Canadian so they have no jurisdiction to arrest or any other Law Enforcement duty in the United States

[Kubra]

I ain't no american, but frankly if I were in an armed standoff with police, say, after attempting to rob a bank I would str8 up demand they send in the RCMP for me to surrender to, instead of the city cops. I straight up just find them way more chill.

well you would be out of luck since the RCMP is Canadian so they have no jurisdiction to arrest or any other Law Enforcement duty in the United States

So you think, until mounties on horseback ride by, hogtie you, an extradite you to governer general herself (taking care to avoid yonge street en route, as it would be illegal to drag your body there on sundays).

[Gig em Aggies]

well you would be out of luck since the RCMP is Canadian so they have no jurisdiction to arrest or any other Law Enforcement duty in the United States

So you think, until mounties on horseback ride by, hogtie you, an extradite you to governer general herself (taking care to avoid yonge street en route, as it would be illegal to drag your body there on sundays).

Well they would have to ride about 1,412 miles or 2272.4km into the US to get me so I'm not afraid of some Canadians on a horse.

[Fahran]

Uh, no they haven't. Gaslighting someone involves being in communication with them in some way, it's a form of abuse whereby the victim is made to doubt their own memory and perception by the abuser. People saying that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist aren't gaslighting him, not unless they're lying to him to convince him that he's a white supremacist and insane for not remembering this about himself.

Victim-blaming is a form of gaslighting. When you publish dozens and dozens of articles about how a seventeen year old kid who was assaulted and chased by a crowd of men is a cold-blooded murderer, a right-wing terrorist, a white supremacist, or acting disproportionately, in spite of all of the available evidence, you're engaging in attempted manipulation of both the kid and the public to make them believe that actions that most would normally consider morally acceptable, unproblematic, and a form of self-defense to be the opposite. That's gaslighting. If someone is assaulted or is assaulted and retaliates and your response to that is "maybe you shouldn't have been there" without addressing the actual assault, you're victim-blaming, you're gaslighting.

They're gaslighting him because they're dishonestly attempting to convince others that self-defense was tantamount to terrorism and that, in the most extreme cases, he should have allowed the mob to assault him without interruption. You can deny that's what it is but you're wrong. It's absolutely abusive and is vindictively so in many cases. The people doing it the most make routine apologias for Antifa thugs too. So I'm not buying that they don't know what they're doing to push the culture war forward. It being ideologically motivated doesn't mean it isn't abusive, dishonest, and manipulative.

And, no, in popular parlance, gaslighting is not confined to personal communcations and relationships. You can't accuse Trump or Republicans of gaslighting the public, particular interest groups, or individuals they don't even know on a personal basis while denying that it isn't going the other way here.

It's also gaslighting when your immediate response to an ostensible unjustified police shooting is to look into someone's criminal record or ask "Why didn't he comply?" - as an FYI. Short of material details that rationalize what happened, such as the guy shot by the police reaching for a firearm or the teenager shooting someone unprovoked, bringing up those details is about sowing doubt and manipulating the narrative. And, in politics, it's usually done to skew morality to agree with ideology and prejudices.

[Cannot think of a name]

Uh, no they haven't. Gaslighting someone involves being in communication with them in some way, it's a form of abuse whereby the victim is made to doubt their own memory and perception by the abuser. People saying that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist aren't gaslighting him, not unless they're lying to him to convince him that he's a white supremacist and insane for not remembering this about himself.

Victim-blaming is a form of gaslighting. When you publish dozens and dozens of articles about how a seventeen year old kid who was assaulted and chased by a crowd of men is a cold-blooded murderer, a right-wing terrorist, a white supremacist, or acting disproportionately, in spite of all of the available evidence, you're engaging in attempted manipulation of both the kid and the public to make them believe that actions that most would normally consider morally acceptable, unproblematic, and a form of self-defense to be the opposite. That's gaslighting. If someone is assaulted or is assaulted and retaliates and your response to that is "maybe you shouldn't have been there" without addressing the actual assault, you're victim-blaming, you're gaslighting.

They're gaslighting him because they're dishonestly attempting to convince others that self-defense was tantamount to terrorism and that, in the most extreme cases, he should have allowed the mob to assault him without interruption. You can deny that's what it is but you're wrong. It's absolutely abusive and is vindictively so in many cases. The people doing it the most make routine apologias for Antifa thugs too. So I'm not buying that they don't know what they're doing to push the culture war forward. It being ideologically motivated doesn't mean it isn't abusive, dishonest, and manipulative.

And, no, in popular parlance, gaslighting is not confined to personal communcations and relationships. You can't accuse Trump or Republicans of gaslighting the public, particular interest groups, or individuals they don't even know on a personal basis while denying that it isn't going the other way here.

It's also gaslighting when your immediate response to an ostensible unjustified police shooting is to look into someone's criminal record or ask "Why didn't he comply?" - as an FYI. Short of material details that rationalize what happened, such as the guy shot by the police reaching for a firearm or the teenager shooting someone unprovoked, bringing up those details is about sowing doubt and manipulating the narrative. And, in politics, it's usually done to skew morality to agree with ideology and prejudices.

Man, you guys need to get writers or something. In 17 years on this forum one of the most consistent and tiring things is watching conservatives adopt the arguments of liberals and pretend its their bits. One long tedious game of 'I know you are but what am I'?

Though I guess when you guys do come up with original material it's stupid shit like 'cucks' or 'npcs' so maybe you do need to steal to get by. But to watch you guys do it over and over and over again and then deny it like this is a fresh new thought you just had, it's so painfully awkward.

[Fahran]

Man, you guys need to get writers or something. In 17 years on this forum one of the most consistent and tiring things is watching conservatives adopt the arguments of liberals and pretend its their bits. One long tedious game of 'I know you are but what am I'?

Though I guess when you guys do come up with original material it's stupid shit like 'cucks' or 'npcs' so maybe you do need to steal to get by. But to watch you guys do it over and over and over again and then deny it like this is a fresh new thought you just had, it's so painfully awkward.

That's a lot of words to not actually refute or even address the argument that was made. But, since discussions of gaslighting are the exclusive domain of "you guys", perhaps you should know a good deal more about it, how not to resort to it, and how not to make apologias for it. Also, I don't remember calling anyone a cuck.

[Galloism]

Man, you guys need to get writers or something. In 17 years on this forum one of the most consistent and tiring things is watching conservatives adopt the arguments of liberals and pretend its their bits. One long tedious game of 'I know you are but what am I'?

Though I guess when you guys do come up with original material it's stupid shit like 'cucks' or 'npcs' so maybe you do need to steal to get by. But to watch you guys do it over and over and over again and then deny it like this is a fresh new thought you just had, it's so painfully awkward.

That's a lot of words to not actually refute or even address the argument that was made. But, since discussions of gaslighting is the exclusive domain of "you guys", perhaps you should know a good deal more about it, how not to resort to it, and how not to make apologias for it. Also, I don't remember calling anyone a cuck.

He’s actually criticizing you for using good debate style. One of the most effective ways to convince someone of something is to begin with the other person’s principles or arguments and to show how their principles lead to your position. You don’t have to start by convincing a person his base principles are incorrect in most cases - this is very difficult and usually results in double Down syndrome - but can actually argue from the point that their principles are correct and therefore they should be on your side.

“Adopt[ing] the arguments of liberals” just means you’re trying to convince liberals your position is correct based on their principles, instead of trying to beat your principles into them.

[Fahran]

He’s actually criticizing you for using good debate style. One of the most effective ways to convince someone of something is to begin with the other person’s principles or arguments and to show how their principles lead to your position. You don’t have to start by convincing a person his base principles are incorrect in most cases - this is very difficult and usually results in double Down syndrome - but can actually argue from the point that their principles are correct and therefore they should be on your side.

“Adopt[ing] the arguments of liberals” just means you’re trying to convince liberals your position is correct based on their principles, instead of trying to beat your principles into them.

Perhaps. I don't really approach gaslighting or victim-blaming from an ideological perspective, though I imagine my feminism influences how I perceive and make sense of my own personal experiences. I don't really want to delve into those too much for obvious reasons, especially given how acerbic my post just now comes off as I'm reading it again and how emotional I can get when the subject is personal, but I do appreciate that "gaslighting and victim-blaming are bad" is a shared starting point or value. So silver lining?

Also, thanks, Gallo.

[Cannot think of a name]

That's a lot of words to not actually refute or even address the argument that was made. But, since discussions of gaslighting is the exclusive domain of "you guys", perhaps you should know a good deal more about it, how not to resort to it, and how not to make apologias for it. Also, I don't remember calling anyone a cuck.

He’s actually criticizing you for using good debate style. One of the most effective ways to convince someone of something is to begin with the other person’s principles or arguments and to show how their principles lead to your position. You don’t have to start by convincing a person his base principles are incorrect in most cases - this is very difficult and usually results in double Down syndrome - but can actually argue from the point that their principles are correct and therefore they should be on your side.

“Adopt[ing] the arguments of liberals” just means you’re trying to convince liberals your position is correct based on their principles, instead of trying to beat your principles into them.

Yeah, that's not what they're doing. But cute, though.

Gainsaying is not the same thing.

[Fahran]

Yeah, that's not what they're doing. But cute, though.

Gainsaying is not the same thing.

It's also gaslighting when your immediate response to an ostensible unjustified police shooting is to look into someone's criminal record or ask "Why didn't he comply?" - as an FYI. Short of material details that rationalize what happened, such as the guy shot by the police reaching for a firearm or the teenager shooting someone unprovoked, bringing up those details is about sowing doubt and manipulating the narrative. And, in politics, it's usually done to skew morality to agree with ideology and prejudices.

"Gainsaying." You act like my conservative friends won't get a verbal chancla if I think they're doing the same thing. In no way was my response equivalent to "no u." It was "Wow, media outlets, politicians and pundits really need to not be sleazy, manipulative, gaslighting, morally bankrupt dumpster fires." Notice how I didn't say "Trump isn't gaslighting us" before accusing elements of the Left of gaslighting? Why do you think I didn't deny a claim that I myself brought into the conversation through my links?

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah, that's not what they're doing. But cute, though.

Gainsaying is not the same thing.

It's also gaslighting when your immediate response to an ostensible unjustified police shooting is to look into someone's criminal record or ask "Why didn't he comply?" - as an FYI. Short of material details that rationalize what happened, such as the guy shot by the police reaching for a firearm or the teenager shooting someone unprovoked, bringing up those details is about sowing doubt and manipulating the narrative. And, in politics, it's usually done to skew morality to agree with ideology and prejudices.

"Gainsaying."

I'd ask what it is you think you just proved, but I gotta be honest, I don't really give a shit. Hack is hack, I'm not going to commit to black hole of people insisting they aren't or that they're actually using a sophisticated argument technique. It's clear to anyone paying attention, it's not going to stop. Carry on.