The Murder of George Floyd & Subsequent Protests/Riots

[anticlimatic]

Dude, you said "apologize for other people". I'm not apologizing for them. I'm apologizing for myself. Hence, personal responsibility. Yes, i do think I bear some responsbility for this. I'm either part of the solution or I'm part of the problem. I know I haven't been part of the solution; I acted as though it was something I didn't need to think about much because it didn't affect me.

I knew it was going on, and I did nothing.

In my opinion, that's a moral failing. I don't give two fucks about apologizing for Bubba in Alabama or Officer Krupke or whoeever.

You are apologizing for being a racist yourself? I'm confused. Or rather you are apologizing because you consider it a sin not to regardless of what you've done? Christians call that "original sin."

Original sin - Wikipedia

The "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" is a false dilemma and religious dichotomy necessary to maintain an Us (the anointed) and a Them (the heretics). I'm sorry, but I'm an atheist.

Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia

One who really hates being right all the time.

Is Secular Leftism A Religion?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You are apologizing for being a racist yourself? I'm confused. Or rather you are apologizing because you consider it a sin not to regardless of what you've done? Christians call that "original sin."

I've explained as much of my motivations to you as I care to. I no longer think you are discussing in good faith, so I'm afraid you've received all you're going to get from me. Needless to say, you can believe me when I say none of it has anything to do with apologizing for your racism.

The "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" is a false dilemma and religious dichotomy necessary to maintain an Us (the annotated) and a Them (the heretics). I'm sorry, but I'm an atheist.

cool story bro , how can i join the church of atheism? teach me how to love Christopher Hitchens with all my heart.

Or, to say it less sarcastically... everyone has their sets of beliefs that they think makes them good and those who don't have them bad. Not just religious people. Pointing this out is facile. You've clearly stated, for instance, that you see the looters as "them". That could be considered a religious dichotomy. Super lame that the legacy of the New Atheism of the aughts is "having personal convictions beyond supporting the status quo is a religious delusion" (as though you could say having personal convictions in favor of the status quo isn't a religious delusion) but I guess I saw that one coming. It's incredibly shallow line of thought that says having convictions = religion =bad, but I suppose what could I expect from people who idolized folks that defended torture?

 

[Jonny]

This is heartbreaking. A child and her mom in the back of a police cruiser, watching as her dad is shot and killed by police. I can’t even begin to imagine having my childhood marked by such tragedy.

“I wish this town was safer. I don’t want it to be like this anymore.”

 

[Tilt]

Yes. Minneapolis police and public school system don't have a good reputation here. But overall, there are some good parts of the city, because it is home to many Fortune 500 companies and universities. After Chicago, it is one of the biggest business hubs in the Midwest.

 

[ceecee]

Guy is a fireman. At his fire-station. In uniform, on duty. With guns drawn on him by the police from the city he works in.

‘I am one of you’: Providence firefighter says he was racially profiled by officers | WPRI.com

This is also why fire and EMT are never included when people say ACAB

This is so far beyond the "death of a repeated felon" I don't really know how else to put it.

 

[Tomb1]

These unvarnished, visceral reactions to me just have a ring of truth and sincerity...

This woman droppin' just an unvarnished, visceral truth on a typical upper middle class white woman who claims to speak for black lives but seems more like an outsider looking in...

7:35: "african americans kill each other more than anything...these are the numbers. how about we start the change at home. why does it need for a white person to kill a black person for them to come out and say its the end of the world."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

7:35: "african americans kill each other more than anything...these are the numbers. how about we start the change at home. why does it need for a white person to kill a black person for them to come out and say its the end of the world."

Lol, I never heard you talk abou that either before now.

 

[anticlimatic]

Needless to say, you can believe me when I say none of it has anything to do with apologizing for your racism.

According to your faith, someone is a racist if they don't atone or chant repentance for the original sin of systemic racism. This explains why I see so much of what people refer to as "virtue signaling." It's essentially a rote prayer.

Hail Racism, full of bad, the whites are with you. Cursed is the fruit of thy womb, patriarchy.

cool story bro , how can i join the church of atheism? teach me how to love Christopher Hitchens with all my heart.

Or, to say it less sarcastically... everyone has their sets of beliefs that they think makes them good and those who don't have them bad.

You just answered your own question. The bold there? Not actually a thing unless you believe in the inherit religiousness of humanity (I believe it's endemic, but not necessarily inherit). Good/Bad is relative to immediate context. I think what you're referring to is a more pure and categorical perspective of "good" and "evil," which is fundamentally religious. I look at people as individuals with worth relative to various contexts, and I don't blindly put my faith in cults. That's how I end up an atheist.

I no longer think you are discussing in good faith, so I'm afraid you've received all you're going to get from me.

What is it about me that is so triggering to your worldview/religion? I get this exact same reaction time and time again, but only from people who belong to your very same church. Nobody from any other belief system struggles this much to maintain a conversation with me. I can't be that threatening to the framework of it, can I?

 

[rav3n]

This brought tears to my eyes.

Photos: Utah Marine stands alone at Utah Capitol with 'I can't breathe' covering his mouth | KUTV

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (KUTV) – In a one-man demonstration, a Utah Marine stood outside the Utah State Capitol for more than three hours on Friday to show support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

According to photographer Robin Pendergrast who captured the event, this Utah Marine was decorated with two Marine Purple Hearts. Only identified by his first name, Todd was captured with a thick piece of black tape covering his mouth saying "I can't breathe."

Some of the photos show the Marine's shoes melting in the blistering heat; yesterday's weather in Salt Lake City was in the 90s. The sign he held in front The Capitol explains the Marine's motives: "Justice for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, and countless others..."

 

[Jonny]

One of the most compelling arguments against moral relativism/contextualism has been made several times by Noam Chomsky. He essentially argues that true moral relativism exists only insofar as there are divergent biological systems, and that environment only serves to perverse or distort these systems to give the appearance of some greater set of relative values. While one culture might find something moral while another finds the same thing amoral, there is actually an objective comparison to be made between them as it relates to our innate biological building blocks of morality. Slavery and the subjugation of women might have been deemed moral at one point, but it isn’t simply a matter of moral relativism that we find them reprehensible today. It is actually our social advancement that has led us to more closely adhere to our innate value systems.

Here he is discussing it briefly:

In summary, there is objective right and wrong.

 

[ceecee]

Nobody from any other belief system struggles this much to maintain a conversation with me. I can't be that threatening to the framework of it, can I?

I'm sure that there are other people that think you are a conceited prick. You assume you're a threat. You're not. Your views are outnumbered and if you stepped outside your bubble you would see how much.

None of this is political by the way.

 

[anticlimatic]

I'm sure that there are other people that think you are a conceited prick.

Outliers don't alter the trend.

You assume you're a threat. You're not.

I wasn't sure, but I thought if someone bothered to suggest otherwise it would likely be true. Thank you.

Your views are outnumbered and if you stepped outside your bubble you would see how much.

I don't need to step off of my hill to see the field full of sheep.

 

[Jonny]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

According to your faith, someone is a racist if they don't atone or chant repentance for the original sin of systemic racism. This explains why I see so much of what people refer to as "virtue signaling." It's essentially a rote prayer.

Lol, you were virtue signalling about riots being bad earlier in this thread.

You just answered your own question. The bold there? Not actually a thing unless you believe in the inherit religiousness of humanity (I believe it's endemic, but not necessarily inherit). Good/Bad is relative to immediate context. I think what you're referring to is a more pure and categorical perspective of "good" and "evil," which is fundamentally religious. I look at people as individuals with worth relative to various contexts, and I don't blindly put my faith in cults. That's how I end up an atheist.

So you don't thhnk looters are bad? Sure seemed like you were making some strong categorical moral judgements earlier in this thread.. It will be fun to watch you explain about how you're different because you're an atheist.

Did it ever occur to you that to the immediate context of the looters, what they do is good because they got a raw deal in life and they have to grab whatever they can when the opportunity presents itself? How can you possibly condemn something like looting under contextual morality? Please don't tell me your answer involves the fact that looting is against the law.

What is it about me that is so triggering to your worldview/religion? I get this exact same reaction time and time again, but only from people who belong to your very same church. Nobody from any other belief system struggles this much to maintain a conversation with me. I can't be that threatening to the framework of it, can I?

It's less that I'm triggered, and more that I've determined through careful observation that people who claim to transcend morality (and related claims about being free of what they might label "religious constructs" ) are full of shit. It's just way for them to excuse themselves being a shitty person by their own yardstick. It's the exact opposite of personal responsibility because it really just means "morality is only important when it involves me." It's not a snap judgement; but something I came to after careful study.

In this very thread I've seen you engage in self-rigtheous rants about how not enough people are condemning looting. But sure, that has nothing to do with conceptions of good and evil because you don't use the word "evil " within your own worldview. Ok.

You really want to make this discussion about ethical philosophy? Pretty sure I can take you, lol. I've dealt with plenty of dipshits in my day who think "moral systems-religion=bad". Dealing with people whose thoughts on the subhect begin and end with the existence or nonexistence of god is a piece of cake. I'm not your grandma who thinks god put fossils there to test your faith, lol.

In summary, there is objective right and wrong.

naw cause religion

 

[anticlimatic]

Lol, you were virtue signalling about riots being bad earlier in this thread.

So you don't thhnk looters are bad? Sure seemed like you were making some strong categorical moral judgements earlier in this thread.. It will be fun to watch you explain about how you're different because you're an atheist.

Did it ever occur to you that to the immediate context of the looters, what they do is good because they got a raw deal in life and they have to grab whatever they can when the opportunity presents itself? How can you possibly condemn something like looting under contextual morality? Please don't tell me your answer involves the fact that looting is against the law.

Some laws I can look the other way on. Breaking laws that don't hurt anyone and are basically just there because some top-down TJ type made it up as a blanket protection over certain behavior with little concern for possible nuance, like J-walking when there's no traffic, or blowjobs in the south, I'm all for breaking those. I don't see LAW = GOOD the way an ISTJ would, and just follow every rule like an absolutist. However, something as fundamental to the american constitution as the right to property (which is right behind the right to life and liberty, and just as important) is a law I'm going to want to see followed. The rule of law isn't going to fall if someone snaps a J-walking twig, but hacking property rights out of the trunk is probably a bad idea. In the context of preserving civil society, I can't abide it. I think that's a bit more important than Joebob getting a free TV because he feels entitled to one.

It's less that I'm triggered, and more that I've determined through careful observation that people who claim to transcend morality (and related claims about being free of what they might label "religious constructs" ) are full of shit. It's just way for them to excuse themselves being a shitty person by their own yardstick. It's the exact opposite of personal responsibility because it really just means "morality is only important when it involves me." It's not a snap judgement; but something I came to after careful study.

Thank you for confirming that I was correct in my very old assertion that political leftism has now transcended politics and become a religious cult. I actually don't mind religion as a whole and strongly support the first amendment, but don't you think you guys aught to be getting the tax breaks you deserve? Call it what it is, don't beat around the bush. It's in your best interest. But have you ever made an actual decision for yourself, or do you just follow whatever bandwagon comes your way? I understand the safety in numbers fear-based approach to life, but nothing great has ever been produced by the bleating masses. I used to think the internet might be an exception to that principal, but that was back before the bleating masses got hold of it in the 90s- back when it was just us pioneering nerds on here. Now look at it. Cesspool.

You really want to make this discussion about ethical philosophy? Pretty sure I can take you, lol. I've dealt with plenty of dipshits in my day who think "moral systems-religion=bad". Dealing with people whose thoughts on the subhect begin and end with the existence or nonexistence of god is a piece of cake. I'm not your grandma who thinks god put fossils there to test your faith, lol.

I'm more of a utilitarian than a moral relativist- both in the actual definition and the semantic implication that the utility of objects is what's most important to me, and measuring them as helpful or unhelpful is contingent on the context they are used in- a shovel is helpful for digging a hole, but less helpful for brain surgery. My moral relativism is typically only reserved for judging a person as whole, because as a philanthropist I don't like to think of people as inherently bad, because I don't like to think of people as mere sums of their behavior. When it comes to behavior and actions, which can be objectified, I view things in more objectivist terms- but the ever shifting nature of a 'person' feels a lot more relative to me than objective. Therefore, I don't judge looters or rioters as inherently bad, but rather normal human beings exhibiting bad/toxic behavior for whatever reasons.

Very accurate depiction of city folk.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Some laws I can look the other way on. Breaking laws that don't hurt anyone and are basically just there because some top-down TJ type made it up as a blanket protection over certain behavior with little concern for possible nuance, like J-walking when there's no traffic, or blowjobs in the south, I'm all for breaking those. I don't see LAW = GOOD the way an ISTJ would, and just follow every rule like an absolutist. However, something as fundamental to the american constitution as the right to property (which is right behind the right to life and liberty, and just as important) is a law I'm going to want to see followed

Why is the right to life and liberty important? The framers invoked God for that, or at least, they did in the Declaration of Independence. What about you?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

. The rule of law isn't going to fall if someone snaps a J-walking twig, but hacking property rights out of the trunk is probably a bad idea. In the context of preserving civil society, I can't abide it. I think that's a bit more important than Joebob getting a free TV because he feels entitled to one.

Why? Why are property rights so important?

Thank you for confirming that I was correct in my very old assertion that political leftism has now transcended politics and become a religious cult. I actually don't mind religion as a whole and strongly support the first amendment, but don't you think you guys aught to be getting the tax breaks you deserve? Call it what it is, don't beat around the bush. It's in your best interest. But have you ever made an actual decision for yourself, or do you just follow whatever bandwagon comes your way? I understand the safety in numbers fear-based approach to life, but nothing great has ever been produced by the bleating masses.

You clearly have never been involved in a community where what I stated above is the status quo. I have. In that case, I'd say my rejection of it was very much motivated by thinking for myself. At any rate, I can see my ease in this discussion as a sign that all my navel-gazing has a payoff.

I used to think the internet might be an exception to that principal, but that was back before the bleating masses got hold of it in the 90s- back when it was just us pioneering nerds on here. Now look at it. Cesspool.

Yes, all the edgelords masquerading as intellectuals that started flooding the place around 2008 or so has made it obnoxious at times.

I'm more of a utilitarian than a moral relativist- both in the actual definition and the semantic implication that the utility of objects is what's most important to me, and measuring them as helpful or unhelpful is contingent on the context they are used in- a shovel is helpful for digging a hole, but less helpful for brain surgery. My moral relativism is typically only reserved for judging a person as whole, because as a philanthropist I don't like to think of people as inherently bad, because I don't like to think of people as mere sums of their behavior. When it comes to behavior and actions, which can be objectified, I view things in more objectivist terms- but the ever shifting nature of a 'person' feels a lot more relative to me than objective. Therefore, I don't judge looters or rioters as inherently bad, but rather normal human beings exhibiting bad/toxic behavior for whatever reasons.

Why is their behavior bad or toxic? On what basis are you making that judgement?

Very accurate depiction of city folk.

You're funny.

 

[anticlimatic]

Why? Why are property rights so important?

Property Rights: The Key to Economic Development | Libertarianism.org

Prosperity and property rights are inextricably linked. The importance of having well-defined and strongly protected property rights is now widely recognized among economists and policymakers. A private property system gives individuals the exclusive right to use their resources as they see fit. That dominion over what is theirs leads property users to take full account of all the benefits and costs of employing those resources in a particular manner. The process of weighing costs and benefits produces what economists call efficient outcomes. That translates into higher standards of living for all.

Reducing poverty is a key change that needs to occur to address police brutality. Property rights paired with capitalism are the only systems I am aware of that have evidence of the ability to affect such changes. Looting and rioting is, by its very form, the opposite of what might be helpful in curbing it on broad scale.

Extreme Poverty Rates Plummet Under Capitalism - Foundation for Economic Education

Why do you support conditions that lead to more impoverishment, more crime, and ultimately more police brutality?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Property Rights: The Key to Economic Development | Libertarianism.org



Reducing poverty is a key change that needs to occur to address police brutality. Property rights paired with capitalism are the only systems I am aware of that have evidence of the ability to affect such changes. Looting and rioting is, by its very form, the opposite of what might be helpful in curbing it on broad scale.

They wouldn't be looting and rioting if they weren't already poor. Given that we live under capitalism, why did capitalism fail to prevent them from being poor? If property rights are important because they prevent poverty, why with property rights, do we have such rampant poverty that makes looting an attractive option for some people? Your sources are arguing that we are a successful country (i'd argue more empire in decline, but whatevs) because of property rights, but if we are so successful, why is poverty bad enough that we are in the current moment? (This is where some people invoke systemic racism, by the way. I'd also include neoliberalism alongside that.)

Property rights have obviously not prevented severe poverty in the U.S. Given this, how can one invoke the utility of property rights in reducing poverty as a basis for the inherent morality of property rights?

The argument is:

1. property rights are good because they reduce poverty.
2. We know that property rights reduce poverty because the United States enforces property rights and is successful.
3. The US has a problem with poverty.
4. Systemic racism does not exist in the US.
5. This poverty is causing police brutality.
6. Police brutality is causing protests along with riots and ooting.

The gap between 2 and 3, combined with the insistence on 4, is where it all falls apart. If this was a valid argument, we should not be seeing looting right now. Because of the importance on property rights that has made the US so successful, poverty should not be bad enough the police brutality is bad enough to cause protests, as well as riots and looting. Yet, obviously, this is not what is happennig.


One could make the argument that the U.S. does not respect property rights because taxation is theft. But if this was the case, this would mean that the U.S. should not be successful. However, the success of the U.S. is invoked as justification for why property rights work and are therefore good. For instance:

Is it any wonder that the United States prospers while Venezuela stagnates?

The implication is clear. The U.S is successful, and it is successful because it respects property rights. However, even though property riots are useful for reducing poverty, we evidently have enough of a problem with poverty in this country that we have a serious problem with police brutality. So, evidently, property rights are insufficient to reduce poverty to the extent that civil society is secure.

I'd also point the irrationality of the fact that you are advocating continuing the status quo as the solution to something you yourself admit is an ongoing problem. Your solution to get rid of poverty to bring police brutality down is for people to respect property rights, which is something that the U.S. has already done, according to your sources (We know this because the success of the U.S. as a result of capitalism and property rights is cited as proof of the importance of property rights).

Facts don't care about your feelings. It would be lovely to think that property rights are a magical panacea for social ills, but there is ample evidence that this is insufficient. The strain on civil society (which I would assume you are well aware of) under the current neoliberal regime calls the proposition that property rights based on utility to civil society into question. You're going to need something else to justify why you think property rights are sacred enough for you to be traumatized by the lack of respect for them. You're better off taking a page from the Founding Fathers and citing God.

 

[anticlimatic]

They wouldn't be looting and rioting if they weren't already poor. Given that we live under capitalism, why did capitalism fail to prevent them from being poor?

Who runs these places?

9/10 Forbes most dangerous cities controlled by Democrats, page 1

Not exactly champions of capitalism.

 

[Tellenbach]

People wouldn't be looting and rioting if they were raised by better parents and had some moral education. The people who burned down libraries, pharmacies, and minority owned businesses are immoral, greedy, selfish assholes. There is a severe crises of morality in this nation and it's worst in urban Democrat run cities.

You couldn't pay me to destroy someone else's property; none of those animals who destroyed personal property were libertarians.