|
Post by robeiae on Jun 3, 2020 9:02:55 GMT -5
Goddammit, I just lost a lengthy post into the ether...
Anyway, it's not just about equal efficacy, it's about the assumption of efficacy to begin with. Moreover, it's the assumption that all aspects of the protests are automatically necessary for the assumed efficacy.
Minnesota's decision to charge the MPD might very well have been influenced by the protests. But it doesn't follow that the decision wouldn't have been made if, say, the protests had stopped two days ago. It also doesn't follow that the decision wouldn't have been made if the protests were accompanied with decidedly less violence and destruction. People are dead and in the hospital, small businesses are ruined. And the spectre of another round of Covid-19 deaths is out there. All of these things can be fairly ascribed to the protests just as easily--more easily, really--as can be Minnesota's decision.
Indeed, is it possible that Minnesota's decision had no relation to the protests, whatsoever? That the public statements of leaders and citizens in reaction to the Floyd video were enough to set this particular ball rolling?
Moving forward, given the reality that determining efficacy is not as simple as people like to imagine, what's the potential cost of continued protests, as opposed to potential benefits (many of which are only perceived)?
People want to be heard, of course, want to believe their voice matters. That's understandable. At the same time, observers--historians, analysts, etc,--are often loathe to deprive people of agency. So the fallacy of identity is a quite common thing.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 3, 2020 9:47:42 GMT -5
People are dead and in the hospital, small businesses are ruined. And the spectre of another round of Covid-19 deaths is out there. All of these things can be fairly ascribed to the protests just as easily--more easily, really--as can be Minnesota's decision. Hmmm, not sure I agree with that. (Although I agree about Covid being a potential issue.) No relation at all? I guess it's possible, but is there much reason to think that's really the case?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 3, 2020 11:35:37 GMT -5
You don't have to agree with it, but it's easily as defensible a claim as allowing that the protests led to the decision by the State of Minnesota. To whit: if there hadn't been any protests, Minnesota wouldn't have made that decision vs. if there hadn't been any protests, David Dorn (to take one example) wouldn't have been murdered on Tuesday. How is the first more defensible than the last?
And I agree that the decision was likely influenced by the protests, but I disagree that it was therefore automatically influenced by an accumulation of daily protests, thus I disagree that continued protests will necessarily achieve more Good Things. At this point in time, I think the opposite it far more likely.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 3, 2020 12:25:39 GMT -5
So tell me if I'm a racist idiot for these thoughts.
1) While Derek Chauvin deserves his due process rights, innocent until proven guilty, yadda yadda ya, I've seen that video. I can't imagine how that can be justified. I believe it was murder.
2) I get protests. I even understand how they might get a little out of hand, but that doesn't mean I get or allow for wanton destruction of property, or looting or violence.
3) What happened with Derek Chauvin shouldn't be seen as reflective of all cops everywhere. It is possible reflective to a limited extent of all the cops in that department. But oftentimes, the cops who are more likely to be abusive end up getting together with the other like-minded cops. Same with the cops who aren't. And it's not an either/or situation. It's more of a bell curve.
4) I see a lot of people blaming Trump. While he hasn't really helped, both George Floyd and covid would have happened if HRC had won. People act as if none of this would have come to pass if Trump wasn't in the White House. People are acting unhinged.
5) I've seen people talking about getting rid of the police, defunded them. That all cops should retire. People are more than willing to see police as a whole as the reason for racism and if we could only destroy them, capitalism and trump, the world would be some sort of Utopian Paradise.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 3, 2020 20:23:24 GMT -5
You don't have to agree with it, but it's easily as defensible a claim as allowing that the protests led to the decision by the State of Minnesota. To whit: if there hadn't been any protests, Minnesota wouldn't have made that decision vs. if there hadn't been any protests, David Dorn (to take one example) wouldn't have been murdered on Tuesday. How is the first more defensible than the last? I guess I see a couple of different layers here. On the one hand, I see blaming things like murder, assault, looting, etc. on peaceful protesters as unfair, since people who are peaceful by definition cannot be responsible for doing those things. But, if I understand correctly, I think what you're arguing is not that they're responsible for doing those things on a personal level, but that they've created (contributed to?) a sufficient atmosphere where those things could take place. Is that a fair enough re-statement? But I think the problem here is that protesters would've needed to know before this all started what was going to happen. Once the protests started, the violence came pretty quickly, right? And if the protesters had just gone home after that, I don't know that it follows that all the violent actors would've followed suit at that point. Now, would David Dorn, specifically, still be alive if the protests hadn't begun at all? That seems arguable, yeah. But at the time when this was all beginning, when protests were first being organized, I don't see how anyone could say that protesting would be an unreasonable response. The killing of George Floyd was exactly the kind of thing that deserved to be protested, IMO. If the violence that followed needs to be ascribed to additional actors beyond the people carrying out the violence, I'd be looking at the four officers from the George Floyd killing, before I would blame people who are acting non-violently.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 3, 2020 22:38:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 3, 2020 22:45:54 GMT -5
I read something online today that said something to the effect of:
If you're saying, "An innocent man was murdered, but this looting and destruction needs to stop" instead of "This looting and destruction needs to stop, but an innocent man was murdered," then you're focusing on the wrong problem.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 3, 2020 22:53:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 4, 2020 5:22:37 GMT -5
LOL.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 4, 2020 6:02:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 4, 2020 7:23:56 GMT -5
You don't have to agree with it, but it's easily as defensible a claim as allowing that the protests led to the decision by the State of Minnesota. To whit: if there hadn't been any protests, Minnesota wouldn't have made that decision vs. if there hadn't been any protests, David Dorn (to take one example) wouldn't have been murdered on Tuesday. How is the first more defensible than the last? I guess I see a couple of different layers here. On the one hand, I see blaming things like murder, assault, looting, etc. on peaceful protesters as unfair, since people who are peaceful by definition cannot be responsible for doing those things. But, if I understand correctly, I think what you're arguing is not that they're responsible for doing those things on a personal level, but that they've created (contributed to?) a sufficient atmosphere where those things could take place. Is that a fair enough re-statement? But I think the problem here is that protesters would've needed to know before this all started what was going to happen. Once the protests started, the violence came pretty quickly, right? And if the protesters had just gone home after that, I don't know that it follows that all the violent actors would've followed suit at that point. Now, would David Dorn, specifically, still be alive if the protests hadn't begun at all? That seems arguable, yeah. But at the time when this was all beginning, when protests were first being organized, I don't see how anyone could say that protesting would be an unreasonable response. The killing of George Floyd was exactly the kind of thing that deserved to be protested, IMO. If the violence that followed needs to be ascribed to additional actors beyond the people carrying out the violence, I'd be looking at the four officers from the George Floyd killing, before I would blame people who are acting non-violently. I'm looking at the protests as an historical event, one that is being treated as a "grand cause," for lack of a better way to say it, that people are assuming is having an impact, is bringing about change. I'm purposefully avoiding terms like "blame" or "credit," indeed I'm specifically saying "protests," not "protesters." So again, looking at the protests as an event, if one is attributing "victories" to the protests--Good Things that are happening, partly caused by the protests--one has to accept the Bad Things, too. People are dead because of the protests. People are injured because of the protests. There has been widespread destruction and looting because of the protests. That doesn't mean any individual protester is somehow to blame for any of theses things. And by the same token, any individual protester can't take credit for the State's decision. But one can certainly argue that the protests were partly--if not wholly--responsible for that decision. The problem here is a desire to only own the good stuff, not the bad stuff. It's understandable, but ultimately leads to a "no true Scotsman" argument, as well: "the people doing bad stuff aren't real protesters." Look, I don't disagree with this in general; I think the bad stuff is being perpetrated by bad actors taking advantage. But if someone who has engaged in violence says "no, I'm a real protester," who am I to tell them they are not. The Civil Rights Movement had this same problem, of course.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 4, 2020 7:37:40 GMT -5
I read something online today that said something to the effect of: If you're saying, "An innocent man was murdered, but this looting and destruction needs to stop" instead of "This looting and destruction needs to stop, but an innocent man was murdered," then you're focusing on the wrong problem. I've seen that--and similar things--too. I don't know. I think a lot of the people sharing these sorts of things on social media are mostly interested in shaming others. They're largely the same people who ran with the "kiliing grandma" and "florida morons" stuff (though they've now gone silent on the Covid-19 shaming; wonder why).
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 4, 2020 8:07:03 GMT -5
People are dead because of the protests. People are injured because of the protests. There has been widespread destruction and looting because of the protests. I mean, in a sense, I can see why it's tempting to argue that. But it just seems like a misplaced argument, IMO. If someone responds to a drunk driving fatality by pointing out that this never would have happened if we had eliminated cars, there's a sense in which that's true. But there are other things that could've been removed from the equation as well, that also would have avoided the same event. So yeah, maybe you can say people are dead because of the protests. But I think it's the same kind of thing. A lot of things in the aftermath of Floyd's killing probably could've been avoided by taking other things out of the equation, as well. So I'm not too crazy about criticizing the protests on these particular grounds. Imagine saying that about Kent State, for example. "People are dead because of the protests." It's just not putting the focus in the right place, IMO. To be fair, I thought we were both using "protests" (or "protesters" in my own case) as simply a convenient way to distinguish between violent and non-violent. And using "riots/"rioters" to refer to violent actors. (Or at least violent actors who aren't the police.)
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 4, 2020 12:29:20 GMT -5
I read something online today that said something to the effect of: If you're saying, "An innocent man was murdered, but this looting and destruction needs to stop" instead of "This looting and destruction needs to stop, but an innocent man was murdered," then you're focusing on the wrong problem. I've seen that--and similar things--too. I don't know. I think a lot of the people sharing these sorts of things on social media are mostly interested in shaming others. They're largely the same people who ran with the "kiliing grandma" and "florida morons" stuff (though they've now gone silent on the Covid-19 shaming; wonder why). Yes, I suppose that separates them from those morally superior intellectual elites who have run with stuff like "death panels" and "Kenyan birth certificate" in the past or " tear gas hoax" currently.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 4, 2020 19:17:12 GMT -5
Yes, I suppose that separates them from those morally superior intellectual elites who have run with stuff like "death panels" and "Kenyan birth certificate" in the past or " tear gas hoax" currently. That's an excellent debunking on the tear gas story.
|
|