Gaslighting

[ford_prefect42]

Sometimes, the issues of the day are SO far screwed that it's impossible to even start with the problems. Every sentence that is publicized has problems that are so numerous and intrinsic that by the time you've unpacked, analyzed, and disposed of the issues in just that one sentence, you've lost the thread of the overall point and problem

Comments

[baron_waste]

a) Note that outside agitators i e  “racial entrepreneurs” are already showing up from NY and CA.  At this point the motives of the situation shift away from what actually happened or didn't.

b) Obama is promising “justice” to “African American leaders.” How do you suppose he defines that?  Take two guesses.  (Remember how he horned in on the Zimmerman case?)  “Presumptive guilt” is right.

On the other hand…  The drop in force complaints is because the cops started behaving themselves.  The beating of Rodney King was exceptional for being caught on video, not for occurring.  Some years ago a dashboard camera caught a South Carolina State trooper going screaming berserk ballistic because a motorist didn't do as she was told fast enough.  Deep gouges were found in the case where said officer then tried to “amend his remarks.”  You'll find a Youtube video where the entire tenor of a traffic stop changed when the initially hostile, threatening cop realized that he was being remote-recorded (nothing to confiscate

[jordan179]

a) Note that outside agitators i e “racial entrepreneurs” are already showing up from NY and CA. At this point the motives of the situation shift away from what actually happened or didn't.

That's a key point. Unlike the locals, the riot tourists have absolutely no concern with the state of the neighborhood and no inhibitions against looting it, because it is not their neighborhood. The existence of riot tourists is why we need to clamp down harder on criminals caught looting, etc. in a riot -- if we put the hardcore ones in prison for serious stretches, we prevent a lot of future trouble elsewhere.

b) Obama is promising “justice” to “African American leaders.” How do you suppose he defines that? Take two guesses. (Remember how he horned in on the Zimmerman case?) “Presumptive guilt” is right.Obama's attitude also does immense damage to the city threatened by riot, since it puts police officers in a position where they must choose between their careers and actually protecting the public. The easiest thing for the police to

[baron_waste]

The easiest thing for the police to do in that sort of situation is just stay out of the neighborhood and let it be destroyed

It's called “de-policing,” and it's happened for years, and no, actually it's ALWAYS a black neighborhood.

“A Seattle policeman explained de-policing as:  'Parking under a shady tree to work on a crossword puzzle is a great alternative to being labeled a racist and being dragged through an inquest, a review board, an FBI and U.S. attorney investigation and a lawsuit.'” - Walter E. Williams, August 6, 2001

[prester_scott]

Maybe someday soon we'll be doing this to Muslim neighborhoods too, like they do in Europe.

[jordan179]

Hopefully not -- the underclass blacks are just violent dumbasses, while the Muslims actually have organization and purpose.

[baron_waste]

Well, they have a society, and that's not quite the same thing.  A Communist cell has organization and purpose, but they don't conduct weddings, what I mean to say.

The result is the same problem as with Chinatown:  If you're having a problem, do you go to the civil government, or to the local jefe?  The one is an indifferent insulated bureaucracy; the other knew your father.  The one applies standard procedures; the other fixes the problem.  On the other hand, “indifferent” means you're free, where the jefe's rule is total…  and turning away means turning out, becoming unwelcome in the only community, the only life you've ever known.

You can see how the high-school civics textbooks would be speaking a doubly foreign language.  Into what are you expected to “assimilate”?  To whom do you give your oath of fealty?  The “mayor”?  A flag on the wall?!  “I pledge my life, my fortune and my honor to this burger wrapper…”  Something essential seems to have got lost in translation - and it has, for even in America “liberty” is just a

[jordan179]

Yet the Chinese were able to assimilate despite truly horrible pressures put on them by the surrounding society -- they were treated as inferior to blacks in LAW in California, and immigration quotas were put on Chinese women to try to prevent them from successfully planting a cultural colony in America. The unassimilated Chinese of today are almost all first or second-generation immigrants; the descendants of the Chinese of 50-100 years ago are distinguishable from most Americans mostly by being more hard-working, successful and virtuous on the average than the non-Chinese!

This may be why black Americans hate them -- the success of the Chinese and other Oriental immigrants in America is like a reproach to the failure of the blacks.

[jordan179]

It's called “de-policing,” and it's happened for years, and no, actually it's ALWAYS a black neighborhood.

I never claimed it was anything but a black neighborhood, but I would point out that we used to take that kind of approach to Chinatowns as well.

The amazing thing is that there are so many blacks who don't get why this would be bad for them.

[baron_waste]

The difference there being that the various Chinatowns, just as with Hong Kong, had their own laws and punishments for breaking same. Alien to Western tradition, and it's not a good thing to harbor immiscible, linguistically-isolated foreign countries within one's own - which as has been said, is one of the biggest problems with the Muslim immigrants of today; in what sense are all those “Asians” (a recognized code word) one reads of in the UK press, British? - but the difference is that they HAD laws, and the moral structure of an ancient society. In the absence of police, all the black regions have is gangbangers.

Now, that could change, but don't look for that kind of genuinely progressive leadership from the civil-rights-shakedown-racket “black leaders.” They owe their political power to their skill at gaming the system - they're certainly not going to change the game!

[ford_prefect42]

Hmmm... I guess that it occurs to me that in a democratic nation, it might be appropriate to actually ask the neighborhood if they WANT police protection. If they don't, then I am not certain that I see any moral justification for inflicting it on them.

[jordan179]

There's an obvious reason. If you don't police neighborhoods, they become refuges for criminals who may then raid outside their neighborhoods. Furthermore, even if the criminals don't, you're essentially losing control of your own national soil.

[ford_prefect42]

Those are consequentialist reasons, not moral ones. Furthermore, easily dealt with in the main.

[jordan179]

Those are consequentialist reasons, not moral ones.

The moral one is that you owe your own citizens defense from those criminals. And I find the claim mildly astonishing that worrying about consequences is somehow immoral.

Furthermore, easily dealt with in the main.

No, it's inherently difficult to deal with. If people can move freely between the non-policed neighborhood and the policed neighborhood, it's incredibly difficult to prevent criminals from going into the policed neighborhood, striking a target, and then retreating into their sanctuary zone.

This is due to geometry. Need I explain further, or do you see it now?

August, 2001

[baron_waste]

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/aug%202001/806cin.htm... )

[ford_prefect42]

a) yes, that's certainly an issue. Once they show up, you can no longer presume that those on the streets have *any* interest in reason or justice, only in loot, plunder, and mayhem

[prester_scott]

What can have happened? Welfare, Affirmative action, quotas, reparations. Mostly welfare.

Don't forget also the War on Drugs, ensuring that the best opportunities for profit and status are vile and degrading, as well as branding you into the underclass for life if you get caught.

Also there is a sizeable portion of the political class that is actually in league with the communist agitators, overtly or covertly. That was probably true before the 1960s but it is more so today.