Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by Cino, May 31, 2020.
Joe Rogan. Pallets of bricks and agents provocateurs. It's a few days old:
Agreed, on both counts. The violent protestors, the people burning shops down, I understand a stronger response to them. The ones marching with signs and chants should not be met with rubber bullets and gas.
I appreciate you posting that video comment as well. I have friends in various police departments. We’ve talked a lot lately. One thing they’ve shared is that they don’t receive much de-escalation training. And it seems to vary widely by department. A Chicago cop said he received a day’s worth in the academy 7 years ago. Another one in Des Moines, Iowa (much smaller than Chicago) has 1-day refreshers on de-escalation training every other year. A third in Atlanta said they talk about it more often because of the heat in the city and that during the hot summer months, situations flare up more frequently that require de-escalation. But they don’t go through extra training.
I also know that my three conversations are not representative of all police officers and departments. But from what I’ve read, it appears to be uncommon in many states.
If these two groups of protestors come together, then how can you differentiate between them?
I mean it. Here in India, when security forces are battling the terrorists, young people stone them or obstruct their way so that the terrorists escape. In that case, I would not mind if they shoot at the demonstrators. Or when the government comes up with a duly passed law that the citizens of India would be counted (National Population Register), then demonstrators indulge in arson, looting and some times even firing at the police men. Then also, I would not mind if the police shoot down such demonstrators. Of course, the India police and other forces do not do that. It is brave of them to face such conditions. Yeah, it may be permissible under the law, but police does not do it because the political bosses would not approve of that.
Acid packs, Petrol bombs, bricks, pointing guns at police, stone-throwing contraptions, arson. No end to their ingenuity.
I saw a still photo somewhere of Floyd being escorted to the vehicle after the arrest that seemed pretty normal. Not at all sure what prompted this. In any event, charges have been filed for all concerned and our judicial system will now play out.
Well naturally, we come from 2 entirely different worlds.
Okay, while I do feel my background gives me a better handle on the situation than most, I can somewhat agree with that. Of course the same holds true for your training and experience in that regard.
Well, with tensions already at the breaking point, there's nothing more I can say without escalating things further, so I'll bow out now. Anyone wants me, I'll be over at TDF, (The Doll Forum).
Here's the article about the lone police officer who was protected/"rescued" by five strangers during a protest:https://news.yahoo.com/saved-protes...OliY4T2r8KHbsgUjo_aodWlKaahfG_7CdENG77keAI7L3
As I posted before, I hope that all six men can/will get together, "break bread" and forge strong friendships between them and between their families.
Guys: take a few minutes to watch this clip. I gained a lot from it. It's good. I have a lot of respect for Joe Rogan because he is completely open and he talks and listens to everyone equally.
I have a big problem with Joe for the same reason you like him. He isn't smart enough to parse all the different topics he encounters and in the process he's giving a huge platform to thoughts and ideas without the proper research and forethought. It is the epitome of free speech and though, with all its baggage of misinformation and rumours coming with it. His intent is most likely genuine and a lot of good comes from this, but so much bad will slip through in the name of fair and balanced.
In the world of hot-takes, I prefer the shows that compile week long research assignments into precise messages. Personal preference only.
I disagree. He's very smart, imo. At least he is smart enough to be open -- unlike the vast majority. And he researches his subjects well
This is where the reader/viewer needs to discriminate and that is what it's all about. You don't have to believe or accept what Joe Rogan's guests say. Of course not. But you have to listen.
And that's why from JR you will get all sides of the debate -- and that to me is real journalism: here is the full debate, now do your own research and come to an informed opinion for yourself.
Is that not the essence of proper reporting?
Do you 'no platform' difficult opinions at your institution? I do not mean hate speech or misinformation -- just opinions which are not judged acceptable?
Okay thanks, that's probably where that sill I saw came from. Watching that, everything seems pretty typical of similar instances I've witnessed. Police respond to a call, in this case an attempt to pass a counterfeit bill, suspect is taken into custody, officers take statements and prepare said suspect for transport.
We see in this video the suspect being helped to his feet and then escorted to a waiting patrol car. The officers maintain control, but don't appear to be exerting much force and the suspect does not seem overly aggressive at this point. While he does appear to mouth off to the officers as they proceed, they don't seem overly concerned or annoyed by it.
Things start to go awry towards the end of the video as the officers attempt to place the suspect into the car, where we see him suddenly drop to the ground. The officers pick him up and attempt to put him into the patrol car and that video ends.
Now, the CNN footage Tea posted, shows the arresting officers engaged in one hell of a struggle, presumably trying to contain the suspect, a rather large individual, in the backseat of the patrol car. Next we see the suspect pinned to the ground outside the patrol car, which is consistent with what I've seen happen when a suspect can't be safely restrained in the vehicle.
What the police will do in that instance is remove the individual from the car, restrain them on the ground and call the wagon for transport. It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If you just toss a combative individual in the car and slam the door, you run the risk of them hurting you or themselves. Whereas if you take them out, you run the risk of injuring them or yourself in an attempt to restrain them. That appears to be the case here. I'm not seeing any malice or forethought though, more an overreaction to a bad situation that was carried on far longer than necessary.
However, it does appear to me and I say this having not actually been there and going solely by what is shown in the videos, that fatal force was definitely not called for here. The thing is, the official autopsy report, which differs from the one the family had conducted, indicates the presence of Fentanyl and Methamphetamine in the suspects system. He also tested positive for Covid-19 I understand. So, what the jury must decide, assuming they can even find an impartial jury at this point, would the officers actions have amounted to fatal force had that not been the case?
My personal opinion, if I may play armchair quarterback for a moment, where the cops screwed up is not calling for the wagon in the 1st place or at least when the suspect initially resisted getting into the patrol car. Given what we see in the video posted in #65 though, the suspect really gave no indication things would escalate to that level. The cops were just caught off guard and reacted very poorly.
First, it turns out that one of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team was a victim of police brutality himself, and he's not an unknown person (I wish I could remember his name)
Second, this article speaks volumes, especially since the Marine veteran stood on the Utah state capitol in his dress-blues: https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-marine-veteran-stood-outside-053144018.html He stood there until his shoes started melting to the pavement, duct tape over his mouth!
We'll learn more as to the relationship of the cop and suspect who died...as more about the club they were worked a t together comes out and what exactly was going on in their personal relationship.
I have too issues. Proportionate representation and the inability of hosts to pick up on "dog whistling". I will post videos, as I've come in the habit of doing. I see little point in trying to express something someone else has already done much better.
To the point of representation, by giving two parties equal time, you are setting them up as equally valid, equally reasonable. We might disagree on what positions are or are not valid, but we might agree that not all positions are equal? In the following video John Oliver will demonstrate how the consensus is not represented in a two party debate. At the end of the video they illustrate how unruly a proper representation would be.
The following videos are left-leaning both in their topic and their channels as a whole. I understand that this will turn a lot of people off but it's honestly the best videos I can think of to present the criticism I want to present. They do criticise the left as well as the right and hold that all ideologies have problems, and it's not a burn it to the ground position.
In the first half of the video he points to 'the paradox of tolerance' and how 'capitalism will embrace fascism over socialism'.
In this earlier video he goes deeper into how free speech makes us susceptible to well crafted propaganda, and how memes as phrases and pictures can have a deeper meaning within alt-right movements that works itself into the general public through fair and balanced platforms.
(there is a push in the video, I don't condone acts of violence, even against supremacists)
This video is probably a little out there for all of you, but I find her both insightful and so very entertaining, so of course I want to share this in the hope that at least one more person might enjoy her content.
Here she talks about the same things as the previous video but is less philosophical and goes deeper into the current state of communication in the alt-right.
The following article presents Rogan as a sort of gate-way to the alt-right network, a network that very deliberately presents themself as mainstream but contain some really nasty views on history and democracy. They cherish free speech only in so far as it serves their purpose. And to me, Rogans intelligence isn't showing while he passively nods as his guests gets to present their carefully crafter propaganda.
From Joe Rogan to the Far Right: Inside YouTube's Alt-Media Ecosystem
And I should probably clarify that I want live in a society with free speech. 1984 is not my wet dream. But giving or not giving a person/movement a platform is an active choice, and we don't put every single citizen on the television, clearly choices are being made. I'm saying that we must be aware of the choices we make and their consequences so that we can make the least bad choices. My cynic is showing. Further, I want speakers to be held accountable for what they are saying. Simply letting anyone say whatever they want for 15 min before turning it over to their opponent is avoiding critical responsibility by the platform owners. Fact-checking their participants is a mere minimum and identifying and calling-out the secret handshakes used in propaganda should be something to strive for. So don't hide other peoples truth, but show all of it.
To clarify, you are asking if the university I'm studying at refuse to give a platform for certain views?
If that is the question, I will have to get back to you on that, I don't know how big platforming is here, it's not something I've been very aware of and I would have to check around a bit before giving you any indication either way. However, this reminds me of when our professor gave us the assignment to analyse a text by a 'climate sceptic'. The individual is very prolific in their debate in newspapers. Shockingly, for a second year Environmental Science student, this person was a philosophy professor as our own university. And not only that, my own professor was asked by their common superiors if this climate sceptic might not be given some lecture time for the sake of fair and balanced.
For some reading this that would make a lot of sense, but for us, it would be like inviting a holocaust denier for history class or a flat-earther for physics class. Not only does it make little sense for us, it would be insulting and exceedingly frustrating to validate a point of view we find ignorant and destructive.
I've been thinking about how to respond to this and I haven't really gotten anywhere. The idea that we should be shooting peaceful protestors is so far from what I consider reasonable I honestly don't know what to say.
I would like to draw attention to this post by Steve under the code of conduct section. Neither do I want to to get in trouble for statements nor do I want any sort of violence to be promoted.
ACOT brings up a good point and I appreciate him doing so. Advocacy of violence is not acceptable here. We can, in the larger discussion on the topic of police and racial actions, discuss when/if more forceful solutions are needed against violent protestors. However, suggesting the police shoot demonstrators is not okay.
The amount of spam and vitriol from the trolls to this thread has been large. Both sides of trolling have appeared, too, because of the keywords used. We’re going to disagree here. On a variety of topics. But we need to do so in ways that don’t lead to the approval of violence.
@A Cup Of Tea I will look through them later. On the point of climate change denial: that would be classed as misinformation, unless the speaker has evidence? I am sure that a university would require that a person can provide evidence for statements presented as fact?
For instance there are scientists who argue the Big Bang did not happen, and their arguments are supported by evidence based on light element fusion, etc. They have a valid stance, which is not mainstream but which is supported by evidence. I'm not saying I support their view, but one has to listen.
I don't like no-platforming speakers at universities unless they are spreading hate speech or misinformation. That is my opinion. Nobody has to attend their talks, but they should be allowed the right to talk?
Anyway, I like Joe Rogan for his in-depth, unfiltered and lengthy interviews with a complete cross-section of people and opinions. I personally find him to be an intelligent and skilful interviewer with a gift ability to draw out the essence.
He leaves the listener to decide.
Joe to me is more of a sensationalist actor trying to stay relevant to keep the cash flow.
He uses the throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, by doing a plethora of interviews and a wide variety of.topics he does give wackos a forum, but also finds some gems...if one focuses in the gems they can see one thing, if one focuses on Ayahuasca or DMT you can see the plethora dude and it is far out.
That's true, and there's so MUCH material. I browse the JR clips and if one grabs me, I bring up the whole podcast.
Separate names with a comma.