The News Thread

[CiG]

Jesus I suck at expressing myself right now.

I'm obviously not saying you need to weight critique of police against stories about cats being rescued, I'm saying for every precinct that fails to enter a shooting zone like in Texas, how many do the right thing and stop shooters/save lives?

You just seem to be painting and then critiquing an incomplete picture of the system and its outcomes. In order to be effectively critical you have to be nuanced.

 

[Einherjar86]

agreed, nuance is important. And you're right that I'm neglecting elements of the picture re. police who do intervene in extreme circumstances. Two things, and then i'll stop being a nuisance:

1. I suppose i took it for granted that we all know police are occasionally effective in their jobs, so it felt mundane to say anything about it (I did include a caveat in the original post that the story was developing re. Leonna Hale).

2. I'm still not sure that kind of nuance is necessary to make the point i was trying to make, which was at its core a cultural critique about pro-police mentality and ideology, e.g. "These specific cases of wildly different behavior among police in disparate circumstances make it difficult for the pro-police crowd to defend the institution"--"but not all police hesitate in active shooter scenarios"--"true, of course, but pro-police rhetoric still needs to find a defense for this specific instance of hesitation."

i wonder if what you're saying is that the pro-police crowd might likely say, "What happened in Uvalde isn't what police should do; in most circumstances, they do what they're supposed to." so then my question is, what repercussions will those police suffer--and should they actually suffer repercussions? to me, it feels somewhat idiosyncratic if the Uvalde police are punished for their actions (or lack thereof) and those who shot Leonna Hale go unpunished.

so, in focusing on these two specific instances and ignoring others, i agree my comments lack broader coverage; but again, i'm not sure that coverage really changes my point in any way.

sorry if i'm still misunderstanding. i'll let you have the final word/corrective and will shut up.

 

[CiG]

You're not a nuisance lol I'm just dogshit at expressing myself on the fly.

I don't personally care if someone goes their whole life never acknowledging that police occasionally do protect and serve, but you were linking two police incidents in order to make a broader point that I think only makes sense if you purposely ignore policing on the whole. A lot of it isn't good or bad, just uneventful. But one could come away from such a point assuming these incidents are the norm rather than anomalous.

2. I'm still not sure that kind of nuance is necessary to make the point i was trying to make, which was at its core a cultural critique about pro-police mentality and ideology, e.g. "These specific cases of wildly different behavior among police in disparate circumstances make it difficult for the pro-police crowd to defend the institution"--"but not all police hesitate in active shooter scenarios"--"true, of course, but pro-police rhetoric still needs to find a defense for this specific instance of hesitation."

But that's the thing, you can't understand the pro-police culture's continued support of the institution if you only view said institution through the lens you're using. That crowd will point to the overall picture in the face of your examples. It's kinda like how rightoids complain about immigration and focus on the horror stories, when the overall picture is more positive, or at least much more uneventful.

That said, I'm not even sure how true it is that pro-police people are going out of their way to defend the response to the shooting. Again, anecdotal, but I heard a clip of the leader of America First attacking the cops for not responding.

There was a GOP politician who limpwristedly defended them and got annihilated online.

Edit: oops last word? Well, I'm actually mostly in agreement with people who criticise US policing, but I just think critiques become weaker when they're designed only to effectively preach to a choir. This is why #DefundThePolice was shit rhetoric, most people think it sounds deranged and by the time you try to explain that it actually just means changing how the funds are used, you've already lost them.

 

[Einherjar86]

that's fair, and it does seem the Uvalde police are incurring more vitriol from folks, for better or worse I'm not sure...

 

[no country for old wainds]

depp won the heard case, 15 million dollars damages lol

edit: heard awarded 2 mil as well

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Good, maybe now he can finally go back to starring in Fantastic Beasts films.

 

[no country for old wainds]

you'll be delighted to hear he actually wasn't at the verdict because of a work commitment 'in the uk'.

 

[CiG]

I looked up the pregnant woman story this morning as I hadn't heard of it until now, seems she's been charged and bodycam footage revealed she had a firearm:

Video surveillance from body cameras showed Hale being told to drop the firearm and pointing it at the officers before the officers fired three shots, according to court records.

Hale was taken to a hospital, where she was last listed in stable condition.

Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker issued the following statement:

"Some false narratives about what happened last Friday night at 6th and Prospect Avenue, unfortunately, were relied upon by some media and other sources. Our job, as prosecutors, is to remain neutral and review all evidence. Our review of body cam videos provided the actual accounting of events that night.

 

[CiG]

depp won the heard case, 15 million dollars damages lol

edit: heard awarded 2 mil as well

 

[Einherjar86]

Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade

 

[CiG]

Inventing abortion rights out of the 14th amendment was a ticking timebomb.

 

[Einherjar86]

I’m not really sure that’s the important takeaway here…

 

[CiG]

Sure it is. It's the most important takeaway, because as a lot of reproductive rights activists acknowledge, Roe v Wade's weakness was always a sword hanging over women's heads waiting to fall. The strongest part of Roe v Wade has always been its precedence, that it's been around for X years and thus should remain.

I've always felt that the strongest action would be for congress to write an abortion rights bill and pass it into federal law.

There's just nothing in the 14th amendment imo that justifies it.

 

[Krow]

Feel like the US is heading somewhere like…

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure it is. It's the most important takeaway, because as a lot of reproductive rights activists acknowledge, Roe v Wade's weakness was always a sword hanging over women's heads waiting to fall. The strongest part of Roe v Wade has always been its precedence, that it's been around for X years and thus should remain.

I've always felt that the strongest action would be for congress to write an abortion rights bill and pass it into federal law.

There's just nothing in the 14th amendment imo that justifies it.

@CiG all rights are invented. If legislators simply invented abortion rights on their own grounds, I would support such legislation; but it would be no more authoritative than rooting them in the 14th amendment. Conservative antagonists would still find a way to combat them; in fact, they might claim to have more grounds for combating them.

So no, I don't think this is a productive takeaway.

 

[CiG]

I don't think saying dumb shit like "all rights are invented" is productive in any context.

Certainly won't help women in red states right now.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think saying dumb shit like "all rights are invented" is productive in any context.

Certainly won't help women in red states right now.

I don’t agree, but fair enough.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fucking hell, it doesn't end. I keep thinking about conversations I had years ago when I suggested that the U.S. was in danger of going a Handmaid's Tale-ish route. Most people said I was overreacting.

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

American politics is held hostage by radical Christian nationalism. If we don't keep Trump's acolytes out of office, we're in for some dark decades.

 

[CiG]

Justice Thomas has always been pretty radical. I don't think the other conservative justices will go along with him, and have said as much in official statements.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm really not sure I believe them. But I hope you're right.

And yes, Thomas has always been radical; but you should see the way this kind of talk fires up the radical Christian element in this country. According to them, this is "revival." And this element has a lot of sway in politics.