So, on the one hand I have been critical of the Black Lives Matters movement's essential strategy, to whit, that of breaking the law in order to gain attention for its agenda. I think that strategy is doomed to failure as a means of improving the problem set that it treats, as it obliges the police to take enforcement action against ever more people -- and the more aggressive the lawbreaking, the more aggressive the enforcement action is going to become in turn. You can't get to the place where the police learn to work with you if you're forcing them to either fail to do their duty or else to use force against you.
On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to a large part of their claims. Police militarization of equipment and training is a problem. It puts lives at risk needlessly by adopting a posture in which lethal force is an option early. The loss of the "peace officer" mentality that looks for solutions that regain and strengthen the common peace, in favor of a "law enforcement" mentality that merely acts to enforce the law, has damaged the police as much as it has damaged anyone. The use of the police as revenue collection agents, coupled with the multiplication of (increasingly trivial) offenses for which one can be fined, is harmful to the common peace and lawful order. It undermines public trust in the institution of the police, and that ends up also harming the police as well as the nation as a whole. Likewise, as the Waco situation shows (in a context in which race is a non-factor, as essentially everyone is white), genuinely independent review of police actions can be a helpful control against the impulse not to come clean when you make a serious mistake.
So, while I think they need a completely different strategy -- one of obeying the law scrupulously while pushing their agenda -- I'm open to hearing their policy ideas. An affiliated group has just released an agenda detailing several.
About half of them sound good to me, and the other half I think aren't so good. Broken windows policing is one I'm divided on. On the one hand, I'm not convinced it doesn't work, as demonstrated especially in once-dangerous urban areas in New York. I wonder if we couldn't use more of it in places like the south side of Chicago. On the other hand, it may be that there is a point of diminishing returns past which the policy should be allowed to slide -- a little -- in the interest of greater peace and trust between the police and the community at large.
I'm curious to hear thoughtful responses to it all.
excellent post, Grim.
ReplyDeleteThe core of this problem lies deeper than the police , it resides in the breakup of the family and poor education. As one pundit put it, "when you set up conditions to destroy a society, don't act surprised when it takes an army to maintain order."
We seem to see an awful lot of situations where the police end up shooting someone for what seems to be very nebulous reasons. The latest shooting of the rancher in Idaho is an example. Although police work makes contact with the dregs of society inevitable and constant, it is not a particularly dangerous job per se. but it does have great rewards for anyone with a tendency to be a bully. I think the constant emphasis on "officer safety" may be overdone.
Being able to go home at the end of your shift is NOT the fundamental part of being a police officer. The fundamental part is serving the public. If accepting the job means that one is inclined to go to lethal force at the least provocation, perhaps they should find another job. I am quite disgusted with the constant Blue Wall of Silence protecting the bad cops- reminds me of the mafia code of silence.
BLM is a Leftist alliance branch designed to generate another Reichstag, and is closely operated by Panthers and Nation of Islam.
ReplyDeleteJihadists have a severe issue penetrating Latin American countries, given the number or lack of attacks there, but penetrating from Canada to the US or through Nation of Islamic cells, isn't that difficult.
I am quite disgusted with the constant Blue Wall of Silence protecting the bad cops- reminds me of the mafia code of silence.
ReplyDeleteThey know which union pays their check and butters their bread.
All the officers that could have done anything, were chased out, executed by internal agents, or are now retired, lecturing people about the virtue of police agencies. Yea, maybe back in their 4th generation it was so...
...a Leftist alliance branch designed to generate another Reichstag...
ReplyDeleteYou know, Ymar, you're the reason I put the "thoughtful" qualifier in there.
Raven:
Being able to go home at the end of your shift is NOT the fundamental part of being a police officer. The fundamental part is serving the public.
That's right. Honor is sacrifice. The job of policing is inherently honorable because it runs risks to protect others. At the point that it's become structured so that you put others at risk to protect the officer, that has been lost.
The damage done is not just to the community, or members of the community who get hurt because of the change in posture. It's also to the police, and especially to the best of the police. The most honorable men and women who belong to the service are the ones who will feel the loss the most.
And the division it creates between the community and their police is harmful to everyone, as well as to the common peace and lawful order.
ReplyDelete"The most honorable men and women who belong to the service are the ones who will feel the loss the most."
Yes- Gresham's law in action.
There will be problems if the vast middle class adopts the same attitude toward the police, that the urban blacks have- the police are totally dependent on public good will, or at least public tolerance.
That's an interesting application of that law. I'll have to consider that.
ReplyDeleteYour inability to think through the logic and open source data, Grim, is your responsibility.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that I have received formal training in logical deductive systems. If the issue was that I couldn't think logically it would have been clearly demonstrated at that time. That is not the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that logical objects don't exist in the physical world. Your brain thinks it is recognizing patterns that aren't really there, and it's leading you to radical conclusions about reality that are unsupported by the facts. If you ever act on these dire claims about your world being full of Nazi-like Leftist Americans who deserve death, it will be tragic for you as well as everyone else involved.
It might be worth talking to someone about it, in person, before that happens. I realize it may be difficult to find someone you think you can trust, given the belief in a vast conspiracy. Still, it would be worth giving a thought to it. You've hung around here a long time, and I would hate for your story to end sadly.
Your brain thinks it is recognizing patterns that aren't really there,
ReplyDeleteBelieve what you wish. Last time I heard your process led to claiming that military bases were hardened, in the US, from attacks which I had considered and which soon after actually took place, in a different context.
That's where your premises led you to, erroneous conclusions. These days I have to run my own simulations, because I cannot trust "authorities" that you seem to believe in Grim, to actually describe this world. And in some instances, the consequences of that are lethal.
I run simulations with character profiles, events, premises, world building, and people for 5-10 years, on separate parallel tracks. There's nothing you can do or say that will make me reveal my methodology, not that it will benefit you much even if you heard it from this lone typing writer.
If you ever act on these dire claims about your world being full of Nazi-like Leftist Americans who deserve death, it will be tragic for you as well as everyone else involved.
Paranoid much, Grim. Your authority on such matters, is perhaps diluted by now.
The idea that you think what I'm talking about is a "vast conspiracy" demonstrates a couple of things.
You've hung around here a long time, and I would hate for your story to end sadly.
You would be better served if you worried about yourself, in addition to the 300 plus million people you call your countrymen on this planet. You never did believe the claim that people can read minds on the internet, even using advanced data gathering abilities. It is difficult to simulate full human face to face bandwidth using less than 10% of the data through texts on screen alone, but it is not a skill you have, Grim. You never believed in. Try not to act like you can actually do it well, unless you want to spend 10 years developing those data skill sets.
Americans who deserve death
ReplyDeleteAs for that, this subject isn't about psychologists, Grim. There are certain things you go through in life using your emotional template to generate rational justifications. And yes, I have been here long enough to notice that about you, when cross referencing certain data points.
I don't remember having made the claims you ascribe to me. I've often said that we should harden military bases by allowing soldiers to bear arms, but not that we had done so. I've said similar things about society in general.
ReplyDeleteIt is true, however, that I don't believe in psychology or "mind reading" -- especially over the internet. If your 'data sets' include reading my numerous exchanges with Cass or Tex, it's clear enough that it can often take us a hundred comments to even begin to be clear on exactly what we're disagreeing about. Mind reading is right out, even when we're doing our best to try to share our minds with each other.
In any case, I notice you have derailed what I had hoped to be a thoughtful discussion about police reform, turning instead into a debate over whether the people offering the proposals for reforms were storm troopers, and whether one can read minds by observing internet comments. I'd prefer you engage in that sort of thing elsewhere. If you have any thoughts on useful police reforms, I'd be happy to hear them.
I've often said that we should harden military bases by allowing soldiers to bear arms, but not that we had done so. I've said similar things about society in general.
ReplyDeleteThis was years before that, some months before Ft. Hood 1. I posited that Hussein O would overturn the military via taking hostages and running a red flag or false flag op against the family housing on military bases.
In the furtherance of that scenario talk, I posited that external guns could be brought in to hold or capture hostages. You replied that military bases were hardened against that.
Then one guy in a military officer's uniform shot up a US base on US soil, some odd months later. He could have easily used his Hussein protections, to sneak in a few truck loads of jihadis. The FBI was still running under Bush II standards, though. Now a days, the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR controls FBI training protocols.
I wonder if we couldn't use more of it in places like the south side of Chicago.
I also told you that COIN needed to be used in cities like Chicago. You ignored it at the time, now you're back at square 1. I find that ironic. The power to do that was before Hussein got rid of the military reforms brought by McChrystal and Petraeus. Wasting time, has a consequence, strategic and logistical. If you aren't going to use the power or try to lobby for it to be used, then the enemy will use it against you first. They have no qualms about that.
The Left's BLM certainly will use what they got. If you leave those fiefdoms to cook even longer...
Most of this was way before 2012 ever happened, which was way before BLM or ISIL came on the scene.
If your 'data sets' include reading my numerous exchanges with Cass or Tex, it's clear enough that it can often take us a hundred comments to even begin to be clear on exactly what we're disagreeing about.
I usually read every comment in the thread in which I comment on. So it would include some of that. Offline, I have access to body language and voice tones. Even online via voice audio, I have access to the bandwidth of voice tones. Extracting personal profiles from text, is like eating soup with a knife. Less than 10% of the overall data is transferred. Which means time and significant amount of text is required to equal the bandwidth of voice or body language.
In any case, I notice you have derailed what I had hoped to be a thoughtful discussion about police reform, turning instead into a debate over whether the people offering the proposals for reforms were storm troopers, and whether one can read minds by observing internet comments.
You began this in Rational or what I call Logickal Grim mode. Now you're shifting, since it should be obvious to most people that Grim brought up the subjects, which you now say is a derailment.
Your brain thinks it is recognizing patterns that aren't really there, and it's leading you to radical conclusions about reality that are unsupported by the facts.
Would a person be logically interested in what I have to say, when their real view is that? You're talking about the impossible. No amount of Logick will cancel out your emotions, Grim.
I wonder if you are capable of seeing this, even as you forward the rationalized statement that I am seeing things that do not exist.
As for BLM's proposals, they're like gun control laws. If their org is evil and a puppet for other evil alliances... what's the point, in the end. If you wanted to talk about that, you would directly address BLM's being a off branch of Nation of Islam and the Leftist alliance, but you choose not to do that.
ReplyDeleteHand waving that away, isn't going to make it better. Grim stated before that people don't trust Leftists or Democrats with even reasonable gun control, because they don't trust them. Trust is a big issue, especially against genocidal enemies.
As for BLM's proposals, they're like gun control laws. If their org is evil and a puppet for other evil alliances... what's the point, in the end.
ReplyDeleteLogically speaking, what you're forwarding is a fallacy: it's an ad hominem fallacy. As the original post says, there are entirely separate reasons (such as Waco) to think that some of these reforms might be a good idea. It might make sense to make common cause on those that are.
I don't agree that BLM is, well, much of anything like a coordinated organization. It's a highly decentralized model, which makes it easy to disaggregate. Indeed, the way to disaggregate it would be to engage factions of it on common proposals but not others -- you'd end up creating a split between the ones interested in progress and the one interested in no-compromise positions.
I also told you that COIN needed to be used in cities like Chicago.
That sounds like you. Having actually practiced COIN in Iraq, though, I dispute your apparent connection between it and 'Broken Windows' policing. In fact, the connection you're drawing there is bizarre. COIN is at once more aggressive and more conciliatory in its approach, and is by nature a whole-of-government approach as well. Broken Windows is a very simple tool, although it seems to have good results in certain specific environments.
Broken Windows uses one tool -- the police -- and one method -- intense, strict enforcement of a thick code of regulations. I think the model is generally unacceptable for a free society. However, there are some parts of society where it seems to have a proven record of restoring order that has broken down too far. It's not counterinsurgency, though. It's just some guys writing a lot of tickets over trivial offenses. If there were a real insurgency present, it wouldn't be possible as a method because the police who are supposed to write the tickets wouldn't have freedom of maneuver.
Grim stated before that people don't trust Leftists or Democrats with even reasonable gun control, because they don't trust them. Trust is a big issue, especially against genocidal enemies.
It's true I did say that, but it's a statement of a problem. Any society has to find ways to work together. The problem is that the leadership that we're seeing rising to the top can't be trusted. That's true for the Republican leadership too -- it's the logic of Cruz's candidacy, which I think is the best one on the Republican side. It's even more true of the Clinton/Pelosi Democratic leadership.
What we need is not to commit ourselves to a policy of never trusting, though. That's not workable. We need to find ways to get rid of these corrupt machines, or to break the systems that are binding us to them. At some point, we're going to have to find ways to build bonds of trust with the people around us. No society can survive that can't do that.
You're talking about the impossible. No amount of Logick will cancel out your emotions, Grim.
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse our positions. I'm the one who said that logical objects don't exist in the physical world. Logic's limits are thus at the forefront of my mind.
Besides, I already said I cared about you. I said I'd hate for you to have a sad ending. That's the language of emotion. You've been around here a long time.
As I mentioned before, if you wanted to talk about BLM, you wouldn't have derailed the subject to the point where I was responding to all the subjects you complain about.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record, I don't stop people here commenting on stories. That's probably due to this being a week end or because this story is not at the top of your blog.
If I have to remind you of all this stuff you've forgotten, you definitely won't be getting the ability to draw correct conclusions from half decade long data sets on internet text mode at least.
That's the language of emotion.
See, if you wanted to talk about thoughts and BLM, you wouldn't have decided go into that mode to begin with. Thus whenever you shift modes like this, as when I mentioned some innocuous comparison between Light and Dark in Babylon 5 at Blackfive to some other commenter, which you never saw btw since you didn't know what the Babylon 5 plot was about, you reacted to it and condemned it. Whenever you try to switch modes like this, you don't make sense. I have to run two simulation tracks on both of your modes, just to make sure I can get them straight.
At Blackfive, your articles were always in logic mode, including the textual analysis of your wording, texts, and conversation formats. But in certain circumstances and subjects, you would switch, without any obvious reasons or causes. For example, if your logic said you wanted some reasons to talk about BLM, why would your emotional mode start talking about me? Talking about Ymar isn't going to make Ymar divulge Ymar's thoughts about BLM. That's not how it works.
It isn't the limit of logic I find an issue with. It's a limitation with the Grim modes that use logic and then doesn't use logic.
it's an ad hominem fallacy. As the original post says, there are entirely separate reasons (such as Waco) to think that some of these reforms might be a good idea. It might make sense to make common cause on those that are.
That would necessarily make your own argument into an ad hominem, since you've stated before that people don't think moderate gun control is acceptable due to their mistrust of the character of the gun control proponents. An ad hominem is an attack against the person in order to discredit them and thus their arguments. Lawyers use it a lot. BLM isn't a person. They aren't even a legit organization with a leadership. For a twitter hashtag at least.
If the PM of Israel refuses to trust America because he got backstabbed too many times, are you going to say he is now using ad hominem arguments against Hussein O? For BLM who breaks the law in your own words... it's now an ad hominem to talk about how they cannot be trusted... you think this makes sense but I do not.
...as when I mentioned some innocuous comparison between Light and Dark in Babylon 5 at Blackfive to some other commenter, which you never saw btw since you didn't know what the Babylon 5 plot was about...
ReplyDeleteI do know about Babylon 5! I just may have missed the reference. I don't recall the conversation, either. It must have been years ago -- I haven't written often at Blackfive for a long time. When did this come up?
It isn't the limit of logic I find an issue with. It's a limitation with the Grim modes that use logic and then doesn't use logic.
You know I don't have modes, right? I'm a fully integrated human being. Logic and emotion co-exist, and that's good: since the physical world doesn't contain logical objects (except, possibly, at lower levels of organization: electrons are plausible candidates), an emotional stability is required to deal with the world as we encounter it.
I mean, I feel a bit like Captain Kirk having this conversation. But that's OK. Kirk and Spock worked together to advance the ball down the field.