7 ms·

Or maybe the fact that everyone is suddenly all for mass protests suggests that police brutality is a horrible forever unaddressed injustice that doesn't care i

by vore 6y ago

Or maybe the fact that everyone is suddenly all for mass protests suggests that police brutality is a horrible forever unaddressed injustice that doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not?

war1025 6y ago
> doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not There are many people that don't care if there is a pandemic of not. They were forcibly kept away from their jobs and families for three months.
- jolmg 6y ago
  I think the point is that addressing police brutality is more important than stopping COVID-19 spread which is more important than going to work and visiting families.
  - war1025 6y ago
    And that's a value judgement they can make. The issue is that ordering was different for millions of people and they didn't get a choice in the matter.
    - jolmg 6y ago
      > issue is that ordering was different No, it's not. The ones that are protesting are also being ordered to disperse and go back home. The reason they're not is because they're disobeying. For those that aren't explicitly ordered, it's because it's pointless, given that civil disobedience is in the nature of protests.
      - war1025 6y ago
        Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.
        jolmg 6y ago
        > Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. Exactly. The fact that you can't effectively do a sizeable protest around that so goes to show how the population in general prioritizes these issues. > On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders. Yeah, public support for your grandma risking getting sick is going to be even less.
  - mc32 6y ago
    You can’t protest if you’re sick though. So I get it it’s a short term push to get recognition but if the pandemic is as bad as they say it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Of course it’s a devils bargain, damnned if you do, damnned if you don’t, but it’s still present.
    - jolmg 6y ago
      > You can’t protest if you’re sick though. I'm not sure if you mean "they can't join the protests when sick" or "they can't protest getting sick from doing this". For the former, I imagine those that are technically can if they really want to. For the latter, those that aren't are seemingly willing to take the risk of getting sick in order to help address this. > it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Yes, they seem willing to risk that consequence.
  - agensaequivocum 6y ago
    Except you're still killing grandma which is just as bad as police brutality.
    - jolmg 6y ago
      The ones that agree with you would not support the protests, while the ones that disagree would.
      - agensaequivocum 6y ago
        Actually, in general we support the protest insofar as we agree that there are problems with certain police incentive structures. We heavily disagree with the rioting and looting. Where we disagree with some people is the generalized notion that the principles of America are inherently evil and racist and that Americans society now in general is racist.
        jolmg 6y ago
        I thought news outlets had established that the looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters. The rioting might also be independent of the protesters, perhaps to distract enforcement units away from the looting. Some of the looting does seem to be organized to a degree.
        agensaequivocum 6y ago
        > looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters That seems right, although I think there is probably a small degree of overlap. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing multitudes of people online defending the rioting and looting.
    - alpha_squared 6y ago
      Is the argument, then, that protestors should wait until police brutality results in another death when it is more convenient to protest?
- JadeNB 6y ago
  I think that 'forcibly' is a bad choice of words for a legal order that people could, and some did, ignore without serious consequence, and definitely without response by force—witness the 'liberate' protests—when compared to the literal and illegal use of force that the current protests are addressing, which have themselves been met in many places with force (as, for example, this very article discusses).
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Businesses were shut down, by law. Some that stayed open in defiance of the law were fined and shuttered by the government. It most certainly was not optional.
    - alpha_squared 6y ago
      And the defiance cost them fines, sometimes, not their lives. The protests are addressing compliance resulting in death for a select portion of the population that has been systematically singled out for centuries because of the pigment of their skin.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Forcibly is being used rather hyperbolically here, don't you think? Some business owners that opened in defiance of local public health orders received fines or license suspensions, that's not equivalent.
  - xwowsersx 6y ago
    It's hyperbolic in one sense, but not in another. Consider the fact that every law is backed by an implicit threat of force. For example, it's easy to say "I'm just asking for everyone to pay their fair share" when referring to taxes. But what happens when you don't pay your taxes? You can be arrested and jailed. That is underlying threat of force. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      An implicit threat of force is very different from an explicit application of it. Feeling disgruntled (perhaps by proxy) over a small fine is not the same as being actually beaten, gassed, or jailed. You're not teaching me anything I don't already know, so what point are you attempting to make here?
      - xwowsersx 6y ago
        They are different, but it's not clear to me that the distinction is significant in the context of OP I was addressing which is the exact point I was making. Not every difference is relevant in every context. As for me not teaching you anything you don't already know, I can't possibly have any idea what you do or don't already know and I think it'd be more productive to leave that kind of snark out of the discussion here.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        Of course you can have such an idea, by thinking about the context of the thread in which this discussion is taking place and the fact that I acknowledged two examples of state-imposed sanctions that business owners might have been pissed off about. Offering explanations of elementary concepts in the middle of a more advanced discussion is patronizing and unhelpful. Your point that the distinction is not significant speaks to a lack of experience on your part so I will assume your behavior was unintentional.
- rhacker 6y ago
  That's my theory too. Floyd was a catalyst but not the full reason for the riots. Total aside: Also what's our country's obsession with masks that are designed to make people look creepy - like a dead skeleton. And same truck window art, like skulls with bullets for teeth or something. I don't understand are these people just murdering thousands of people daily or something?
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    Some people just like to use non-verbal queues to keep others at arm's length.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Not caring if there is a pandemic does not absolve people of actions they take that endanger others as a result of their disregard for the situation.
koheripbal 6y ago
Police Brutality isn't a new problem. They should have waited until covid-19 was gone. Now we're likely to see a 2nd peak because of these protests.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >Police Brutality isn't a new problem. They should have waited until covid-19 was gone. This wouldn't be happening in a world with 4% unemployment. But 20 million Americans are now out of work, stuck at home, and pissed off. Not to mention without the usual distractions of sports or live entertainment. When the bread and circuses break down, this is the result.
  - plutonorm 6y ago
    This is the first time I’ve heard this obvious point. There are riots now because people just don’t have the energy left to protest while surviving in hyper capitalism. They’ve got plenty of entertainment at home. This is bout energy and time. Employment supresses protest because it takes time and saps energy.
    - csharptwdec19 6y ago
      > Employment supresses protest because it takes time and saps energy. Also protesting in some cases risks employment. A decent portion of these people likely no longer have that as a concern.
    - asdff 6y ago
      There are lootings because police resources are tied up showing force against protestors, and people with bad intentions see an opportunity. The violence and property destruction is a separate event from the protest marches with different people engaging in these practices entirely. If I was one of the 70k people living on the street in LA, this would be a great time to stock up on essentials from a CVS on Capital's dime. However, I don't condone the looting of small businesses where owners have very little savings. Many of these immigrant run businesses that make LA unique don't have insurance, and many will fold after this inventory loss coming on the heels of two months of no income.
closeparen 6y ago
Then where were the protests when similar incidents happened dozens of times before COVID? Has there been anything on this scale since Rodney King?
- a_bonobo 6y ago
  People were busy with their lives. Now that there's mass unemployment (=time and anger), a generally hated administration, and even more videos of police brutality all over the place it's all bubbling up.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- NoSorryCannot 6y ago
  Are you suggesting we shouldn't protest now because we haven't protested at such a scale in a while? There have been protest since King, though not at this scale, no. The current circumstances are Political with a capital P, the class of things that can reshuffle a society. If this isn't the time to protest for redress of grievances, then there is no time. And I disagree if you're arguing that protesting is not essential.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    >doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not I am suggesting that the our reaction to the issue very much depends on whether there is a pandemic or not, and that the vigor of these protests is not despite the pandemic but because of it. I can respect and admire the decision that you personally dying of COVID-19 is worth it in order to express this grievance, but the nature of infectious disease is it's not just yourself that you're sacrificing here.
- coredog64 6y ago
  Ferguson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest
missingcolours 6y ago
To quote arguments that were thrown at people who wanted to do things like hold funerals for loved ones, visit dying relatives, protest against destroying the life's work of small business owners, etc: - You can do this over Zoom / online - Just because this is important to YOU does NOT give you the right to sacrifice the lives of the others who will be denied hospital care because of your selfishness - You really can't wait a couple months until this LITERAL PANDEMIC is over?
- dagnabbit 6y ago
  You've been on team "let the virus rip through the population" from the start. As such, it is unsurprising that you are taking policies created thoughtfully to try to minimize overall harm and unnecessary deaths, and instead of framing them that way, are pretending that those policies were the result of their least tactful defenders.
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  > You really can't wait a couple months until this LITERAL PANDEMIC is over? Where does "a couple months" come from?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The pandemic won't go away in a few months, but cases are trending significantly downwards. I think it's fair to predict that mass gatherings will be much safer in August than they are today.
    - alpha_squared 6y ago
      As far as I'm aware, and I'd certainly welcome any information otherwise, super-spreader events are unpredictably random. Coupled with the incubation period, that still sounds like another wave.
    - second--shift 6y ago
      > but cases are trending significantly downwards I don't mean to nitpick, as I wish to uphold the high community standards here, but this is false when compared to the worldwide data in aggregate. New cases are actually spiking, higher than during the lockdown. See [1] , at the bottom right, "daily cases" tab. The record for 'total daily new cases' of ~130k was set 2 days ago, on 3 June. Making individual (or collective) decisions based on the false premise of "cases are trending significantly downwards" is very dangerous. [1] https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...
asdff 6y ago
110k Americans cannot be understated. That is a stupidly huge number in a year. For comparison: the entire Vietnam war saw the loss of ~70k, 9/11 saw the loss of 3500 which was enough loss of life to give justification for a nearly 20 year war, and the LAPD killed 12 people last year (1). The sentiment is absolutely correct and any loss of life is too much, but we have to put this pandemic first until it burns out or there is a vaccine, then we can talk about mass gatherings again. This energy is much better spent crafting ballot initiatives that are capable of enacting real change, gathering signatures, registering voters, and getting people to the polls. Protesting alone doesn't solve anything. We saw the further militarization of police after Rodney King, and we saw nothing change after occupy wall street. Protests give people an outlet to vent but they don't enact real change. Laws and votes do. I worry too that even if people vote in the presidential election, they will continue to leave their local elections by the wayside and these races are what really decides how your community is governed and policed, and have a far more real affect on your life than whoever sits in the white house. 1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-12/lapd-use-of-force-report https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-12/lapd-use...
- 013a 6y ago
  "Give me Liberty, or Give me death" - Patrick Henry "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin Everyone falls on one of two sides of this coin, and its startlingly difficult to understand the thought process behind those on the other side: That people are willing to, gladly, risk their lives and die in the cause of something greater. My parents wanted me to travel home a month or so ago. They're about 80 years old. I told them it was too risky; that its not about me, its about them, I could have the virus and not know it, they're incredibly high risk, I live in a dense metropolitan area with roommates... They didn't care. Seeing me was more important to them. That's not being stupid: Its being Human. There's no cause worth fighting for greater than human liberty, and that's what the black community, and along with them many Americans, are fighting for right now. We're all going to die one day. Sacrificing your life, and ability to live without freely, without fear, to delay your death is never a trade one should make.

by vore 6y ago

Or maybe the fact that everyone is suddenly all for mass protests suggests that police brutality is a horrible forever unaddressed injustice that doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not?

war1025 6y ago

> doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not There are many people that don't care if there is a pandemic of not. They were forcibly kept away from their jobs and families for three months.

jolmg 6y ago
I think the point is that addressing police brutality is more important than stopping COVID-19 spread which is more important than going to work and visiting families.
- war1025 6y ago
  And that's a value judgement they can make. The issue is that ordering was different for millions of people and they didn't get a choice in the matter.
  - jolmg 6y ago
    > issue is that ordering was different No, it's not. The ones that are protesting are also being ordered to disperse and go back home. The reason they're not is because they're disobeying. For those that aren't explicitly ordered, it's because it's pointless, given that civil disobedience is in the nature of protests.
    - war1025 6y ago
      Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.
      - jolmg 6y ago
        > Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. Exactly. The fact that you can't effectively do a sizeable protest around that so goes to show how the population in general prioritizes these issues. > On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders. Yeah, public support for your grandma risking getting sick is going to be even less.
- mc32 6y ago
  You can’t protest if you’re sick though. So I get it it’s a short term push to get recognition but if the pandemic is as bad as they say it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Of course it’s a devils bargain, damnned if you do, damnned if you don’t, but it’s still present.
  - jolmg 6y ago
    > You can’t protest if you’re sick though. I'm not sure if you mean "they can't join the protests when sick" or "they can't protest getting sick from doing this". For the former, I imagine those that are technically can if they really want to. For the latter, those that aren't are seemingly willing to take the risk of getting sick in order to help address this. > it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Yes, they seem willing to risk that consequence.
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
  Except you're still killing grandma which is just as bad as police brutality.
  - jolmg 6y ago
    The ones that agree with you would not support the protests, while the ones that disagree would.
    - agensaequivocum 6y ago
      Actually, in general we support the protest insofar as we agree that there are problems with certain police incentive structures. We heavily disagree with the rioting and looting. Where we disagree with some people is the generalized notion that the principles of America are inherently evil and racist and that Americans society now in general is racist.
      - jolmg 6y ago
        I thought news outlets had established that the looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters. The rioting might also be independent of the protesters, perhaps to distract enforcement units away from the looting. Some of the looting does seem to be organized to a degree.
        agensaequivocum 6y ago
        > looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters That seems right, although I think there is probably a small degree of overlap. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing multitudes of people online defending the rioting and looting.
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    Is the argument, then, that protestors should wait until police brutality results in another death when it is more convenient to protest?
JadeNB 6y ago
I think that 'forcibly' is a bad choice of words for a legal order that people could, and some did, ignore without serious consequence, and definitely without response by force—witness the 'liberate' protests—when compared to the literal and illegal use of force that the current protests are addressing, which have themselves been met in many places with force (as, for example, this very article discusses).
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Businesses were shut down, by law. Some that stayed open in defiance of the law were fined and shuttered by the government. It most certainly was not optional.
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    And the defiance cost them fines, sometimes, not their lives. The protests are addressing compliance resulting in death for a select portion of the population that has been systematically singled out for centuries because of the pigment of their skin.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Forcibly is being used rather hyperbolically here, don't you think? Some business owners that opened in defiance of local public health orders received fines or license suspensions, that's not equivalent.
- xwowsersx 6y ago
  It's hyperbolic in one sense, but not in another. Consider the fact that every law is backed by an implicit threat of force. For example, it's easy to say "I'm just asking for everyone to pay their fair share" when referring to taxes. But what happens when you don't pay your taxes? You can be arrested and jailed. That is underlying threat of force. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    An implicit threat of force is very different from an explicit application of it. Feeling disgruntled (perhaps by proxy) over a small fine is not the same as being actually beaten, gassed, or jailed. You're not teaching me anything I don't already know, so what point are you attempting to make here?
    - xwowsersx 6y ago
      They are different, but it's not clear to me that the distinction is significant in the context of OP I was addressing which is the exact point I was making. Not every difference is relevant in every context. As for me not teaching you anything you don't already know, I can't possibly have any idea what you do or don't already know and I think it'd be more productive to leave that kind of snark out of the discussion here.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        Of course you can have such an idea, by thinking about the context of the thread in which this discussion is taking place and the fact that I acknowledged two examples of state-imposed sanctions that business owners might have been pissed off about. Offering explanations of elementary concepts in the middle of a more advanced discussion is patronizing and unhelpful. Your point that the distinction is not significant speaks to a lack of experience on your part so I will assume your behavior was unintentional.
rhacker 6y ago
That's my theory too. Floyd was a catalyst but not the full reason for the riots. Total aside: Also what's our country's obsession with masks that are designed to make people look creepy - like a dead skeleton. And same truck window art, like skulls with bullets for teeth or something. I don't understand are these people just murdering thousands of people daily or something?
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  Some people just like to use non-verbal queues to keep others at arm's length.
ineedasername 6y ago
Not caring if there is a pandemic does not absolve people of actions they take that endanger others as a result of their disregard for the situation.

koheripbal 6y ago

Police Brutality isn't a new problem. They should have waited until covid-19 was gone. Now we're likely to see a 2nd peak because of these protests.

aphextron 6y ago
>Police Brutality isn't a new problem. They should have waited until covid-19 was gone. This wouldn't be happening in a world with 4% unemployment. But 20 million Americans are now out of work, stuck at home, and pissed off. Not to mention without the usual distractions of sports or live entertainment. When the bread and circuses break down, this is the result.
- plutonorm 6y ago
  This is the first time I’ve heard this obvious point. There are riots now because people just don’t have the energy left to protest while surviving in hyper capitalism. They’ve got plenty of entertainment at home. This is bout energy and time. Employment supresses protest because it takes time and saps energy.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    > Employment supresses protest because it takes time and saps energy. Also protesting in some cases risks employment. A decent portion of these people likely no longer have that as a concern.
  - asdff 6y ago
    There are lootings because police resources are tied up showing force against protestors, and people with bad intentions see an opportunity. The violence and property destruction is a separate event from the protest marches with different people engaging in these practices entirely. If I was one of the 70k people living on the street in LA, this would be a great time to stock up on essentials from a CVS on Capital's dime. However, I don't condone the looting of small businesses where owners have very little savings. Many of these immigrant run businesses that make LA unique don't have insurance, and many will fold after this inventory loss coming on the heels of two months of no income.

closeparen 6y ago

Then where were the protests when similar incidents happened dozens of times before COVID? Has there been anything on this scale since Rodney King?

a_bonobo 6y ago
People were busy with their lives. Now that there's mass unemployment (=time and anger), a generally hated administration, and even more videos of police brutality all over the place it's all bubbling up.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
NoSorryCannot 6y ago
Are you suggesting we shouldn't protest now because we haven't protested at such a scale in a while? There have been protest since King, though not at this scale, no. The current circumstances are Political with a capital P, the class of things that can reshuffle a society. If this isn't the time to protest for redress of grievances, then there is no time. And I disagree if you're arguing that protesting is not essential.
- closeparen 6y ago
  >doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not I am suggesting that the our reaction to the issue very much depends on whether there is a pandemic or not, and that the vigor of these protests is not despite the pandemic but because of it. I can respect and admire the decision that you personally dying of COVID-19 is worth it in order to express this grievance, but the nature of infectious disease is it's not just yourself that you're sacrificing here.
coredog64 6y ago
Ferguson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest

missingcolours 6y ago

To quote arguments that were thrown at people who wanted to do things like hold funerals for loved ones, visit dying relatives, protest against destroying the life's work of small business owners, etc: - You can do this over Zoom / online - Just because this is important to YOU does NOT give you the right to sacrifice the lives of the others who will be denied hospital care because of your selfishness - You really can't wait a couple months until this LITERAL PANDEMIC is over?

dagnabbit 6y ago
You've been on team "let the virus rip through the population" from the start. As such, it is unsurprising that you are taking policies created thoughtfully to try to minimize overall harm and unnecessary deaths, and instead of framing them that way, are pretending that those policies were the result of their least tactful defenders.
alpha_squared 6y ago
> You really can't wait a couple months until this LITERAL PANDEMIC is over? Where does "a couple months" come from?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The pandemic won't go away in a few months, but cases are trending significantly downwards. I think it's fair to predict that mass gatherings will be much safer in August than they are today.
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    As far as I'm aware, and I'd certainly welcome any information otherwise, super-spreader events are unpredictably random. Coupled with the incubation period, that still sounds like another wave.
  - second--shift 6y ago
    > but cases are trending significantly downwards I don't mean to nitpick, as I wish to uphold the high community standards here, but this is false when compared to the worldwide data in aggregate. New cases are actually spiking, higher than during the lockdown. See [1] , at the bottom right, "daily cases" tab. The record for 'total daily new cases' of ~130k was set 2 days ago, on 3 June. Making individual (or collective) decisions based on the false premise of "cases are trending significantly downwards" is very dangerous. [1] https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...

asdff 6y ago

110k Americans cannot be understated. That is a stupidly huge number in a year. For comparison: the entire Vietnam war saw the loss of ~70k, 9/11 saw the loss of 3500 which was enough loss of life to give justification for a nearly 20 year war, and the LAPD killed 12 people last year (1). The sentiment is absolutely correct and any loss of life is too much, but we have to put this pandemic first until it burns out or there is a vaccine, then we can talk about mass gatherings again. This energy is much better spent crafting ballot initiatives that are capable of enacting real change, gathering signatures, registering voters, and getting people to the polls. Protesting alone doesn't solve anything. We saw the further militarization of police after Rodney King, and we saw nothing change after occupy wall street. Protests give people an outlet to vent but they don't enact real change. Laws and votes do. I worry too that even if people vote in the presidential election, they will continue to leave their local elections by the wayside and these races are what really decides how your community is governed and policed, and have a far more real affect on your life than whoever sits in the white house. 1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-12/lapd-use-of-force-report https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-12/lapd-use...

013a 6y ago
"Give me Liberty, or Give me death" - Patrick Henry "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin Everyone falls on one of two sides of this coin, and its startlingly difficult to understand the thought process behind those on the other side: That people are willing to, gladly, risk their lives and die in the cause of something greater. My parents wanted me to travel home a month or so ago. They're about 80 years old. I told them it was too risky; that its not about me, its about them, I could have the virus and not know it, they're incredibly high risk, I live in a dense metropolitan area with roommates... They didn't care. Seeing me was more important to them. That's not being stupid: Its being Human. There's no cause worth fighting for greater than human liberty, and that's what the black community, and along with them many Americans, are fighting for right now. We're all going to die one day. Sacrificing your life, and ability to live without freely, without fear, to delay your death is never a trade one should make.