Note: Biden by AP reports obtained the delegates necessary to formally get the nomination yesterday. I will say more in a post after the elections on Tuesday.
But, the whole video does not really change the nature of her message much, except perhaps that she starts with a reference to well off blacks critical of vandalism and looting. The opening shows the rest is a discussion of "why" the looting goes on. All the same, the video doesn't end with a "but." The basic message is that the social contract has been broken (by "they") and why wouldn't we be surprised at a message of "fuck your laws" when looting and vandalism is done. After all, "we" don't own the community and property at issue. And, that is where it ends. It's only six minutes so hey maybe she strongly disagrees. She wrote a book and has a lot more to say. The tweet however is on a part of a message and so that is what this blog entry is about.
We are assured by multiple people that looting and violence is not being promoted. This is b.s. There are people on the very thread who say that if this is what it takes, okay. It is unfortunate, maybe, but it is a necessary evil. War is referenced on that front. So, please, ADMIT (it was before 8AM and yeah I was screaming at my damn phone) what you are saying here. So, Prof. Erik Loomis (LGM) was GLAD police stations were attacked. A video that ends with a message about the hell with your concern with property damage very well on some level promotes it. If we are not supposed to give a shit about something happening, how exactly is that in some fashion not promoting the result? Own up to it.
How she be right and not be "argued against" if looting is wrong? Her emotional response has truth to it. But, knowing why is not the same as agreeing. The whys are simplistic. Again, reference to the very beginning (not in that clip) where she mentions wealthier blacks. POC own businesses. Do looters and vandals only go after Target? No! Own up to this. Do POC not run McDonalds franchises (one article said people went there to get milk or something for protests ... fine ... there was also at least one report with pictures of one burning -- not the same fucking thing)? Target isn't some government run business either. POC work there and so forth. Looting and vandalism of stores hurt the average person there.
I am privileged on some level (on another, far from it) down to my area basically never even having any police presence. When I was growing up, a woman officer stopped by outside the house and said she was assigned to the area. Never saw her again. The mayor to me seems to be fairly okay, but the last few months underlines he has a lot of issues. I had no real occasion to worry about him and he did a few things like end stop and frisk that seemed liberal. And, on some level, sure, he is better than Michael Bloomberg. On others, he leaves a lot to be desired. The police response to the curfew and protests underlines this. To the degree I in some sense handwaved people like De Blasio, I am part of the problem.
But, it is a rather indirect path from that to killing disproportionately POC per horrible criminal "justice" polices that lead to "defund the police" or "abolish police" or "abolish prison" arguments. I have shook my head there. That was wrong. The language does confuse some. The wider problem is clear. The system is the problem. A basic issue there is the drug war. We can address details -- a 5-4 Supreme Court case years back dealt with no-knock warrants -- but ultimately it is the drug war that led to the death of Breonna Taylor, an EMT who would have been 27 this week. People talk about ending the drug war and we get "what about heroin" comments too. So, yes, let's systematically face our dubious prison system and then deal with the small number of dangerous murderers etc. akin to worrying about murders in prison once the rest of the death penalty ends. And rape? As noted in this podcast, how are we dealing with rapists and sexual abusers now? So many are out of prison. Kavanaugh etc.
The use of protest, including protest that breaks the law, to address this sort of systematic problem has been true over our history. Labor protests repeatedly were violent, including during strikes. We can face up to that. But, let's not say that "no one condones" it. Remember during the Bush Administration when one reporter quoted a Bushie who spoke with disdain of the "reality based community" and many shook their head? We need not let emotional appeals lead us to ignore reality here. The "whys" and full perspective on the violence and property damage is part of that. Let's be humble about our own appeals to emotion.
Still, we need not say such videos are unanswerable. They are. One thing that troubles me is the idea that because the social contract is broken, this justifies (yes! that is what she is saying -- she is voicing the justification and ends without adding "but," even if at the beginning we might think she will just speak in their voice ... her passion suggests she is not merely doing that, the replies surely don't suggest the "why" is deemed wrong) a tit for tat. If that is the mentality, the why, it's tragic. We cannot run society based on the sentiment that if the authorities -- in some subset of cases -- is unjust that we can decide the rules are no longer in place. The basic rules of respecting others, including their property, is an overall moral requirement. This is so even if others break the rules. We do not have the right to invade someone's home if they break into ours. We do not have the right to rape someone's sister if they rape ours. This basic stuff.
There is also the scope. Yes, over and over, peaceful protest and action was not enough to stop wrongdoing. Wronged people, including black women who were harmed by black men, know this in a variety of ways. Still, as a whole, people go about their lives here. And, again, what is the role of Target in this exactly? As to not owning anything, that is wrong too. POC own things. They run businesses. The logic there suggests it is fine to attack small businesses and private homes in their own neighborhoods since only "they" have power and ownership. But, that is a lie. New York City in particular has many POC in offices, in part because POC have some power, including at the polls. They aren't powerless. Voting is but one way that the looters "own" part of the system. Enough power? Surely not. But, that is more nuance than a brick thru a phone store window warrants.
It sounds f-ing patronizing when someone like me says I "understand" something here. It also is the road to perdition to not accept that people can have some empathy to people somewhat unlike themselves. Can a man not understand to some degree the needs of women? They have sisters, wives, mothers as well as basic humanity. Can someone not GLBT not have some understanding of those who are? Many people cannot fully understand various pains and issues I personally have. A family member who has some mental health issues has reason to feel on some level alone. But, on some level, we can understand. Being critical -- after all some women oppose each other on various levels -- is possible here too.
Plus, again, violence and property damage is repeatedly going to harm the very people whose names they or their partial defenders (e.g., referencing the Boston Tea Party, which was not a riot or looting, but an illegal act of protest with organized elite leadership) reference. She on some level in her wider video explains their acts as a personal act of nihilism that has no great goal. But, we can understand without justifying. Such is repeatedly the case with those who commit criminal acts in part because others are harmed, often those more at risk. POC have businesses, work at them and will be blamed for a few. Note that the video does not reference outside agitators who might in some fashion be involved in some cases. No. The video are talking about black people who feel helpless here.
I referenced earlier in the week my concern that such acts are counterproductive, bringing to mind the "get behind me Satan" line in the gospels. I would take that to include more direct attacks on government buildings and certain particularly well off types that seem clearly part of the problem. (Note "they" very well might vote Democratic, support anti-violence efforts, help fund groups that help victims of police violence etc. ... the "whys" here is not very nuanced.) This also has historical precedent. But, it is particularly the case when dealing with other property damage and looting. Yes, it is a small part of generally peaceful protests. It is kinda like a tiny amount of problems with voting not justifying heavyhanded voting regulations. The curfew also very well appears counterproductive though limited restraints on business districts might be easier to defend.
The video, however, did more than that. It directly spoke in the voice of the looters. Those against that sort of thing includes many as passionate and emotional (she ends up in tears and someone has to console her) as the woman in that video. But, they are like Malcolm Nance, the sort of people she addressed at the beginning of that video (yeah, listen to all of it). They think looting and vandalism is the wrong way to go. For a variety of reasons. We can understand -- and the "shut up white guy" crew of non-POC say they understand too, so don't get all self-righteous, but disagree it is justified. Mitigating, perhaps. At least in some cases. Also, the response must not be over the top.
So, only partially right.
===
Okay. I'm going to see an elderly relative, driven by a white person upset at the curfew invading her rights, and will disagree with her in another fashion. A bit on that. She sent me a video of her walking around her residential area after curfew. That's nice. Walk along the business area on Gun Hill Road and so forth. Walking around my area, a middle class white area mostly, won't do much either. Yes, the curfew seems like overkill when applied across the board. Still, how exactly is she and her husband constrained? What exactly do they do out at night? One at times does music gigs, but the partial re-opening of the city is next week and not sure where he would be able to take part in live entertainment even if that is restrained by the curfew.
Their rights are being violated as innocent people to address looters. How does one stop them without some general rule blocking people going out? Will people wear signs that they are not looters? Is this some implication of a certain "type" when the people we saw looting Target etc. look like average types, not only a certain stereotypical person. The regular day-to-day behavior in this city does not involve masses of people outside with a few feeling they have some special opening, at times motivated (see above) by a different sort of grievance, to break the law. Let's put aside the limits of the Big V only aggravates the general unrest here, including in some cases providing some businesses as more tempting targets.
Again, I am inclined to think the city-wide curfew a bad idea. It is harder to be absolute about things if it was more finely tuned though even there maybe not at least unless we had something like closing down shopping areas somewhat early. But, if late night looting is a problem, most of the areas would be closed much of the time anyhow. Would you cordon off certain areas? Also, maybe mass protests after a certain time would be disallowed. It is unclear, except now as a sort of response to the curfew, why there is some compelling need to protest after 8PM or something. Some might oppose that, but it is more targeted, again.
OTOH, a complete curfew is of limited value and the negative response (including the unclear additional police response resulting, including let's say harassing delivery people or the like) makes it seem counterproductive. There is a reason, except maybe during a days long blackout (again, coverage is unclear on historical details, multiple articles not referencing the blackout curfew), this week long curfew is such a historical occurrence. So, her response is on some level justified but comes off as rather privileged. Oh. So the response is overkill in response to a more limited need. A tad ironic, some might say.
Partial NYC re-opening. Turning a corner? Hard to say. We were ready for that and all of this happened. 2020, folks.
I woke up and checked Twitter since I still do that on weekends without tweeting myself. This video and the responses really bothered me. Well, the first is as desired at least -- the activist had something to say, she didn't expect a calm response. And, I'm just "they," after all. Malcolm Nance's response is somewhat different. See also most of the replies, one at least that has the whole video, one citing it as some sort of clear reply to one of the few of the "two wrongs don't make a right" school.I am against burning. Looting & vandalism but @kimlatricejones cannot be argued against. She is right. #TheSocialContractIsBroken https://t.co/qlyZ43ftpG— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) June 6, 2020
But, the whole video does not really change the nature of her message much, except perhaps that she starts with a reference to well off blacks critical of vandalism and looting. The opening shows the rest is a discussion of "why" the looting goes on. All the same, the video doesn't end with a "but." The basic message is that the social contract has been broken (by "they") and why wouldn't we be surprised at a message of "fuck your laws" when looting and vandalism is done. After all, "we" don't own the community and property at issue. And, that is where it ends. It's only six minutes so hey maybe she strongly disagrees. She wrote a book and has a lot more to say. The tweet however is on a part of a message and so that is what this blog entry is about.
We are assured by multiple people that looting and violence is not being promoted. This is b.s. There are people on the very thread who say that if this is what it takes, okay. It is unfortunate, maybe, but it is a necessary evil. War is referenced on that front. So, please, ADMIT (it was before 8AM and yeah I was screaming at my damn phone) what you are saying here. So, Prof. Erik Loomis (LGM) was GLAD police stations were attacked. A video that ends with a message about the hell with your concern with property damage very well on some level promotes it. If we are not supposed to give a shit about something happening, how exactly is that in some fashion not promoting the result? Own up to it.
How she be right and not be "argued against" if looting is wrong? Her emotional response has truth to it. But, knowing why is not the same as agreeing. The whys are simplistic. Again, reference to the very beginning (not in that clip) where she mentions wealthier blacks. POC own businesses. Do looters and vandals only go after Target? No! Own up to this. Do POC not run McDonalds franchises (one article said people went there to get milk or something for protests ... fine ... there was also at least one report with pictures of one burning -- not the same fucking thing)? Target isn't some government run business either. POC work there and so forth. Looting and vandalism of stores hurt the average person there.
I am privileged on some level (on another, far from it) down to my area basically never even having any police presence. When I was growing up, a woman officer stopped by outside the house and said she was assigned to the area. Never saw her again. The mayor to me seems to be fairly okay, but the last few months underlines he has a lot of issues. I had no real occasion to worry about him and he did a few things like end stop and frisk that seemed liberal. And, on some level, sure, he is better than Michael Bloomberg. On others, he leaves a lot to be desired. The police response to the curfew and protests underlines this. To the degree I in some sense handwaved people like De Blasio, I am part of the problem.
But, it is a rather indirect path from that to killing disproportionately POC per horrible criminal "justice" polices that lead to "defund the police" or "abolish police" or "abolish prison" arguments. I have shook my head there. That was wrong. The language does confuse some. The wider problem is clear. The system is the problem. A basic issue there is the drug war. We can address details -- a 5-4 Supreme Court case years back dealt with no-knock warrants -- but ultimately it is the drug war that led to the death of Breonna Taylor, an EMT who would have been 27 this week. People talk about ending the drug war and we get "what about heroin" comments too. So, yes, let's systematically face our dubious prison system and then deal with the small number of dangerous murderers etc. akin to worrying about murders in prison once the rest of the death penalty ends. And rape? As noted in this podcast, how are we dealing with rapists and sexual abusers now? So many are out of prison. Kavanaugh etc.
The use of protest, including protest that breaks the law, to address this sort of systematic problem has been true over our history. Labor protests repeatedly were violent, including during strikes. We can face up to that. But, let's not say that "no one condones" it. Remember during the Bush Administration when one reporter quoted a Bushie who spoke with disdain of the "reality based community" and many shook their head? We need not let emotional appeals lead us to ignore reality here. The "whys" and full perspective on the violence and property damage is part of that. Let's be humble about our own appeals to emotion.
Still, we need not say such videos are unanswerable. They are. One thing that troubles me is the idea that because the social contract is broken, this justifies (yes! that is what she is saying -- she is voicing the justification and ends without adding "but," even if at the beginning we might think she will just speak in their voice ... her passion suggests she is not merely doing that, the replies surely don't suggest the "why" is deemed wrong) a tit for tat. If that is the mentality, the why, it's tragic. We cannot run society based on the sentiment that if the authorities -- in some subset of cases -- is unjust that we can decide the rules are no longer in place. The basic rules of respecting others, including their property, is an overall moral requirement. This is so even if others break the rules. We do not have the right to invade someone's home if they break into ours. We do not have the right to rape someone's sister if they rape ours. This basic stuff.
There is also the scope. Yes, over and over, peaceful protest and action was not enough to stop wrongdoing. Wronged people, including black women who were harmed by black men, know this in a variety of ways. Still, as a whole, people go about their lives here. And, again, what is the role of Target in this exactly? As to not owning anything, that is wrong too. POC own things. They run businesses. The logic there suggests it is fine to attack small businesses and private homes in their own neighborhoods since only "they" have power and ownership. But, that is a lie. New York City in particular has many POC in offices, in part because POC have some power, including at the polls. They aren't powerless. Voting is but one way that the looters "own" part of the system. Enough power? Surely not. But, that is more nuance than a brick thru a phone store window warrants.
It sounds f-ing patronizing when someone like me says I "understand" something here. It also is the road to perdition to not accept that people can have some empathy to people somewhat unlike themselves. Can a man not understand to some degree the needs of women? They have sisters, wives, mothers as well as basic humanity. Can someone not GLBT not have some understanding of those who are? Many people cannot fully understand various pains and issues I personally have. A family member who has some mental health issues has reason to feel on some level alone. But, on some level, we can understand. Being critical -- after all some women oppose each other on various levels -- is possible here too.
Plus, again, violence and property damage is repeatedly going to harm the very people whose names they or their partial defenders (e.g., referencing the Boston Tea Party, which was not a riot or looting, but an illegal act of protest with organized elite leadership) reference. She on some level in her wider video explains their acts as a personal act of nihilism that has no great goal. But, we can understand without justifying. Such is repeatedly the case with those who commit criminal acts in part because others are harmed, often those more at risk. POC have businesses, work at them and will be blamed for a few. Note that the video does not reference outside agitators who might in some fashion be involved in some cases. No. The video are talking about black people who feel helpless here.
I referenced earlier in the week my concern that such acts are counterproductive, bringing to mind the "get behind me Satan" line in the gospels. I would take that to include more direct attacks on government buildings and certain particularly well off types that seem clearly part of the problem. (Note "they" very well might vote Democratic, support anti-violence efforts, help fund groups that help victims of police violence etc. ... the "whys" here is not very nuanced.) This also has historical precedent. But, it is particularly the case when dealing with other property damage and looting. Yes, it is a small part of generally peaceful protests. It is kinda like a tiny amount of problems with voting not justifying heavyhanded voting regulations. The curfew also very well appears counterproductive though limited restraints on business districts might be easier to defend.
The video, however, did more than that. It directly spoke in the voice of the looters. Those against that sort of thing includes many as passionate and emotional (she ends up in tears and someone has to console her) as the woman in that video. But, they are like Malcolm Nance, the sort of people she addressed at the beginning of that video (yeah, listen to all of it). They think looting and vandalism is the wrong way to go. For a variety of reasons. We can understand -- and the "shut up white guy" crew of non-POC say they understand too, so don't get all self-righteous, but disagree it is justified. Mitigating, perhaps. At least in some cases. Also, the response must not be over the top.
So, only partially right.
===
Okay. I'm going to see an elderly relative, driven by a white person upset at the curfew invading her rights, and will disagree with her in another fashion. A bit on that. She sent me a video of her walking around her residential area after curfew. That's nice. Walk along the business area on Gun Hill Road and so forth. Walking around my area, a middle class white area mostly, won't do much either. Yes, the curfew seems like overkill when applied across the board. Still, how exactly is she and her husband constrained? What exactly do they do out at night? One at times does music gigs, but the partial re-opening of the city is next week and not sure where he would be able to take part in live entertainment even if that is restrained by the curfew.
Their rights are being violated as innocent people to address looters. How does one stop them without some general rule blocking people going out? Will people wear signs that they are not looters? Is this some implication of a certain "type" when the people we saw looting Target etc. look like average types, not only a certain stereotypical person. The regular day-to-day behavior in this city does not involve masses of people outside with a few feeling they have some special opening, at times motivated (see above) by a different sort of grievance, to break the law. Let's put aside the limits of the Big V only aggravates the general unrest here, including in some cases providing some businesses as more tempting targets.
Again, I am inclined to think the city-wide curfew a bad idea. It is harder to be absolute about things if it was more finely tuned though even there maybe not at least unless we had something like closing down shopping areas somewhat early. But, if late night looting is a problem, most of the areas would be closed much of the time anyhow. Would you cordon off certain areas? Also, maybe mass protests after a certain time would be disallowed. It is unclear, except now as a sort of response to the curfew, why there is some compelling need to protest after 8PM or something. Some might oppose that, but it is more targeted, again.
OTOH, a complete curfew is of limited value and the negative response (including the unclear additional police response resulting, including let's say harassing delivery people or the like) makes it seem counterproductive. There is a reason, except maybe during a days long blackout (again, coverage is unclear on historical details, multiple articles not referencing the blackout curfew), this week long curfew is such a historical occurrence. So, her response is on some level justified but comes off as rather privileged. Oh. So the response is overkill in response to a more limited need. A tad ironic, some might say.
Partial NYC re-opening. Turning a corner? Hard to say. We were ready for that and all of this happened. 2020, folks.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!