Slavery Rampant in Africa, Middle East; The West Wrongly Accuses Itself

[LeafByNiggle]

You are confusing several different topics.

The welfare state did indeed create cultural differences in black communities.

Unsupported allegation. It is more believable that those cultural differences go back much further than the Great Society or any welfare program, for all the charts and bar graphs showing systemic racism would have shown systemic racism in 1950 and in 1890 and in 1865 and certainly before that. In short, there was never a time when the blacks in the US were on an equal footing as whites. Never. If you think otherwise, just name the year and we will look at it together.

 

[StudentMI]

And you cut out several sources from which I am citing. That shows you’re not really interested in a discussion beyond someone simply agreeing with you. Sorry.

If you’re interested read the sources I mentioned. I’d also recommend The Fatal Conceit by Hayek. I frankly find it patronizing when people assume black people can’t succeed on their own.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And you cut out several sources from which I am citing. That shows you’re not really interested in a discussion beyond someone simply agreeing with you. Sorry.

If you’re interested read the sources I mentioned. I’d also recommend The Fatal Conceit by Hayek. I frankly find it patronizing when people assume black people can’t succeed on their own.

If you want to reference facts that are presented in some source you have on hand, you will have to present them yourself. If told you to go and read such-and-such a book on systemic racism, I doubt if you would do that, and I would not expect you to. But the fact is you have have failed to name a year when there was not systemic racism, which sort of undercuts any argument Hayek or anyone else you are referencing might have. You see, I can’t challenge them with questions, so it is not a real debate. If you expect to hold up your end of a debate you will have to support your claims yourself, and not pass it off to someone else who is not here. If you really must reference some book, I can give you a post office box number in Minnesota where you can send me the book if you like. (Provided there still is a post office.)

 

[StudentMI]

As I said, you want agreement, not a discussion. See ya.

 

[Annie]

I think that the point the writer of the article was trying to make is being lost.

As I see it, this is what he is saying:

The West is not perfect. But it is in the West that a system arose which ended up abolishing slavery and condemning racism.

So, fight against the imperfections which remain in the West if you will, but do not destroy the very system which works to get rid of slavery and racism.

As sympathetic as I am to those who have and still are suffering under the imperfections which remain in our society, as much as I would like to see reparations for the injustices perpetrated under red-lining which excluded people who fought for our country and should have benefitted from the GI Bill of WW2, as much as I would like to see our criminal justice system overhauled, I do not agree with tearing down our entire framework and replacing it with the notional idealistic utopia that some seem to advocate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then you do support reforms that redirect some of the funds from enforcement policing to community development agencies? The “system” of the West has indeed helped to abolish slavery and address racism, but enforcement-type policing has never played a positive role in that effort. When it did play a role, it was always a negative one. Such reforms do not amount to “tearing down the system.”

 

[VonDerTann]

enforcement policing

Leaf, part of the problem in any discussion with you (other than your misciting alleged facts; starting with the conclusions are backfilling the facts, etc.) is your use of jargon AKA made-up phrases like “enforcement policing.”

–What EXACTLY is “enforcement policing?” Is that, “policing where the police arrest lawbreakers?” Because that’s what police are supposed to do.

–Would you prefer a model where the police sing “kumbaya” and help drug dealers, thieves, etc., feel good about themselves? Or would you prefer social workers visit incidents of domestic violence? What will happen when the social workers ask for “traditional” ie. “enforcement” police officers to accompany them on these calls?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

enforcement policing

Leaf, part of the problem in any discussion with you (other than your misciting alleged facts; starting with the conclusions are backfilling the facts, etc.) is your use of jargon AKA made-up phrases like “enforcement policing.”

I just made it up, because it seemed to express what I wanted to say. If you still don’t understand, I will elaborate. I mean the kind of policing that focusing on enforcing laws, especially with the use of force. Now I realize that such policing is necessary, and I never said that it should be dismantled. But it is overfunded, and community development programs are underfunded. Building a rec center in a poor neighborhood may very well reduce the gang violence better doing only enforcement policing because kids will have something better to do than getting involved in gangs. That is just one small example of how some of the funds (not all of them) could be redirected. But if you are happy with a militarized police state, then you can expect the gangs the drugs only to get worse.

 

[StudentMI]

But if you are happy with a militarized police state, then you can expect the gangs the drugs only to get worse.

Something I’ve never understood: which came first, the militarization of cops or the higher crime?

 

[VonDerTann]

Actually that’s a good question. It was crime IMHO.

In my slightly-more-than-a-layperson opinion the militarization of police happened in the 1960s-1980s when criminals became better armed and police needed to up-weapon to be able to engage them: Until then the average police officer carried a nightstick and a medium-caliber revolver that took forever to load when criminals were packing automatic weapons at the same time. Also, police roles changed from things like pursuit to area stabilization (which is one reason police stopped using large-engined interceptors and went to smaller vehicles as cruisers, before SUVs took over.

 

[Annie]

I believe in considering problems, the sources of the problems, and the best solutions for the problems.

The idea of “defunding the police and putting the money elsewhere” is too rapid and too general for me to really get behind. In some places, that might be a good idea; other localities might need the exact opposite.

However, I think that we are losing track of the original topic. My point (and I believe that of the author) is that one in the West can be for this reform or that, but that those who want to simply tear down the entire system and start anew are deluded into believing that such a thing is possible.

It took 2000 years to get to where we are; they cannot rebuild a better system overnight, not to mention that many of them are advocating replacing this system with one which does not take into account human nature nor limitations and has thus failed every time it has been tried.

He is advocating for the preservation of the system which is furthest along the path rather than its destruction.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I believe in considering problems, the sources of the problems, and the best solutions for the problems.

The idea of “defunding the police and putting the money elsewhere” is too rapid and too general for me to really get behind. In some places, that might be a good idea; other localities might need the exact opposite.

However, I think that we are losing track of the original topic. My point (and I believe that of the author) is that one in the West can be for this reform or that, but that those who want to simply tear down the entire system and start anew are deluded into believing that such a thing is possible.

If that is your point, it is a straw man argument, because there are very very few people who simply want to tear down the entire system. Sure, there are always a few nutcases on every issue, but it would be a mistake to use opposition to those nutcases to justify opposition to the more moderate proposals.

 

[WingedHussar]

Policing has always followed a paramilitary rank structure. SWAT, no-knock warrants, and rifles in the patrol car were the result of the crime wave in the 60’s and 70’s and the new challenges that arose in the 90’s.

You can see the public’s frustration with the crime rates in iconic media of that day. Judge Dredd, Dirty Harry, and Bullit, just to name a few examples off the top of my head.

 

[Annie]

The rioters who burn public housing and black-owned businesses, the looters, the people who tear down statues even commemorating the Emancipation Proclamation, these and many involved in the post-modern intersectionality movement, the self-proclaimed socialists and their near cousins…

And the author of the article is writing about Europe. Do you know what is happening in Europe?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The rioters who burn public housing and black-owned businesses, the looters, the people who tear down statues even commemorating the Emancipation Proclamation, these and many involved in the post-modern intersectionality movement, the self-proclaimed socialists and their near cousins…

That is a pretty disparate group of different people who should not be lumped together and assumed that they all believe the same thing. If fact I don’t think any of the people you listed are seriously proposing tearing down the system in a misguided effort to make things better. Looters loot for their own personal benefit and do not want the system to be torn down. They just want to abuse the system if they can. Rioters are just an angry mob with no logic behind what they do. People who tear down statues are not necessarily in favor of tearing down anything else, much less the “whole system”. I don’t know what the jargon of “post-modern intersectionality” means and how these people, whoever they are, are proposing tearing down the whole system. And I don’t know what “near cousins” to socialists are and how much they want to tear down the whole system. About the best one you have in that list is “self-proclaimed socialists”. You could make an argument that they want to tear down the system - if you are talking about actually Marxist revolutionary-type socialists. However, the label “socialist” is applied to all sort of moderate proposals, like state-funded health care, that, while they share many of the same characteristics as socialists, are not the revolutionary Marxist type that want to tear down all of capitalism.

So if your point is that revolutionary Marxist socialists ought not to tear down the system that has done so much good, I can agree with that point. But I still think it is a straw man.

 

[Annie]

I thought the article made it clear.

 

[Annie]

Ok, we agree that the system should not be replaced, and differ as to how much danger there is of that happening.

However, I would say to both you and @(name removed by moderator) that the rhetoric I have heard over the past few years from many sources is so derogatory of the West that even if those espousing that rhetoric do not explicitly state that they want to tear down the system, they are still undermining it.

 

[WingedHussar]

So I take it you were not a fan of the recent movie with Karl Urban? I rather liked it myself.

 

[WingedHussar]

I knew of the comics and the general premise, but I have only seen the movies.

 

[Annie]

It would probably help if you read the article.