« Education and privilege | Main | We are Philoctetes »

August 21, 2020

Comments

Does what is shown in the link below (taken from an article in Reason) give anyone here a problem?

I'm basically on board with wj.

Notably, nobody shot anybody. So it bothers me a hell of a lot less than the other news of the day.

People will defend their property.

Whose property was Rittenhouse defending when he was running down the street with an AR-15?

If you want to defend your property, fine. Stay on your damned property and defend it.

This kid didn't even live in WI.

The lack of effective response is associated with Democratic activists, mayors and governors.

What does effective response look like?

Ferguson?

The feds in Portland?

People are pissed off about a lot of things. "Defending their property" does not even begin to cover it.

Notably, nobody shot anybody. So it bothers me a hell of a lot less than the other news of the day.

Nor beaten up, at least this time. But that can change. There are a lot of places where someone getting in someone else's face like that can find themselves headed to the hospital. If one or two people are confronted by a hostile crowd making ridiculous and threatening demands, the crowd is asking for a trouble. I can assure you, particularly at my age, if I were sitting with my wife and was confronted by people acting in that manner, I would be furious and very apprehensive. My wife would be terrified.

If you want to defend your property, fine. Stay on your damned property and defend it.

I'm not sure I--or a lot of other people--would agree with you. I don't know who or what that particular shooter had in mind, but I could certainly see me and my neighbors not allowing rioters to enter out neighborhood without taking casualties.

People will defend their property. Tell them they can't and re-elect DT.

The advocating in the Democratic Convention for more gun restrictions may have been a misstep. In recent months there has been a big uptick in first-time gun purchases. And a big proportion of those has been by Democratic voters.

"But the world is changing. According to the NSSF, "40 percent of first-time gun buyers in the first four months of 2020 were female. The main purchase driver among the group was personal protection, followed by target shooting and hunting."

African-Americans, who are often unfairly targeted by law enforcement and have vocally protested such treatment, are stocking on up on tools to defend themselves, too.

"The highest overall firearm sales increase comes from Black men and women who show a 58.2 percent increase in purchases during the first six months of 2020 versus the same period last year," the NSSF noted in July.

Black Americans have armed themselves to push back against police, to put racists on notice, and to protect their homes and businesses."
The Politics of Guns Are Changing. Politicians Need To Catch Up.: Millions of new firearm owners who have lost faith in cops and government will be a tough audience for shopworn gun control schemes.

But that can change.

When it changes, it will bother me more.

I'm sure it's disturbing to have a bunch of people yelling at you. Or, you know, just yelling. Actually, I know it is, from my own experience.

Some things bother me more than other things. This bothers me less than some other things.

YMMV.

I could certainly see me and my neighbors not allowing rioters to enter out neighborhood without taking casualties.

Were the people shot rioting?

Who gets to pick who the peaceful protestors are, and who the rioters are?

Do "you and your neighbors" include free-lance 17-year-old wanna-be cops from out of state?

What makes you think you can control the violence of vigilantes any more than you can control the violence of rioters?

What do you think the end-game of this crap looks like?

Do I think those activists are being foolish and counterproductive? Yes.

But I suspect that might not be enough to fulfill the unspoken criteria of "having a problem with it."

What are we to do about such a thing?

And will the attempts to get these activists to stop hazing bystanders be any more effective or any less coercive than what they are doing?

I see this sort of stuff all the time on a big university campus from a full gamut of student groups with causes. Have done so ever since I first stepped onto a campus thirty-some years ago. The groups don't change. People move in and out of the groups as their attitudes about this sort of activism changes, the fashion du jour changes but the groups and their cultures persist.

The only think I have found that changes this sort of thing (other than individual self-reflection) is an honest and empathetic conversation with the activist that the activist initiates themself from a position of trust.

So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to stay engaged and do my best to be a good and honest listener who is worthy of trust.

Do you have a problem with that?

Black Americans have armed themselves to push back against police, to put racists on notice, and to protect their homes and businesses."

It will be interesting to see if (a) black people bearing arms to defend themselves - especially against police - becomes a more visible phenomenon, and (b) if that changes conservative attitudes toward gun regulation.

It's been just over 50 years since Reagan signed the Mulford Act in response to Black Panthers openly carrying. This could be an interesting test case in seeing how far we've come in the direction of being "color-blind".

Louisville KY, back in July. The same crew showed up at Stone Mountain GA on the 4th of July. 1,000 of them, approximately.

The Fox News account. The comments are amusing.

2nd Amendment solutions, here we come.

"Do you have a problem with that?"

If I'm sitting and having lunch absolutely. I want a cop called and them arrested for assault. You can have any fucking conversation you want with them once they are in custody.

Barring a cop arriving im not taking that shit. So I'd probably get in trouble.

What do you think the end-game of this crap looks like?

I think it looks like widespread civil unrest. I cannot know, you cannot know, what someone is going to do until they do it. When large crowds of people act violently and destroy property on a wide scale and the authorities fail to act, others will fill that void, even if they lack the skill and training to do so.

The only think I have found that changes this sort of thing (other than individual self-reflection) is an honest and empathetic conversation with the activist that the activist initiates themself from a position of trust.

So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to stay engaged and do my best to be a good and honest listener who is worthy of trust.

Do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with anything anyone does voluntarily. Your agreement to sit and listen to someone is not comparable to someone being screamed at while trying to have a meal. Nor does behavior like that earn someone the right to a fair and open hearing. Act like an ass, get treated like an ass, whether you're hectoring on behalf of BLM or in front of an abortion clinic.

It will be interesting to see if (a) black people bearing arms to defend themselves - especially against police - becomes a more visible phenomenon, and (b) if that changes conservative attitudes toward gun regulation.

I've never supported open carry, for a variety of reasons, including my statement above to the effect that you don't know what someone is going to do until they do it. I have a right to carry a baseball bat, but if 30 BLM's carrying bats and 30 Proud Boys carrying bats are moving toward each other, the right to carry is defeasing (a new word perhaps?) because the context is an obvious threat of imminent violence. If this is true for baseball bats, it is orders of magnitude truer for firearms.

I suspect that most white open carriers assume their right is tied to skin color, not having thought through the implications--from their demented viewpoint--of non-whites having the same rights. Imagine a bunch of white guys with guns trying to march through a black neighborhood, or vice versa. It's intended to be a threat and it would be taken as a threat.

If someone was walking down my street armed--regardless of pigmentation--I'd get my own gun and call the police. The right to own and travel with a firearm is a constitutional right. That does not extend to carrying/displaying a loaded weapon in public and all the more so when a bunch of clowns show up tricked out in camo and combat gear.

I think it looks like widespread civil unrest.

That is correct.

if 30 BLM's carrying bats and 30 Proud Boys carrying bats are moving toward each other, the right to carry is defeasing (a new word perhaps?) because the context is an obvious threat of imminent violence. If this is true for baseball bats, it is orders of magnitude truer for firearms.

Two things.

1. If you look high and low from now until doomsday, I suspect you will be hard pressed to find 30 BLM protestors carrying bats. The folks in my cite are from a different organization altogether, from which BLM distances itself.

Just a point of fact.

BLM: not violent, not Marxist, not anarchist. They want people to stop shooting black people.

2. I'd say that 30 [insert organized group of armed dudes here] openly carrying firearms in public is defeasing, whether they are moving toward any other [insert organized group of armed dudes here] or not.

I suspect we're in agreement there.

There are a lot of places where someone getting in someone else's face like that can find themselves headed to the hospital. If one or two people are confronted by a hostile crowd making ridiculous and threatening demands, the crowd is asking for a trouble. I can assure you, particularly at my age, if I were sitting with my wife and was confronted by people acting in that manner, I would be furious and very apprehensive. My wife would be terrified.

I understand this sentiment. I recognize this sentiment from my own experience of having anger aimed at me by strangers. It's terrifying.

I've also read accounts of this same feeling from many of my students - of feeling helpless while their life was held in someone else's hands.

They were black or hispanic students from the hood describing being pulled over for a routine stop after being profiled.

Same feelings.

I cannot know, you cannot know, what someone is going to do until they do it.

Except the presence that you and Marty would call to relieve your situation is the presence that occasions that feeling in those students of mine *every time.*

Do you understand why that is?

Do you have a problem with that?

BLM: not violent, not Marxist, not anarchist. They want people to stop shooting black people.

BLM was founded by Marxists. Plenty of violence is committed in the name and on behalf of BLM.

Except the presence that you and Marty would call to relieve your situation is the presence that occasions that feeling in those students of mine *every time.*

Do you understand why that is?

Do you have a problem with that?

Since I have a lot of black and Hispanic friends and acquaintances who are police, and many more who have been stopped by police without incident, I'm going to say, first, that being profiled and stopped is a product of particular venues and law enforcement attitudes in those venues. The particulars of a stop vary. I'm familiar with pretty horrific reports, but those are rare. I'm familiar with made-up reports as well. Those are rare, but exaggerated reports are not. They are the norm, unfortunately. But, for a person who is obeying the law to be singled out for any reason by law enforcement and then subjected to any kind of abuse or mistreatment is beyond the pale and would induce any number of unpleasant to experience reactions.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "routine" stop. The police cannot--legally--stop people just for the hell of it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and I agree that it happens to young black and Hispanic males disproportionately, the flip side being that young black and Hispanic males commit an outsize amount of crime. I'm also fairly sure that white officers, as a group, tend to cut white traffic offenders loose with greater frequency than they do black or Hispanic offenders. I suspect this is driven, consciously in some and less than consciously in others, by those two demographics outsize contribution to crime stats and the fact that many people cannot get past skin color and have a bias in favor of their own which does not extend to others. Many here would call that racism. I don't because it's more along the lines of human nature, just not the best side of human nature.

It's complicated and difficult to sort out in many respects, but ultimately it is on law enforcement to clean up its act. Even with the outsize contribution, the number of young black or Hispanic males who commit crimes--or are accused of committing crimes--is less than a percentage of either demographic. No one who believes in traditional liberal values can accept any innocent person being waylaid by the state for any arbitrary reason, and color or religion would be tied for first among what would be the worst reasons for doing so.

We've invented dozens of pretexts for pulling people over, all of which get used more frequently to pull over people like those students of mine disproportionately.

But that's not the question I'm most interested in.

I want to know, would you feel any different than they do if you were in their shoes facing those same circumstances?

Not a damn thing is going to change until someone with the power to change anything puts themselves inside that moment of terror.

BLM was founded by Marxists. Plenty of violence is committed in the name and on behalf of BLM.

And your party is lead by an incest curious fraud. Clean your own yard.

It's not his party, as he has told us many times. But that doesn't stop him being pretty annoying a lot of the time, yet having a reasonably nuanced attitude some of the rest of the time. People are complicated. The stats on black gun procurement are a) understandable, and b) alarming, given the prospect of armed crowds facing off against each other. And if the crowds are easily distinguishable by colour, I think we know which side "law enforcement" will be on.

Who’s property was Kyle Rittenhouse protecting?

Some of the BLM founders view the world through marxist paradigms. At the same time, though, there is nothing expressly or implicitly anti-capitalist in BLMs organizational goals.

Does having a founder who is Christian and motivated by Christian principles automatically make an organization Christian?

I want to know, would you feel any different than they do if you were in their shoes facing those same circumstances?

Good question, and of course he wouldn't. Because every black parent has to have "the talk" with their kids, while they are still very young. And once you've been given "the talk" (be polite, be respectful, do what you're told, don't challenge or be hostile no matter what they say to you) how else are you going to feel? You know that you could be shot under any (or no) pretext, and nothing whatsoever would happen to the person who did it.

Not a damn thing is going to change until someone with the power to change anything puts themselves inside that moment of terror.

True. And when will that be, even in the event of a Biden/Harris victory?

nous, I understand what you are saying, its bs. I've been pulled over, verbally abused, searched. My car searched, I was as likely to get beaten as the next guy if I looked the wrong way. Poor neighborhoods are like that. But if I need a cop I call one.

That isn't the same as someone getting in your face screaming at you in a restaurant. Its not an excuse. Its assault.

I want to know, would you feel any different than they do if you were in their shoes facing those same circumstances?

I'd need to know what those "circumstances" are. Arrest? A beating? Getting a ticket? Was the person arrested/stopped without cause? Are you saying that being stopped by police, nothing more, induces terror? If so, that's just a gross over-reaction. I'm not losing sleep over that. Show me disparate treatment, and I'm right there with you.

Not a damn thing is going to change until someone with the power to change anything puts themselves inside that moment of terror.

This is nonsense. Anyone with a sense of history knows that there has already been huge amounts of change. The one salient change needed is addressing police/community relations on an as-needed basis. If you think there have not been changes in policing--for the better--over the last 50 years, you are simply wrong. Houston is a perfect example. Google Jose Campos Torres. That was then. Forty plus years later, HPD's police chief is Hispanic.

BLM was founded by Marxists.

As it turns out, two of the three founders are Marxists. I didn't know that. Live and learn.

FWIW, my opinion of BLM is basically unchanged by discovering this.

Plenty of violence is committed in the name and on behalf of BLM.

"In the name of and on behalf of" covers a lot of ground.

In the interest of fact-checking myself, after I wrote the comment upthread I went and looked up whatever I could find on BLM and violence.

It took some doing, because the number of cases of BLM protestors being met by folks bearing arms and/or being violently attacked, including being run over, are truly numerous.

So:

There was, famously, the guy in Arkansas with the flame-thrower. And TBH, my comment about that guy is basically "well played".

And BLM in some places has begun arming some of their own people in self-defense, in response to being run over and otherwise violently attacked. Which I neither recommend nor necessarily find wise, but also find understandable.

In any case, I stand corrected. BLM was founded by Marxists, and in some contexts they have armed themselves as a counter to violent attacks.

As far as what BLM wants, they want cops to stop shooting black people.

Some of the BLM founders view the world through marxist paradigms.

Like I said, it was founded by Marxists. Marxists are inherently, explicitly dictatorial. Lefties have a soft spot for Marxism. They have a soft spot for authoritarianism too. As long as its left wing authoritarianism. So, I don't buy their BS.

No one who believes in traditional liberal values can accept any innocent person being waylaid by the state for any arbitrary reason, and color or religion would be tied for first among what would be the worst reasons for doing so.

Thank you.

Marxists are inherently, explicitly dictatorial.

Stalin was a Marxist.

Theodor Adorno, author of "The Authoritarian Personality", was a Marxist.

Art critic John Berger was a Marxist.

So, no. Marxists are not inherently and explicitly dictatorial.

They [lefties] have a soft spot for authoritarianism too. As long as its left wing authoritarianism.

Of course you realize you could equally well, and equally accurately, have written:
They (righties) have a soft spot for authoritarianism too. As long as it's right wing authoritarianism.

In fact, the evidence there is, at least in Western countries, rather stronger.

I haven't read this book but my impression is that it has some interesting, and perhaps very meaningful, things to say about the points made about race and class in this and earlier threads.

"Beyond race, class, or other factors, there is a powerful caste system that influences people’s lives and behavior and the nation’s fate. Linking the caste systems of America, India, and Nazi Germany, Wilkerson explores eight pillars that underlie caste systems across civilizations, including divine will, bloodlines, stigma, and more. Using riveting stories about people—including Martin Luther King, Jr., baseball’s Satchel Paige, a single father and his toddler son, Wilkerson herself, and many others—she shows the ways that the insidious undertow of caste is experienced every day. She documents how the Nazis studied the racial systems in America to plan their out-cast of the Jews; she discusses why the cruel logic of caste requires that there be a bottom rung for those in the middle to measure themselves against; she writes about the surprising health costs of caste, in depression and life expectancy, and the effects of this hierarchy on our culture and politics. Finally, she points forward to ways America can move beyond the artificial and destructive separations of human divisions, toward hope in our common humanity."
Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents

A podcast discussion with the author about the book.

“Lefties have a soft spot for Marxism“

You’re a shitty mind reader.

Why not demonstrate the authoritarianism or dictatorial tendencies of BLM? They’ve been around for a number of years and have gotten a good bit of media coverage. The should be lots of evidence available if it’s not just BS based solely on the Marxism of some of the founders.

Don't bite hooks

The different kinds of BLM.

"Many conservatives insist Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-police, radical organization that wants to tear down America. Meanwhile, most liberals simply view Black Lives Matter as a heroic movement and powerful slogan signaling support for racial justice and opposition to police brutality.

Both are right. There is Black Lives Matter™️, and there is “black lives matter.”"
Marxist? No and Yes.: What the left and the right are both getting wrong about Black Lives Matter.

Are you saying that being stopped by police, nothing more, induces terror? If so, that's just a gross over-reaction.

No comment necessary, I would say.

Marxism is just the current excuse for old conservative white people to keep ignoring the problem. There’s always an excuse. They’re as predictable as they are deplorable.

They (righties) have a soft spot for authoritarianism too. As long as it's right wing authoritarianism.

In fact, the evidence there is, at least in Western countries, rather stronger.

I agree with the first sentence, DT being Ex. A. Second sentence, I'd need an example.

Why not demonstrate the authoritarianism or dictatorial tendencies of BLM? They’ve been around for a number of years and have gotten a good bit of media coverage. The should be lots of evidence available if it’s not just BS based solely on the Marxism of some of the founders.

I did that once, way back when, right here before they up'ed their marketing game. BLM's original mission statement, if you can call it that, was much more explicitly authoritarian. But, if you want an example of BLM-type authoritarianism, read anything by Ibram X. Kendi. I will, going forward, make a point of documenting my position.

As for the name-callers and whoever, you make my case nearly every time. Sounding great to yourself is a six inch putt. No one ever misses those.

Marxists are not inherently and explicitly dictatorial.

Missed this one. Marxism can't work without compelled subordination to the system. It's definitional. There is no room for other, competing systems. That's Marxism 101.

That 8:31 was me. I hit the wrong key.

Second sentence, I'd need an example.

Take the last century. Europe and North America. Have we had any left wing authoritarian takeovers? On the other hand, definitely had some right wing ones -- Germany, Italy, Spain.

Certainly elsewhere there have been left wing (at least nominally) authoritarians -- Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. But in the West? Not so far.

a six inch putt. No one ever misses those.

Sir, you underestimate me. 'Cause I've done just that. ;-)

Speaking as "whoever", McKinney if you think your case is made, you delude yourself. And not only about that, if you think we sound great to ourselves! Despite your stirring claim for "traditional liberal values" upthread, and your frequently (and obviously sincerely) stated dislike of racism, you show again and again how unable you are to put yourself in the shoes of an American of colour. The two sentences I quote at 7.47 are only the latest example of that complete inability. It shouldn't be a surprise; I have noted over many years of observing the phenomenon that conservatives (even perfectly decent, well-intentioned ones like yourself) are incapable of certain kinds of imaginative leaps, until they experience the circumstances for themselves.

It's definitional.

So you say.

As for the name-callers and whoever, you make my case nearly every time. “

Lol. Always so upset about name calling, when other people do it.

until they experience the circumstances for themselves.

In many cases, they never will. Therein lies the problem.

McKinney, I'm with you that things have changed since our childhood. Your law firm is diverse, and many people have African Americans as peers, colleagues and friends. But equality isn't here yet, and police violence against people of color happens constantly. The separation of immigrant families, many of whom are refugees, is a human rights violation of the first order.

I don't think you mean harm, McKinney, but you go way out of your way to avoid responsibility for this (not your own, but our society's).

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but when you ignore the obvious disparities in our system of justice, from police to disparities in incarceration, it's just plain that you're not looking.

No comment necessary, I would say.“

Indeed

They [lefties] have a soft spot for authoritarianism too. As long as its left wing authoritarianism.

WJ, I was referring to US lefties having a soft spot for authoritarianism. And in a number of left wing quarters, that soft spot extends to marxism/socialism. The very common tendency on the left to ridicule conservatives who point out the left's not-awesome willingness to accomodate/minimize/play ostrich with socialist mega-death is, IMO, simply projection by the left. I get a personal charge out of watching fan-boys of Danny Ortega or Fidelito wax indignant when someone points out the inherent, dictatorial nature of the men and their regimes. I also find the Cleek's of this world, who cannot separate themselves from their party, completely laughable when they claim to have no time for Marxism, yet the second leading vote-getter in their 'one truth' party was a socialist. It's really hard not to appreciate the palpable, unintentional self-beclowning. That said, I agree that the DT part of the right (and it's a lot bigger than I would have thought four years ago) is also authoritarian. As racial divides appear more open at the extremes--and while the rest of us gag--you see complimentary forms of racism--white supremacy vs anti-racism, black-centric reparational pay-back (in many forms, including mandating outcome equality vs equality of opportunity).

Sorry about missing that putt. Focus on bringing the flat stick straight back and following through on a straight line along your chosen path. And keep your head down.

With those mind-reading abilities, McK, you must truly be mental.

This is all very interesting. But here is the thing.

Cops shoot black people in proportionately greater numbers than they shoot white people.

That shouldn't happen. But it does.

All the rest of the sturm und drang is interesting, but the reason tens and hudreds of thousands of people of all colors have taken to the streets is because they want cops to stop shooting black people in disproportionate numbers. Other people, too, not just cops.

There is no indication whatsoever that BLM wants to seize the means of production and issue forth a worker's paradise. They give every indication of wanting cops - and others - to stop shooting black people.

Do you see some problem with that? I don't.

I support that goal, so I support BLM. I don't give a crap if their founders were Marxists.

I disagree with Sanders about a great deal. And one of those point is whether he's a socialist. Yeah, he says he's one. But I've known some real socialists -- and he is, at best, a very pale imitation. I'd guess that, if a true socialist tried to take over, Sanders would be manning the barricades to stop him. He is a, what is the phrase?, a champagne socialist.

I've dealt with the putting problem. It was a matter of overcorrection. I'd been missing putts and ending up further away than I started. So I actually managed to miss a 6" put short. Go figure.

russell at 10:23: what he said.

Socialism is public ownership and/or regulation of the means of production and distribution.

There is no nation on the face of the earth that is not a social and economic basket case that does not own and/or highly regulate the means of producing and distributing some significant part of their economic output.

Including us.

I'm not sure what the monster under the bed is, exactly, but it's not socialism.

Maybe it would help if folks were specific about what it is they are afraid of.

no nation on the face of the earth that is not a social and economic basket case

We're a basket case. McKinney was first out of the gate blaming China for letting the virus spread. His own state is one of the worst in uncontrolled spread. The hurricane won't help, I'm sure.

Quit blaming others, McKinney. Fix what you can with your vote.

Socialism is public ownership and/or regulation of the means of production and distribution.

Ownership? Yes. But mere regulation isn't socialism. The shrieks of the libertarians and plutocrats notwithstanding.

Not to say that regulation is necessarily a good thing. There have been some massively harmful ones. But neither is it an automatic evil. It's just a tool; like a wrench or a chisel.

McKT: Like I said, it was founded by Marxists. Marxists are inherently, explicitly dictatorial. Lefties have a soft spot for Marxism. They have a soft spot for authoritarianism too. As long as its left wing authoritarianism.

Wikipedia: Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict...

No, Marxists are not inherently, still less explicitly, dictatorial. Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis. Here's a blog written by an avowed Marxist: I challenge you to find a dictatorial word in it.

I have a soft spot for Marxism. I loathe authoritarianism

And all of us who hate authoritarianism should be doing everything we can to get Trump voted out of office, along with every one of his enablers in the Republican Party.

Ownership? Yes. But mere regulation isn't socialism

Perhaps.

In most places in this country, and in most competent countries, there are some goods and services whose provision is managed by public actors. Availability, terms of service, price, all determined by public actors, rather than market forces.

In some cases, the means of production and distribution are publicly owned. In some cases, parts of of the supply chain are publicly owned, and some not. In some cases, all means are privately owned, but availability and price are set by the public.

Which part is socialism, and which mere regulation? Is the distinction important?

Specifically, does the distinction make a difference to my point?

Sometimes it makes sense for things to be provided through public means, rather than private contract and market forces. Virtually everyone is fine with that - including public ownership, when that makes sense - as long as you don't call it socialism.

So I'm calling on people who use the word socialism as if it's a synonym for the end of the world as we know it to be more specific about what it is they're afraid of.

"The left" does not have a secret agenda to send people off to gulags and re-education camps. "The left" doesn't want to "destroy America".

"The left" wants stuff like affordable health care, and in contrast to "the right" doesn't see free markets making it happen.

For example.

Maybe "the left" is right about that, maybe they're not. But let's talk about that, rather than commies under the bed BS.

BLM wants people, and especially cops, to stop shooting black people. That's what they are about. That is what all of the remarkably broad cross section of people who are members of BLM - whatever that means - and/or support BLM have in common.

I work for a company which is majority owned by Vista Equity, whose CEO and principal owner is Robert E Smith. Who is black. And a billionaire. And who supports BLM.

The fact that two of the founders of BLM are Marxist - whatever that means - is irrelevant to the goal of fewer black people getting shot.

It seems to me.

The Marxist thing is a troll. I don't think it is intentional, all those hours in the courtroom with the goal being to put opponents off balance, and he always wants to stay on a topic that he has the high ground. We all do that to a certain extent, so it's not like he's doing something totally out of bounds, but I wonder how many people in BLM have read Das Kapital, know the difference between the bourgeoisie and the petite bourgeoisie, could discuss Engles' relation to Marx, or could name 1 other marxist scholar.

One could point out that the Republican party has gone through a rather interesting journey, so the argument that BLM is their founders is flawed on its face. It's a crappy argument, and it's disappointing that McT doesn't want to try and deal with the more challenging aspects rather than curl up in the fetal position and say 'It's the Marxists!'

It's also imporant to get out in front and if we all spend our time on dealing with the Marxist argument, we don't look at things like this timeline

https://www.wuwm.com/post/videos-show-law-enforcement-fraternizing-armed-group-15-minutes-fatal-kenosha-shooting#stream/0

or the statements by the Kenosha police chief
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/kenosha-police-chief-daniel-miskinis-blames-protesters-for-own-deaths.html

This seems a hell of a lot more important than determining whether BLM is 'Marxist' because 2 of the founders 'are' Marxists, a total non-sequitur because BLM is a decentralized movement. It's unfortunate because I would like to get his take, as a person with experience dealing with law enforcement officials, on things like this.

But if I were in McT's shoes, I'd find that conversation very uncomfortable. The best defense is a good offense, I suppose.

My other evidence for this is textual.

I also find the Cleek's [sic] of this world, who cannot separate themselves from their party, completely laughable when they claim to have no time for Marxism, yet the second leading vote-getter in their 'one truth' party was a socialist.

McT is usually more careful about his writing, and the syntax of that sentence and the rest of the comment suggests this is all stream of consciousness without a filter. McT knows full well that socialism ≠ Marxism, but it is a useful misdirection. Look how it took everyone in.

I imagine that current times are more disconcerting to him than to us on the left, cause to us, a lot (or all?) of this is laced with the feeling of 'I told you so'.

https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/04/looking-for-death.html

There's a lot to what you say, lj, and as usual wrs.

The Marxism thing as deployed by McKinney is clearly a deflection, even allowing for the misapprehensions about what is/constitutes Marxism or socialism. This misapprehension is common in the US, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the level of education. I have had an American undergraduate tell me that Obama was a "a socialist. No wait, he's a communist", and while McKinney has never sunk to quite this level, his certainty about Marxism 101 is nonetheless not absolutely out of the same ballpark. What doesn't help matters (in this respect alone) is that there are so few Marxists in the States, and none at all here now that Bob McManus is gone, so that an American with a bee in his bonnet on this subject is unlikely to have had the ear talked off him as so many of us have in the past (presumably including wj in Berkeley).

No, I say it's a deflection not only because if he paid any attention he would recognise that most of us "lefties" disavow and detest authoritarianism of any stripe, but because the reality of being black in the US, not an educated black lawyer in McKinney's office (at least until one of them gets stopped in their expensive car by a cop having a bad day), but any black person, particularly a man, is literally unimaginable to him. I wasn't joking about conservatives not being able to make the imaginative leap: one of my dearest friends (a wealthy Reagan staffer) only truly understood about coverage of existing conditions when a family member had Hep B. And the fact that McKinney can't imagine it means he has to cast about for other, blameworthy motives to explain the protests.

What is happening in the US on race has been a long time coming. But the rest of what is happening, on corruption, on destruction of foreign alliances, on destruction of norms and open flouting of legal procedures, on open retaliation against patriotic public servants, on neglect of public health in a worldwide pandemic, on desertion of previous claims to economic responsibility, and on and on, is squarely on the shoulders of so-called conservatives in America who have supported and enabled the authoritarian creature in the White House, and who have only recently (starting 2016 I think) been disavowed by McKinney.

an American with a bee in his bonnet on this subject is unlikely to have had the ear talked off him as so many of us have in the past

Haha!! Mitch Cohen, SUNY Stony Brook, 1979. I'm looking at you, dude!!

Then again, he hipped me to John Berger, so even stevens, I say.

I also find the Cleek's [sic] of this world, who cannot separate themselves from their party, completely laughable when they claim to have no time for Marxism,“

Maybe you should spend less time telling people what they think , and try spending more time listening to what people are actually telling you.

Whose property was Kyle Rittenhouse protecting?

Which Max’s isn’t touched him in his private property?

The two sentences I quote at 7.47 are only the latest example of that complete inability.

Seriously, merely getting stopped for a ticket induces terror in blacks and Hispanics? How many US blacks and Hispanics do you know? Are you aware that, in Texas at least, if you are stopped by the police, odds are the officer is black or Hispanic? In the Rio Grande Valley, the odds go 99%.

But equality isn't here yet, and police violence against people of color happens constantly. The separation of immigrant families, many of whom are refugees, is a human rights violation of the first order.

I don't think you mean harm, McKinney, but you go way out of your way to avoid responsibility for this (not your own, but our society's).

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but when you ignore the obvious disparities in our system of justice, from police to disparities in incarceration, it's just plain that you're not looking.

Sapient, thanks, first of all. Second, I'm pretty sure I addressed not only law and order issues but the Republican drift--not toward, but into--authoritarianism. Where you, Russell, BLM and all the rest miss the mark IMO is that jurisdictions vary. Venues vary. The Rio Grande Valley is overwhelmingly Hispanic. Houston is thoroughly integrated. San Antonio is somewhere at or above majority Hispanic (I haven't looked in a while). Dallas is anything but homogeneous. However, crime stats are pretty stable and they do drive police attitudes. Repeating myself, it's for the police to get right, not the criminal element, but that doesn't diminish the fact that young black and Hispanic men make up the majority of police encounters and, particularly in the case of blacks, the numbers are way out of proportion to the general black population. Police are human and they have the unfortunate human tendency to generalize, as do many of us here.

As an aside, I make no apologies for blaming the CCP for the spread of CoVID.

Cops shoot black people in proportionately greater numbers than they shoot white people.

Yes and no. Yes, because whites hugely outnumber blacks in the general population. But no if you look at encounters with police. Whites and black, overall, have roughly equal numbers of arrests, i.e. encounters, and whites are killed slightly more than black. Blacks, disproportionately, engage in violent crime. Unpleasant fact which--again--doesn't excuse the state from imposing differential treatment or excessive force based on any criteria and specifically race.

Pro Bono, from your link, the author writes:

thereby demonstrating the truth of Marx's claim that "capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society."

Intelligent Marxists don't come right out and say "Stalin had it right". What they do is make statements like this, operative word: compulsion. So, all of my points stand: marxism/socialism (I don't care about theoretical distinctions within the various movements), in practice, produce tyranny, scarcity and, often, mass starvation depending on population size. To ally with Marxism, given its history, is simply deplorable.

Does is make a Marxist a good person if a Marxist thinks excessive force applied disproportionately to young black men is wrong? No. The vast majority of us hold that view. Most people think cannibalism, pedophilia and murder are wrong. It's like being against death on the highway, not a high bar.

Russell, I get that there are a limited number of public goods that we, as taxpayers, ask our government--at different levels--to provide. However, pointing at the Interstate Highway system and shouting "socialism!" implying 'hey, we're all socialists at heart', doesn't fly. Socialism has a history. We all know what that history is. It does not work in any meaningful way (but, but, but Denmark!). It has killed way more people than fascism. Socialism = megadeath. Historical fact.

Which is no accident--socialism is inherently dictatorial. Socialism cannot exist side-by-side with any competing system. With socialism, as with any state-provided good or service, you get what the state is willing to let you have. You can't work harder, stay at the office longer, play or sing better and get more than the state is willing to give. Being able to vote for whoever determines how much you get, or don't get, is no consolation. So, when I hear or see Marxists or socialism, I push back.

And, to repeat, the left--or a sizeable chunk of it--spills a lot of ink contextualizing/minimizing/explaining/defending the indefensible. And they get very, very pissy when called out. I don't care.

LJ, you have a limited grasp of the courtroom. I'm either trying to persuade a judge that my position is correct or 12 jurors that the evidence points in a given direction. That's what trial lawyers do. It isn't about point-scoring, although that can be a side product of cross-examination, but if the point doesn't' resonate with others, it's a point for the other side. As for the rest of your observations, assuming I'm tracking, I addressed pretty much everything you think I'd find uncomfortable or whatever and I did it as a part of trying to illustrate, with nuance, that not everything boils nicely down to sloganeering.

And, as a final note, I did not raise Marxism. I was responding to Russell--which is not to criticize Russell by any means. So, as you often like to chastise Marty for not having fully read and appreciated what you've had to say, back at you.

“Max isn’t “ = Marxist

Fuck auto correct

McKT: you say that any sort of legal obligation for an employer to protect the health of his employees is deplorable Marxist tyranny. I disagree.

You think you were just addressing russell's point about BLM not being Marxist, I think you were seizing on that to divert discussion. The commentariat can decide for themselves.

To repeat, what is your take on these two articles

this timeline

https://www.wuwm.com/post/videos-show-law-enforcement-fraternizing-armed-group-15-minutes-fatal-kenosha-shooting#stream/0

these statements by the Kenosha police chief

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/kenosha-police-chief-daniel-miskinis-blames-protesters-for-own-deaths.html

If you have addressed that, if you could tell me the time stamp of the comment, I would appreciate it.

McKT: you say that any sort of legal obligation for an employer to protect the health of his employees is deplorable Marxist tyranny. I disagree.

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make stuff up out of whole cloth? So, as one who favors Marxism, pls admit that you fully support the Soviet gulag system, the CCP's treatment of the Uyghur population, Venezuela as it enjoys the dicatorship of the proletariat and everyone's favorite Caribbean vacation spot, the one party state of Cuba.

Venues vary.

Agreed. And I doubt that is a mark I am missing.

I'm sure that Houston and the Rio Grande Valley are more accommodating places for people of color - various colors - than many other places in the country.

We don't all live in Houston or the Rio Grande Valley.

Socialism = megadeath

The problem with this formulation is that it fails to account for all of the cases where socialism does not equal megadeath.

Like, every mixed economy nation in the OECD.

And as a comparison to capitalism, it fails to acknowledge all of the loss of life that *that* system has inspired.

Like, the centuries-long plantation model.

Likewise, the claim that socialism "only gives you what the state is willing to let you have" ignores the capitalist corollary - the market only gives you what you have money to buy.

Which does not always feel like freedom to folks who don't have the do-re-mi.

In any case - this is a position that you appear to hold more or less dogmatically. I have no expectation of persuading you away from it.

It's sufficient to say that your formulation of it here is unlikely to persuade me toward it, either.

As always, I appreciate your participation here, and appreciate your thoughtful replies to my comments.

Peace out.

distraction achieved.

once again, old conservative whites will fail to adjust their behavior even a fraction of a degree. this time, because of [Spins giant Wheel of Conservative Bogeymen] ... Marxism!

Like, the centuries-long plantation model.

That may be a bit of a stretch given that some of the prominent proponents of a slave-based economy at the time were anti-capitalism. And that the plantations were subsidized by governments in the form of escaped slave patrols, among other things, that poor whites were dragooned into without compensation.

If you have addressed that, if you could tell me the time stamp of the comment, I would appreciate it.

Yep, I did miss that one. Actually, I think I misread what you were saying, but you were clear enough.

So, is it a bad thing that the police were down with the armed people who showed up ostensibly to protect property from vandals? Yes. I think the police should been more pro-active in discouraging armed civilians from inserting themselves into a volatile situation. As I commented above, open carry creates a lot more problems than it solves and this is one example, although I have nothing in principle against defending property from rioters if law enforcement is unavailable.

As for the Kenosha police chief, he made the common sense point that if the rioters had obeyed the curfew, the incident would not have occurred. You can call that blaming the victim. I call it making a valid but incomplete point, which gets me back to the problem with open carry: the mindset of people who practice open carry is inherently confrontational, at least to an extent.

When I first heard that locals were showing up armed, I had a vague sense that this was not right. Young, immature males carrying firearms around other people is a recipe for disaster and that is what ensued. Should the police have proactively addressed the armed civilians? In my mind, yes. They should have asked them to leave. The shooter was arrested and charged with 1st degree murder, so the police did not reward that person's conduct.

Implicit in conferring on the state the near-monopoly on lawful violence, is that the state will arm and train its agents to perform lawfully and competently. For those who so admire government in action, the inability of the state to meet its training and discharge of duties competently should be a warning. Permitting unknown, untrained but armed people to assist in discharging the state's duty is a very bad idea. That the local scene commander did not disperse those people was a huge error in judgement.

Seriously, merely getting stopped for a ticket induces terror in blacks and Hispanics?

Yes. Terror for many, in many places. Fear or extreme trepidation for most, for good reason. How do I know this? I listen to people, and don't put words in their mouths that I wish they had said, or think they really meant.

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make stuff up out of whole cloth? So, as one who favors Marxism, pls admit that you fully support the Soviet gulag system, the CCP's treatment of the Uyghur population, Venezuela as it enjoys the dicatorship of the proletariat and everyone's favorite Caribbean vacation spot, the one party state of Cuba.

LOL. I only hope Pro Bono doesn't choose this moment to stop biting hooks.

As always, I appreciate your participation here, and appreciate your thoughtful replies to my comments.

As a matter of fact, so do I, and (some of) your thoughtful replies to russell's comments make me think you are not a complete deplorable. But I do think your obsession with us "lefties" and Marxism/socialism is a deflection. America is possibly being destroyed, and it's not by us. But I imagine if we give the right long enough, the ones that haven't already will find a way to blame us.

Clarification: when I say America is possibly being destroyed, what I mean is that around 40% of the population (90% of the GOP) is all in for Trump, and can't see a thing wrong with anything he is doing. That is the beginning of the destruction of the American project.

Yes. Terror for many, in many places. Fear or extreme trepidation for most, for good reason. How do I know this? I listen to people, and don't put words in their mouths that I wish they had said, or think they really meant.

Interesting. Seems like a pretty severe over-reaction to me.

But I do think your obsession with us "lefties" and Marxism/socialism is a deflection.

And I think it's precisely why so many people who can't stand Trump voted for him in 2016. I think a lot of well meaning lefties are getting taken for a ride by their very woke, statist base which is informed to a significant degree by hard left Marxists who dominate various portions of academia. Fish don't notice water and lefties have been around socialists--they used to be the fringe--so long, they don't notice them or their rising influence. Not for nothing do LJ and Nous refer to Foucault. Their program is not tweaking the free market to make intelligent tweaks to the safety net. So, two different world views.

Seems like a pretty severe over-reaction to me.

Yes, we got that. I'm sure they'll rethink their attitude in view of what you say.

I think a lot of well meaning lefties are getting taken for a ride by their very woke, statist base which is informed to a significant degree by hard left Marxists who dominate various portions of academia.

If this is even true (and I don't believe it really is, although it is a recurrent talking point on the right), you should know perfectly well it doesn't apply to us here, although your regular jeremiads and rants treat us as exemplars. Every time you come up with an example, (e.g. on "cultural appropriation" issues on campus) we almost always condemn it or say its crazy. But for some reason, you never seem to remember that....

“which is informed to a significant degree by hard left Marxists “

It really isn’t.

Join us in this century. Quit living in 1954.

McKT: you say that any sort of legal obligation for an employer to protect the health of his employees is deplorable Marxist tyranny. I disagree.

I think you may have conflated McKinney with CharlesWT here.

I think it's precisely why so many people who can't stand Trump voted for him in 2016.

Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 because of "hard left Marxists" who "dominate the universities" is an idiot.

I'm sorry to say that, but I don't know what else to say about it.

If people in this country can't be arsed to figure out the difference between sh*t and shinola, then we're going to have presidents like Trump, and we're going to go straight down the tubes. And we will deserve to.

At a certain point, folks need to stop blaming "the left" for the ignorance and bad choices of everybody else.

People are responsible for their own votes. If they can't muster the wit to vote intelligently, then we'll have stupid government. Like we have, for instance, right now. And like we had from 2000 until 2008.

And they will suffer for it, along with all of the rest of us.

Most people who go on about Marxism and socialism have no freaking idea what those words mean. None whatsoever. They vote based on the boogiemen in their heads.

There is bugger-all that anybody "on the left" can do about that. Would that there was, frankly. But there isn't.

People do what they want to do. They need to own their choices and stop looking for other people to blame.

I think you may have conflated McKinney with CharlesWT here.

That would make sense. I thought Pro Bono's comment was very strange. PB, I withdraw my snark.

Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 because of "hard left Marxists" who "dominate the universities" is an idiot.

Russell, i'm not looking to argue this point with you anymore, but you are conflating and reformatting my position in way that mis-states it. I get that lefties don't think the hard left has any real influence inside the Dem party. From the outside looking in, it looks a lot different. You have one headliner here and several prominent commenters who consider--as I said--Foucault to be authoritative/instructive or what-have-you. When the Dem's second leading vote getter is a socialist, that is not nothing. And I don't buy that BS doesn't know what he means when he says he's a socialist. Also, FWIW, I see a somewhat analogous taint on the far/alt right gaining traction under DT. I said "analogous" not "comparable".

McKinney, would you mind explaining your understanding of the philosophy and influence of Foucault?

I think you may have conflated McKinney with CharlesWT here.

I've nevered objected to workplaces being safe.

Cops shoot black people in proportionately greater numbers than they shoot white people.

McK: Yes and no. Yes, because whites hugely outnumber blacks in the general population.

Apologies for reaching so far back. But I have to comment on this. The larger number of whites does NOT result in cops shooting proportionately greater numbers of blacks. That's the whole point of using per capita (more usually, per 100,000) numbers.

Russell, i'm not looking to argue this point with you anymore

That's all good.

What I'm insisting on here is not blaming people who did not, and would not, and never will, vote for Donald Trump as POTUS, for the votes of the people who did.

Their votes, their responsibility as citizens to educate themselves and understand who and what they are voting for.

Either they did that, and knowingly chose this mess. Or they didn't do that, and chose this mess out of ignorance. I'm not sure which is worse, maybe they're equally bad in their own way.

Their choice. Not mine, nor anyone like me. Their choice, they own it.

The freaking mess this country is in right now? They did that. Not me, not anyone like me.

Thanks

The larger number of whites does NOT result in cops shooting proportionately greater numbers of blacks.

Rate of death by cop, over more or less the last five years:


  • 30 black people per million
  • 22 Hispanic people per million
  • 12 white people per million

The rate of black vs white killings by cops is 2.5. You are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a cop if you are black.

"But that's because blacks commit crimes at a higher rate!"

And why is that?

"But that's because blacks have more contact with police than whites!"

And why is that?

If you're black, you are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a cop than if you are white.

And that's why people are angry.

Everybody loves a link.

McKinney, would you mind explaining your understanding of the philosophy and influence of Foucault?

I'm not a student of Foucault, but here's a link that illustrates where I'm coming from: https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/29/marx-vs-foucault-reflections-on-history-and-power/

Philosophy being what it is, subject matter experts can parse differences between Marx and Foucault that are matters of degree and not kind to the outside observer. To western liberal democrats, Foucault is a continuation and perhaps an extension of Marx's basic views. I'm confident that LJ and Nous can and very well may give a detailed explication of why Foucault and Marx are night and day. Fine. Whatever. Marx is the starting point for people like Foucault.

ate of death by cop, over more or less the last five years:

30 black people per million
22 Hispanic people per million
12 white people per million

The rate of black vs white killings by cops is 2.5. You are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a cop if you are black.

If I had the time, I'd address this in more detail. The WaPo tracks the actual numbers of police-related civilian deaths and the FBI tracks total crime figures by race. What you get is that whites and blacks have roughly the same number of police encounters a year. This has held more or less steady for some time. The number of people who never encounter the police getting killed by police is zero. The relevant universe is "encounters with police". The number of encounters is roughly the same as is the number of unarmed persons killed by police.

The WaPo tracks the actual numbers of police-related civilian deaths and the FBI tracks total crime figures by race.

Washington Post.

FBI

I saw a comment from the dreaded AOC recently, which I thought was apt:

What would it look like if a community de-funded the police, and instead invested in other social and community institutions?

It would look like a suburb, noted AOC.

The fact that black people, and especially young black men in urban environments, commit crimes and come into contact with police at rates disproportionate to their numbers is a fact. It's a phenomenon.

Phenomena have causes. We try to understand the causes, and the explanations we come up with tell us about the phenomena, and also about ourselves.

And when all is said and done, if you're black, you're 2.5 times as likely to be shot by a cop than if you're white.

wj: I think you may have conflated McKinney with CharlesWT here.

McKinney did not conflate Pro Bono with CharlesWT. McKinney said this, from the blog that Pro Bono linked (I have checked):

Pro Bono, from your link, the author writes:

thereby demonstrating the truth of Marx's claim that "capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society."

Intelligent Marxists don't come right out and say "Stalin had it right". What they do is make statements like this, operative word: compulsion. So, all of my points stand: marxism/socialism (I don't care about theoretical distinctions within the various movements), in practice, produce tyranny, scarcity and, often, mass starvation depending on population size. To ally with Marxism, given its history, is simply deplorable.

To which Pro Bono, quite understandably replied:

McKT: you say that any sort of legal obligation for an employer to protect the health of his employees is deplorable Marxist tyranny. I disagree.

It was this which produced the enjoyable retort, from McKinney to Pro Bono (and I admit, purely in the spirit of a relative of Loki, I am still hoping Pro Bono replies):

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make stuff up out of whole cloth? So, as one who favors Marxism, pls admit that you fully support the Soviet gulag system, the CCP's treatment of the Uyghur population, Venezuela as it enjoys the dicatorship of the proletariat and everyone's favorite Caribbean vacation spot, the one party state of Cuba.

Race is a factor, but there're other social, economic, cultural, demographic, geographic, who knows what else, factors that contribute to that "2.5"

whatever, Charles.

god forbid that we should have to confront the idea that we might, as a society and a culture, be prone to racial bias.

McT, thanks for the reply. I stand by my feeling that you grabbed on to a word by Russell and, like a dog worrying a bone, you've growled anytime someone suggests that there might be bones more interesting and tasty. Russell's comment about BLM not being Marxist was just a passing comment and at any rate, I don't see how a decentralized movement can be Marxist, though I'm an anarchist and I cast a side-eye at Marxism.

At this point, I set McT and the whole Marxism ᴙ us shtick aside (no offense) and talk about some googling I did. Folks can draw their own conclusions, though mine is this story is nuttier than a fruitcake, and I don't attach it to anyone here.

I had a throw away line about the Republican party's interesting journey and I thought it was too pat to think that Lincoln had founded the Republican party, so I started looking for who the founders of the Republican party were.
I got the name of Alvin Bovay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvan_E._Bovay

https://littlewhiteschoolhouse.com/

Googling more about Bovay, I found a cut and paste letter/screed to the editor about how Bouvay was actually a communist. O rly?

The letter pointed to a work by Fredrich Engles called
The Principles of Communism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#6

which has this
In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat – that is, with the agrarian National Reformers.
with National Reformers hotlinked.
(and Hartmut, I'm very curious what the original German was for that name for reasons that will become apparent)

So I clicked on it and found myself on a John Birch Society pdf with a forward by Arthur Thompson, CEO of the Society
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/pdf/1307.pdf

On the other hand, the GOP has not been subverted, but instead it was begun as a way to misdirect the people. There have been periods of time when it has served as the platform for conservatism when enough people got involved to make it so. But from the beginning, the Republican Party was a tool of communists and their conspiratorial allies

and follows with an entertaining tale of Bouvay's communist roots connected with a free love socialist colony next to Ripon, Wisconsin called Ceresco or the Wisconsin Phalanx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceresco,_Wisconsin

And all sorts of twists and turns that I post here for everyone's reading pleasure. It's a hoot.

You have one headliner here and several prominent commenters who consider--as I said--Foucault to be authoritative/instructive or what-have-you.

Speaking personally, I consider Foucault, to the limited extent I have encountered his thinking, to be incomprehensible, like many French philosophers. But then, I am famously unschooled in political philosophy, and find abstract thought increasingly problematic as I get older.

However, FWIW, in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy it says:

Foucault’s Early Marxism

Foucault began his career as a Marxist, having been influenced by his mentor, the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, as a student to join the French Communist Party. Though his membership was tenuous and brief, Foucault’s later political thought should be understood against this background, as a thought that is both under the influence of, and intended as a reaction to, Marxism.

Foucault himself tells us that after his early experience of a Stalinist communist party, he felt sick of politics, and shied away from political involvements for a long time. Still, in his first book, which appeared in 1954, less than two years after Foucault had left the Party, his theoretical perspective remained Marxist. This book was a history of psychology, published in English as Mental Illness and Psychology. In the original text, Foucault concludes that mental illness is a result of alienation caused by capitalism. However, he excised this Marxist content from a later edition in 1962, before suppressing publication of the book entirely; an English translation of the 1962 edition continues to be available only by an accident of copyright (MIP vii). Thus, one can see a trajectory of Foucault’s decisively away from Marxism and indeed tendentially away from politics.

Me to McKT: you say that any sort of legal obligation for an employer to protect the health of his employees is deplorable Marxist tyranny. I disagree.

McKT to Me: Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make stuff up out of whole cloth?

GftNC: I only hope Pro Bono doesn't choose this moment to stop biting hooks.

McKT quoted (from here): thereby demonstrating the truth of Marx's claim that "capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society."

Now, to me that seems like an obvious statement of the implications of the Friedman Doctrine that "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits". (Milton Friedman was not a Marxist.) If corporations care only about their profits, then in the absence of legal compulsion they will pay heed to the wellbeing of their employees only in so far as it's profitable to do so. Left and right agree about this.

But McKT commented: "...operative word: compulsion. So, all of my points stand... Marxism...is ...deplorable."

That seems to be a plain statement that compelling a capitalist to have regard for the health of his workers, even if it reduces profits, is deplorable Marxist tyranny. How else could one read it?

"your understanding of the philosophy and influence of Foucault?"

Foucault was absolutely an important revolutionary influence; he showed how the entire Earth was affected.

But then I'm fully relativistic, so your mileage may be Lorentz contracted.

Why wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse shot by police?

Philosophy being what it is, subject matter experts can parse differences between Marx and Foucault that are matters of degree and not kind to the outside observer. To western liberal democrats, Foucault is a continuation and perhaps an extension of Marx's basic views.

How did you draw that conclusion from the article that you linked to? The gist of that article was that Foucault was suspicious of the whole utopian view of history that Marx lays out. The article author believes Foucault is closer in view to Edmund Burke than to Marx.

You have one headliner here and several prominent commenters who consider--as I said--Foucault to be authoritative/instructive or what-have-you.

For Foucault to be instructive, you need take some time and figure out what he says. If you don't want to do that, that's your decision, and I don't wade into battles here about the law because I have little interest in legal matters. But I guess the difference is that I don't wear my ignorance about the law like a badge of honor.

god forbid that we should have to confront the idea that we might, as a society and a culture, be prone to racial bias.

Of course, there's racial bias. A lot of it unconscious and behavioral. But it's not the be-all and end-all explainer for all the negative experiences minorities have when dealing with the police and the larger society. I've found it stressful the times I've had to deal with the police in their official capacity. I can easily imagine that most minorities experience a lot more stress than I ever have. And telling them that all their negative experiences are due to racism doesn't help with that stress.

I think the book, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, I described above is a better explainer of the minorty experience in America than many of the others being flogged.

Of course, there's racial bias.

Thank you.

A lot of it unconscious and behavioral.

I'd go so far as to say most.

But it's not the be-all and end-all explainer for all the negative experiences minorities have when dealing with the police and the larger society.

I don't disagree.

TBH, I'm not telling anybody what the causes of their problems are. I'm trying to pay attention to what *people are telling me* the causes of their problems are. Or, at a minimum, what their experience of it all is.

We are not always the most reliable witnesses to our own experience, but in general I'm inclined to think they know more about it than I do.

The book on caste looks very interesting, I'm very interested in checking it out. Thanks for the suggestion!

Why wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse shot by police?

Why didn't cops tell Rittenhouse "Put the gun away, junior, and go home, before you hurt somebody"?

As opposed to thanks, we appreciate it, here's some water.

Whiskey tango foxtrot.

So strange that.a culture of fear that lionizes people brandish deadly weapons ends up spawning yet another kid who takes it upon himself to shoot his politics into other people.

Maybe he’s a Marxist.

And when all is said and done, if you're black, you're 2.5 times as likely to be shot by a cop than if you're white

Which translates to a .003% chance of being shot by a cop over a 5 year period or an annualized .0006% chance per year.

Essentially you have almost 0 chance of getting shot by a cop. If you aren't a criminal the percent isn't 0, but it is approaching it.

I dont have a link, i just did the math. The 2.5 number comes from bkacks and whites shot by a cop over a 5 year period. About 2300 whites and 1200 blacks.

Those lives matter

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad