Forum - View topicActions Speak Louder than Words #BlackLivesMatter
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||||||
Yes, that's the whole point. I realize that a lot of people are acting out of their emotions. I am suggesting they will have better results advancing their cause acting on principle and logic instead. Yes, I realize this is difficult. What's important to people in the moment doesn't matter in the end. Getting results matters. I'm suggesting better ways to get those results.
Is that not what this is about? That police predjudice needs to stop? What is prejudice if not an ethical principle? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||||||
I am not equating race with profession. I am equating prejudice with prejudice because the underlying principle is the same--drawing far-reaching conclusions from a relatively small number of data points. to repeat my example from earlier, a "little white lie" and perjury in a capital trial have obviously different consequences and it is a bit silly to equate them, but at their core they are both lies.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any difference between those two statements. "Part of a problem" sure sounds like "bad person" to me. The former statement, about holding all police responsible for the actions of the violent and racist ones, bothers me to a great degree. I don't believe in punishing A for the actions of B.
that's a darn good thing in my opinion, but there's always room for improvement when the stakes are as high as life and death. Last edited by AkumaChef on Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
SailorTralfamadore
 Posts: 499 Location: Keep Austin Weeb |
|
|||||||||
|
AkumaChef:
No, this actually isn't about "prejudice" in the most abstract, vague, divorced-from-any-real-life-application sense that you keep talking about it here. It's about the specific violent actions of prejudiced police officers, and the way that giving police unchecked power to kill unarmed civilians without consequences has exacerbated that. And it's about the way that systematic (not individual) prejudice toward specific groups (and not others) helps this along. Police dehumanizing black people are helped along by a culture that already sees black people's lives as less worth than white people's. Someone being mean to white people because they are white does not have that kind of institutional power supporting their actions (especially someone who is not a cop, with literal institutional power). In fact, some anti-racism advocates would say that racism isn't primarily about prejudice, but is as much or more about power. The fact that you keep denying in repeated posts that power has any relevance, is why you keep missing the point. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||||||
I really, honestly, 100% seriously don't understand the difference. You tell me it's not about prejudice as a principle, only to go on to discuss prejudice actions on the part of violent cops. Yes, the problem is systemic, and yes it's exacerbated by the fact that police have the ability to get away with violence, but the crux of all of this is prejudice. Instead of flailing around with the limbs why not go for the heart of the beast?
And I could say that your repeated mentions of power suggest that you are missing my point. I think we are talking past each other a certain amount here. The reason I say power isn't relevant is because my position is that prejudice and violence are wrong in all their forms, regardless if there is a power differential or not. Is there a power imbalance between cops and people? Absolutely. That doesn't make the prejudice any more or less wrong. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
SailorTralfamadore
Posts: 499 Location: Keep Austin Weeb |
|
|||||||||
|
Nah, I understand what you're saying, dude. And I don't even think that "don't make sweeping statements about groups of people" is bad as an abstract principle to live by.
But a person who's never had to personally deal with this situation (of being the victim or potential victim of police brutality, or something similar) talking about their personal principles is just completely irrelevant. That's what you're missing from my and others' posts. If you can deny the role that power has, it's because you have a certain level of privilege and/or general ignorance that leaves you blind to the full reality of the situation -- and thus, your perspective on your personal ethical code just isn't that valuable here. It's easy to be "principled" when those principles are never tested. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||||||
I don't deny that there is a power dynamic at work here, but I don't see how it affects the conclusion. Prejudice is wrong regardless of the power differential. Sure, when people's principles are tested they may behave differently. That's human nature, after all. But I'd like to think we can strive to work past that and that we should strive to maintain principles regardless of our personal experiences. This isn't about mine or yours or even Floyd's personal experience. This is about the system, the law. Any changes made going forward--new laws regarding police brutality or use of force, discrimination, etc--will be expressed as principles. Why discuss anything else? It's not about "my" ethical code, or anyone else's for that matter. It's about getting to the heart of the problem and solving it. And it's difficult to advocate for the elimination of police predjudice when the ones doing the advocating are being predudical themselves. Yes, it's to a lesser degree with lesser consesequences, but it still feeds the flames of the fire we are trying to put out. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar  Posts: 16939 |
|
|||||||||
I never said cops do not abuse their power. I have said quite clearly they do and a lot of reform and change is needed. As is the fact that police officers perpetrating any of this are certainly not victims. People are 100% right that simply being a "good cop" is not enough to fix the situation. There is a vast sea of changes that need to be made to law enforcement as in institution. Not simply punish these officer personally. Being a police officer is a profession that should not have bad apples at all. It is not a profession where being a bad apple should be tolerated. Being a cop is a choice and certain professions should have much higher standards of their employees than others. There should be no "bad apples" in this profession anymore than there should be allowed bad apples as pilots or firefighters for example. Just to be clear I did not take any of the comments as some sort of a personal attack. I simply used my own experience with law enforcement, as in my family's history, as an example. I was pointing out the fallacy, in my opinion, of making a sweeping blanket judgment against any group. Which is something I have spoken out against on a wide variety of topics. I was in no way trying to claim any sort of victim hood nor excuse anything. I simply have never personally seen where such blanket judgments have ever helped a situation or provided answers that could result in positive change. On any topic. In the context of this topic I am not saying that people should blindly trust law enforcement officers nor should they not question them. People have every right and certainly just cause to be distrustful of law enforcement at this time. Every video that pops up daily on twitter or youtube proves this. They should question them and expect them (the officers) to show they are not like these others. Being suspicious and distrustful to me is not the same though as outright judging every single person right out the gate.
Yes joining a PD, or any job, is a choice. Being black, or some other trait you're born with is not a choice. Entirely correct. And yes there are many various police departments known for their questionable practices over those of others. I should point out just for general information that simply calling someone a cop is also a bit of a generalization. Most do not separate the fact that there are various forms of them. "Normal" county departments, city departments, state departments, Sheriffs departments, municipal departments, and hell even Park rangers and the such. They can vary quite differently in function. Yet in this current climate if you say "cop" regardless of the possible vast differences it's seen as one centralized profession. I do think that currently if they (officers in any form) want to be separated from the others they need to take a stand themselves and say they will not be a part of such actions. Protesting against this sort violence and these reprehensible actions should not just be the job of normal citizens. They should take a stand against it as well. Last edited by Redbeard 101 on Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
zrdb
|
|
|||||||||
|
We've had an egoistical, narcissistic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, prejudiced butthole in the whitehouse for almost 4 years now who takes every opportunity to pour more fuel on on racial hatred of any and every type. I don't pretend to know the utter depths of racial prejudice but I do know it's totally unacceptable under ANY conditions for any reasons. These protests have been a long time coming and I have reason to hope that they'll really stick instead of being forgotten and swept under the rug as has happened so many times in the past-one easy way to make a difference is to "practice random acts of kindness". Another way is get politicians who perpetrate the status quo voted out of office. Just my 10 cents worth.
|
||||||||||
|
SailorTralfamadore
Posts: 499 Location: Keep Austin Weeb |
|
|||||||||
|
AkumaChef: No one's saying that we should change the government to be mean to police or whatever. I'm talking about people's individual statements and how we have to judge those in terms of whether they reflect systematic prejudice or not, whether they are "punching up" or "punching down." And therefore, not all prejudice is the same. Nor is every case where someone is basing it on a "prejudiced" system the same.
Maybe this will work better if I give you a real-life example. I'm a woman and a feminist. Now, as much as I do believe that power matters and therefore sexism against men vs. against women is not the same, I don't think individually judging men based on gender stereotypes is good either and I think it usually just makes the problems feminists are fighting worse. That said, I also live in a world where if I'm a woman walking around in public alone, I have to consider when interacting with strange men the possibility that they (usually physically stronger than me, and also someone the justice system tends to side with more than single women in cases like assault) might do me harm. I'm well aware that the vast vast majority of men mean me no harm. But when a man cold-approaches me when I'm alone, I have no way of knowing if he's a bad man or a good one. So I have to weigh the consequences of if I judge wrongly. Let's consider those: 1) If I judge him as meaning me harm when he doesn't, and run away from him, I might hurt his feelings and will probably feel guilty later if I'm made aware of the error of my ways. But I will still be alive and safe, and he might feel upset but will be safe and fine. 2) If I judge him as being safe when he means me harm, though, I could potentially sacrifice my life or at least my safety/well-being, depending on just how much harm he intends. (This is also putting aside that in certain circumstances, just approaching me at all raises the likelihood that he might do me harm: e.g. in situations where women are visibly preoccupied (a guy bothering her then doesn't care about her needs, only his own) or especially, where a woman might be on high alert about her safety, like at night when they're the only two people on the street (respectful dudes should know that they're going to look bad there no matter what). Etc.) People on the Internet call this "Schrodinger's rapist" (since you don't know if a man is a rapist until he rapes you). I would say that black people dealing with cops are under a similar conundrum, probably a worse one since the percentage of cops guilty of violent abuses of power is much higher than the percentage of men who are rapists. Let's call it "Schrodinger's racist cop." So I ask you again: Is it worth people putting themselves in literal harm's way, just to uphold a principle of not "being prejudiced?" Can you maybe understand from this situation why not all cases of being "prejudiced" are the same, and why power matters? And this is not an extreme example. This is a really commonplace calculation for women and black people respectively, and it's the fact that black people have to make this calculation all the time with police and they shouldn't have to (because police are supposed to protect them as much as anyone else) that is why this one killing has sparked an entire movement. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Jeff Bauersfeld
Posts: 109 |
|
|||||||||
In abstract terms, it's similar to the difference between consequentialist and non-consequentialist morality. At the risk of oversimplifying, the former derives moral prescriptions based on the results of an action, while the latter can be largely acontexual, focusing on first principles and dissolving contextual experience into an amorphous blob. While those like SailorTralfamadore are speaking directly to the consequences of actions to compare different actions, those like yourself are speaking to principles that all actions of a certain class violate. I suspect this sort of non-consequentialist reasoning is why others are picking up on false equivalence in your position, whether you intend it or not. Just as an aside, while people generally use both kinds of reasoning, it can be seen as a privilege to more heavily rely on non-consequentialist reasoning, particularly in situations where one person is much more likely to have bad outcomes than another. A privilege that white people such as myself must understand may get someone in different circumstances (ie. A black person) put at higher risk of being killed. Which moral system we apply can and should change in extreme circumstances. When we reach or even get close to our utopia, then we can talk more about how all prejudice is bad. Not doing so now is not what is keeping us away from that utopia. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Jeff Bauersfeld
Posts: 109 |
|
|||||||||
We may be gettimg into semantics here, but as a point of thought, I'm going to make a sweeping blanket judgement that, as a white man, I believe is true and perhaps gets to the heart of what some of those calling for defunding or abolition of the police are getting at: all white people are racist. Even the poorest of us are raised in a system where our skin is such a privilege that we cannot help but implicitly learn to have a racist mindset. This is a system where the richest black man cannot escape the very same systemic issues as the poorest. It is baked into the system. That poison will always be in my body. Extending to police, considering statistics and the history of modern policing being in slave patrol, I do not think it an exaggeration to claim that all cops are bad simply by being trained in that system. Even black cops disproportionally target black people. Its baked into the system. That poison will always be there no matter how much training we pile on top of the system. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar Posts: 16939 |
|
|||||||||
I would not exactly agree with your point of thought, but I get what you're implying. I also fully admit as a white male my experiences are nowhere near the same as others. I am not ignorant of that fact at all. Let me ask you this though, If you say that this poison within the law enforcement system will always be there no matter how much training or change is given what would be your answer? No police? Abolish the entire thing and get rid of law enforcement? I'm not being facetious or passive aggressive here, I'm seriously asking. What would your solution be then? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
SailorTralfamadore
Posts: 499 Location: Keep Austin Weeb |
|
|||||||||
|
@Jeff Bauersfield: I was thinking of the consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist approach while writing some of my posts. But as a former non-consequentialist, I also think that a discussion like this really illustrates the limits of non-consequentialism, for some of the reasons you stated. Fixating on your principles being consistent without regard for how they affect others just feels very vain to me, and like it defeats the purpose of having morality, which should be about how it relates to the material world and not your own personal sense of your conscience. (I'm also a materialist, can you tell?) And I think that vanity is why it's associated with privilege: it can make it very revealing that you came up with your code doing thought experiments rather than with weighing problems in your own life.
I agree with you that all white people are guilty of racism and all black people are victims of it, but I'm not sure I'd put it exactly this way, which I think denies intersectionality: the fact that oppression is a multiplication rather than addition problem. Race and class are deeply intertwined in American society, so there are absolutely examples of racism that poor black experience more than rich black people... even if it's true that even rich black people can't fully escape it. (Some people in this thread would be amazed at the number of Ivy-League-educated black professors I've known who've been pulled over by cops for just "existing while black" in a majority white neighborhood. Often their own neighborhoods!) I'm personally a member of a lot of marginalized groups on paper -- female, lesbian, autistic -- but I'm able to ameliorate a lot of that because I have the class privilege to choose a place to live and profession where the stereotypes I'd face elsewhere are less of issues. If I were poor and did not have those same opportunities, I'd probably face a lot more everyday homophobia, misogyny and ableism than I do as a Ph.D. student living in a large and progressive urban area. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||||||
In that particular situation? No, I wouldn't fault you for avoiding the man. And likewise I wouldn't fault POC from being wary of or avoiding police either. But that's not what we're talking about here. At least that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ongoign rhetoric pushing for change. Rhetoric as in talking. The messages people are posting, the OP-eds they are writing to papers, the slogans and signs they display at protests. A person writing forum posts or messaging on twitter is not in a postition where they have to make a snap decision regarding their safety. "Schrodinger's Racist Cop" is relevant if we're talking about a POC encountering police walking down the street. It is totally irrelevant to an online discisson of whether or not all cops should be treated like the scumbag who murdered Floyd. Nobody is in fear for their life sitting behind a keyboard posting messages or sending tweets. You might have to be wary of strange men you physically encounter when you are alone. You don't have to be wary when you're posting here.
Edit: To clarify, I totally agree power matters in physical confrontations, but I don't see how it is relevant to rhetoric, which is what we are talking about here. My prior statements of power being irrelevant have all been in the context of discussion, like calling for the defunding of all cops. They had nothing to do with real-life physical confronations.
It's a common calculation that applies when you are physically approached by a potential threat. It has nothing to do with online discussion or what solutions we are proposing to root racism and violence out of the police force. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
jl07045
 Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||||||||
Here's a consequentialist reasoning. Murdering all retired people will relieve stress on the economy which will raise the living standards for everyone else. Retired people after all have zero productivity (exceptions can be made for those that do work), don't have much time to live anymore and the suffering their relatives will have over their passing will be less than the suffering of people who would otherwise spend their lives in poverty. And no, it doesn't matter whether that's actually the case. A consequentialist who believes that to be case will feel justified to proceed while a non-consequentialist will not. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group