Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby freezeblade » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:56 pm UTC

Most of the outrage I'm seeing on social media is more that they were acquitted at the same time as all the stuff going on at standing rock.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8467
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:48 pm UTC

Angua wrote:I wish we could see what would have happened if none of them were white.


They'd ban guns?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:51 pm UTC

Probably. It's historically well supported, even beyond that time.

Hopefully the Standing Rock thing is approached with an equal or greater commitment to avoiding violence, but...ya. It might not be.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:57 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Probably. It's historically well supported, even beyond that time.

Hopefully the Standing Rock thing is approached with an equal or greater commitment to avoiding violence, but...ya. It might not be.

You hope they're all acquitted?
I mean, if they want a commitment to avoid violence, we just need to heavily sprinkle the protests with rifles & white people. At some point, it reaches critical whiteness , and it becomes a peaceful standoff.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/or ... efuge.html
Looks like a small part of it was government overreach with the charges, like the government should have gone for trespassing and intimidation or something minor. But the rest was just all the jury giving them a get out of jail free card.

*This joke is getting a little old, mostly because of how sad it is.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:35 pm UTC

The rifles are an awkward thing. You need critical mass. One guy with a rifle ends up being probably just an excuse for violence. You need a lot of guys with rifles. Enough that the cops stop and think about risk to themselves seriously, and are motivated to de-escalate.

How much is enough varies in proportion with police militarization, I think. Right now, it looks like they're importing cops from everywhere for this. I mean, it doesn't LOOK like they're expecting a non-violent outcome. More of gathering overwhelming force. Probably doesn't bode well. Hopefully I'm wrong and it all fizzles, I know people out there.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5323
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: You need a lot of guys with rifles. Enough that the cops stop and think about risk to themselves seriously, and are motivated to de-escalate.


You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco?

I mean, no one wants to repeat those events. But there's always the risk that escalations will continue until lots of people are dead. And generally speaking, the US Government can continue to call in bigger guns.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

Ruby Ridge was a single family, but yeah, in both cases, law enforcement gathered a ridiculously overwhelming amount of firepower, and then cheerfully embraced conflict.

This doesn't happen in all situations. Including the thread-starter. I would generally prefer situations where they didn't. I don't think race is a sufficient reason to explain it. After all, Ruby Ridge/Waco, the dead folks were white.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8467
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

Sometimes I wonder how terrible it'd actually be if the government went full Russian and simply razed that nature preserve with those protesters still inside. Would it have had better or worse long term consequences?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Sometimes I wonder how terrible it'd actually be if the government went full Russian and simply razed that nature preserve with those protesters still inside. Would it have had better or worse long term consequences?


Let's go with "worse".

commodorejohn
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:17 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Sometimes I wonder how terrible it'd actually be if the government went full Russian and simply razed that nature preserve with those protesters still inside. Would it have had better or worse long term consequences?

Let's see, you murder a group of people staging a protest (when none of them had actually escalated to violence,) who had already set themselves up to be interpreted as martyrs by all their friends, family, and fellow armed fringe kooks? Yes, that will end well and definitely not inspire more open armed insurrection or anything.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:58 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Sometimes I wonder how terrible it'd actually be if the government went full Russian and simply razed that nature preserve with those protesters still inside. Would it have had better or worse long term consequences?

Let's see, you murder a group of people staging a protest (when none of them had actually escalated to violence,) who had already set themselves up to be interpreted as martyrs by all their friends, family, and fellow armed fringe kooks? Yes, that will end well and definitely not inspire more open armed insurrection or anything.

Depends on the times. Remember when the police fire bombed the MOVE group? A bunch of people died, including 5 kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
Still no armed insurrection yet. And no, the backlash against cops now doesn't count.

What they could have done, is 'arrest' them in the night as they were traveling back and forth between the complex. That's a tactic seen during black lives matter protests. You just drive by, and abduct them into your police van, and drive off so they can face charges.

Corrupt user, why the harsh simplistic talk? I didn't think you had a bone to pick with inept ranchers.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:13 pm UTC

As I stated earlier, in terrorist incidents it's best to end the situation as quickly and decisively as possible. The quicker the situation is dealt with, the less likely it is there will be further attacks. Furthermore, violently ending the situation is not correlated with an increased chance of additional terror attacks, though violence is not correlated with a reduced chance of attacks either.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8467
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:34 am UTC

sardia wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Sometimes I wonder how terrible it'd actually be if the government went full Russian and simply razed that nature preserve with those protesters still inside. Would it have had better or worse long term consequences?

Let's see, you murder a group of people staging a protest (when none of them had actually escalated to violence,) who had already set themselves up to be interpreted as martyrs by all their friends, family, and fellow armed fringe kooks? Yes, that will end well and definitely not inspire more open armed insurrection or anything.

Depends on the times. Remember when the police fire bombed the MOVE group? A bunch of people died, including 5 kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
Still no armed insurrection yet. And no, the backlash against cops now doesn't count.

What they could have done, is 'arrest' them in the night as they were traveling back and forth between the complex. That's a tactic seen during black lives matter protests. You just drive by, and abduct them into your police van, and drive off so they can face charges.

Corrupt user, why the harsh simplistic talk? I didn't think you had a bone to pick with inept ranchers.


I have a bone to pick with a government where people can be allowed to not only protest with guns, but point those guns at the police, and suffer no consequences. Yet unarmed people in the city can be gunned down. It just doesn't sit right with me.

And after everything that's happened in both the country and the world, I'm exhausted with idealism.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:55 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I have a bone to pick with a government where people can be allowed to not only protest with guns, but point those guns at the police, and suffer no consequences. Yet unarmed people in the city can be gunned down. It just doesn't sit right with me.
...and I have a bone to pick with a government where people are not allowed to protest, with or without guns, and the police suffer no consequences. Unarmed people in the city are still gunned down, but now it's by the government, and there's no recourse.

Yeah, the present system isn't perfect, but I'll take it over any other alternative.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

commodorejohn
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:56 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I have a bone to pick with a government where people can be allowed to not only protest with guns, but point those guns at the police, and suffer no consequences. Yet unarmed people in the city can be gunned down. It just doesn't sit right with me.

And after everything that's happened in both the country and the world, I'm exhausted with idealism.

And so you're rooting for more people to die? Jeezy Pete, get off your high horse.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8467
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:30 am UTC

Is it really so terrible to think that it's acceptable for the police to kill people that are aiming guns at them?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:39 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Is it really so terrible to think that it's acceptable for the police to kill people that are aiming guns at them?
Yes.

There has to be more to it. This isn't war, and should not be treated as one. Yes, police put themselves at risk; that's their job. Now, it's not their job to die at the whims of the populace, but by being the manifestation of government's ultimate monopoly on force, they have accepted a responsibility to exercise that force with the utmost discretion, lest we descend into a tyranny from which extrication is exceedingly difficult.

So yes, just having somebody aim a gun (or something that the officer claims looks like one) at a police officer should not be enough to warrant their being summarily taken out.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:48 am UTC

ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Is it really so terrible to think that it's acceptable for the police to kill people that are aiming guns at them?
Yes.

There has to be more to it. This isn't war, and should not be treated as one. Yes, police put themselves at risk; that's their job. Now, it's not their job to die at the whims of the populace, but by being the manifestation of government's ultimate monopoly on force, they have accepted a responsibility to exercise that force with the utmost discretion, lest we descend into a tyranny from which extrication is exceedingly difficult.

So yes, just having somebody aim a gun (or something that the officer claims looks like one) at a police officer should not be enough to warrant their being summarily taken out.

Jose

But then we face the inequality of justice where those with white skin have guns and are defended while nonwhites get the shaft, bullet and handcuff.

I keep hearing that police shoot whites too, but that overlooks that the probabilities are skewed in the whites favor. Hence all the jokes about white militants(freedom fighters) casually pointing guns at cops and federal agents.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:07 am UTC

sardia wrote:But then we face the inequality of justice where those with white skin have guns and are defended while nonwhites get the shaft, bullet and handcuff.
No, that is not a necessary result. White/black imbalance that exists needs to be corrected, and that's part of the "you need more than just pointing a gun to warrant being gunned down by government" thing. Substituting "fire at will" does not advance the cause.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:20 am UTC

Sure it does. Say you lived in authoritarian country, like Saudi Arabia, where it you point a gun at security they shoot you. And if security shot you but you didn't have a gun, then they shoot The security guard. If that rule applied to everyone, and everyone knew the rules, it would be a workable society. The rules may be draconian, but the law provides equal protection. Then if the public had a problem with it, they could work it out by coming to a decision.

What happens in the US is that one set of laws apply to whites, another to nonwhites, another to the ultra wealthy, and another to the police. When nonwhites complain about how draconian it is, whites are like 'i didn't see a problem'.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8467
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:55 am UTC

It's not "whites" versus "nonwhites". We really need to break out "urban whites" and "rural whites", because they are two very different things, and there damn well is massive amounts of discrimination and marginalization of rural whites.

commodorejohn
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 am UTC

Again, sardia, you're proposing that the solution for unjust brutality towards a minority is for the majority to be treated with equal unjust brutality. How do you not understand how utterly fucked up that is?
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

morriswalters
Posts: 6627
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:20 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I have a bone to pick with a government where people can be allowed to not only protest with guns, but point those guns at the police, and suffer no consequences. Yet unarmed people in the city can be gunned down. It just doesn't sit right with me.

And after everything that's happened in both the country and the world, I'm exhausted with idealism.
Protestors are rarely shot down, black or white. Even in the middle of the worst of the civil rights protests the interactions with police were violent but not deadly for the most part. And street violence by cops against civilians is a different beast. Don't compare the two. The dynamics are completely different. Part of it is control, more people are involved and decisions take longer to be made by police at protests. And this is what you would like to see on the streets. Isn't it?

edit
Look at the Kent State Protests to see what it looks like when the order to fire is given.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:40 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Again, sardia, you're proposing that the solution for unjust brutality towards a minority is for the majority to be treated with equal unjust brutality. How do you not understand how utterly fucked up that is?

How can I phrase this best... How idealistic are you about the world at large? The mindset you have that just because someone is shot at a moderate threat level doesn't make it unjust. Society functions well if police were trained weaponless to defuse situations or if they shoot anyone who gets violent. Where it fails is if it becomes really obvious that certain people get much better treatment in the eyes of the law. Then the masses start agitating.

Corrupt user, do you have any citations on how well/badly rural whites are treated? I thought treating rural whites better than minorities was a core social compact starting with slavery.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:As I stated earlier, in terrorist incidents it's best to end the situation as quickly and decisively as possible. The quicker the situation is dealt with, the less likely it is there will be further attacks. Furthermore, violently ending the situation is not correlated with an increased chance of additional terror attacks, though violence is not correlated with a reduced chance of attacks either.


If there's no correlation either way, then let's take the less violent solution, where possible. All else being equal, fewer bodies is a good thing.

CorruptUser wrote:I have a bone to pick with a government where people can be allowed to not only protest with guns, but point those guns at the police, and suffer no consequences. Yet unarmed people in the city can be gunned down. It just doesn't sit right with me.


Police point guns at people all the time without consequence. Worse, sometimes.

In an ideal world, nobody'd be pointing guns at each other, but that's not on the table. Police militarization is not happening in response to an increasingly criminal world. Police are initiating the escalation, not responding to it.

CorruptUser wrote:Is it really so terrible to think that it's acceptable for the police to kill people that are aiming guns at them?


I think it's terrible that private citizens are not afforded the same consideration as police.

I also note that the bar is usually merely "has a gun" not "and pointed it at me". The former is often even entirely legal. It's bewildering to think of accepted extra-judicial killings for possession of a legal thing. And it often isn't even an actual gun. Nobody would accept such a burden of proof for the killing of a police officer.

commodorejohn wrote:Again, sardia, you're proposing that the solution for unjust brutality towards a minority is for the majority to be treated with equal unjust brutality. How do you not understand how utterly fucked up that is?


Apparently the answer is no.

Look, sardia, this is simple. Police brutality happens because of police, not because of the majority of white people or whatever. It's a straightforward failing of the police. Even if they randomly shot people in entirely equal ratios, it'd still be a horrible problem.

Sure, obviously the needlessly violent police are also racist. Fixating on the racist bit, but not the murder, is just weird.

commodorejohn
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:31 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:Again, sardia, you're proposing that the solution for unjust brutality towards a minority is for the majority to be treated with equal unjust brutality. How do you not understand how utterly fucked up that is?

How can I phrase this best... How idealistic are you about the world at large?

I'm about as cynical as they come - but this has nothing to do with idealism. You keep dancing around owning up to this simple fact: you're advocating addressing a grave injustice by perpetuating more grave injustice so that everybody is equally abused. That's not a solution to injustice; that's a kind of bizarre "everyone must suffer equally" tyranny-of-psychosis. Committing more atrocities is not a solution to existing atrocities.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Mutex
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:41 pm UTC

I could swear we went through this exact discussion a few months ago.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

More or less, yeah.

And lots of ties to similar discussions over in the cop thread.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:As I stated earlier, in terrorist incidents it's best to end the situation as quickly and decisively as possible. The quicker the situation is dealt with, the less likely it is there will be further attacks. Furthermore, violently ending the situation is not correlated with an increased chance of additional terror attacks, though violence is not correlated with a reduced chance of attacks either.


If there's no correlation either way, then let's take the less violent solution, where possible. All else being equal, fewer bodies is a good thing.

CorruptUser wrote:I have a bone to pick with a government where people can be allowed to not only protest with guns, but point those guns at the police, and suffer no consequences. Yet unarmed people in the city can be gunned down. It just doesn't sit right with me.


Police point guns at people all the time without consequence. Worse, sometimes.

In an ideal world, nobody'd be pointing guns at each other, but that's not on the table. Police militarization is not happening in response to an increasingly criminal world. Police are initiating the escalation, not responding to it.

CorruptUser wrote:Is it really so terrible to think that it's acceptable for the police to kill people that are aiming guns at them?


I think it's terrible that private citizens are not afforded the same consideration as police.

I also note that the bar is usually merely "has a gun" not "and pointed it at me". The former is often even entirely legal. It's bewildering to think of accepted extra-judicial killings for possession of a legal thing. And it often isn't even an actual gun. Nobody would accept such a burden of proof for the killing of a police officer.

commodorejohn wrote:Again, sardia, you're proposing that the solution for unjust brutality towards a minority is for the majority to be treated with equal unjust brutality. How do you not understand how utterly fucked up that is?


Apparently the answer is no.

Look, sardia, this is simple. Police brutality happens because of police, not because of the majority of white people or whatever. It's a straightforward failing of the police. Even if they randomly shot people in entirely equal ratios, it'd still be a horrible problem.

Sure, obviously the needlessly violent police are also racist. Fixating on the racist bit, but not the murder, is just weird.

That doesn't explain the rising anti police sentiments and decreasing crime rates. Everybody was OK with the security crack down of the drug wars. Sure part of it is the police, prosecutor Court triangle that reinforced sloppy and corrupt policing.

However, You absolve society too easily. the people are easily scared into inflicting brutality on others so long as it doesn't affect them. My counter argument is that society is just fine with horrific violence... As long as it's kept sorta under the table and directed at minorities. Why do DAs go hard on crime? Because the people want to brutalize criminals. Why are jail sentences so long and unfair? The juries want it, and congress heard the cries for mandatory minimums.

It's hardly a grave injustice. They had guns, there was threats given to go down shooting. You put down the criminals. That's pretty normal most places. 20 years ago it was normal to you too.
It's pretty recent that people started calling out police action against violent protestors as a grave injustice. Compare that to the civil rights protestors.

PS, don't confuse me and corrupt user.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:40 pm UTC

I was responding to corrupt user, and then continued by addressing you(as he was). No error there.

The drug war hasn't been an "everybody was OK with it" for some time now. Surely you've noticed trends like decriminalization of weed. It's an inevitable backlash to a grand overreach.

Your explanation of "everything's because of racism" provides zero justification for why the change happened.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:As I stated earlier, in terrorist incidents it's best to end the situation as quickly and decisively as possible. The quicker the situation is dealt with, the less likely it is there will be further attacks. Furthermore, violently ending the situation is not correlated with an increased chance of additional terror attacks, though violence is not correlated with a reduced chance of attacks either.


If there's no correlation either way, then let's take the less violent solution, where possible. All else being equal, fewer bodies is a good thing.


Agreed. However, if after 24 hours or so, the nonviolent option doesn't show good progress, the interest of preventing further attacks is served better by a quick-but-violent solution than a nonviolent-but-slow one.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I was responding to corrupt user, and then continued by addressing you(as he was). No error there.

The drug war hasn't been an "everybody was OK with it" for some time now. Surely you've noticed trends like decriminalization of weed. It's an inevitable backlash to a grand overreach.

Your explanation of "everything's because of racism" provides zero justification for why the change happened.

I'm referring to everybody as the likely voters who push politicians(including attorneys, police, etc etc) and said politicians who push a narrative of fear onto the public.

I agree that racism isn't everything, but you seem to be arguing that the public at large is an innocent bystander of the terrible policy that the government implemented.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

Essentially, yes. Police militarization wasn't something pushed for by voters, by and large. I mean, sure, you can blame them for not opposing it strenuously enough, but mostly, it wasn't something driven to power by voter demands.

If we dispense with the "innocent", well, the public does behave as a bystander with regards to the war on drugs. It's an other people problem to most voters. It stems from Nixon's creation of the DEA, and from there, back to various tax acts and media inventions. For the most part, the public has not been horribly involved in determining the methods used to combat drugs. Government's doing x to fight drugs, eh, well, drugs ARE bad. And people put in fairly little effort into investigating further either way.

And of course, that drug war is largely the cause of police militarization. Most voters have fairly little direct control over law enforcement. In both this specific situation(the park incident) or the Standing Rock scenario, the people upset over it really don't have a means to vote their ideology into power. It's just not an available solution. So...we have conflict.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:46 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Everybody was OK with the security crack down of the drug wars.
Everybody? I don't think so. Certainly not the disenfranchised. Should they count?

sardia wrote:My counter argument is that society is just fine with horrific violence... As long as it's kept sorta under the table and directed at minorities.
Is this a good thing? Something you want to perpetuate, or something you want to eliminate? I'd argue that we've gone a long way towards reducing this; you seem to want to reverse the trend.

EdgarJPublius wrote: if after 24 hours or so, the nonviolent option doesn't show good progress, the interest of preventing further attacks is served better by a quick-but-violent solution than a nonviolent-but-slow one.
Why? Especially when the nonviolent-but-slow one can provide a better outcome?

Tyndmyr wrote:And of course, that drug war is largely the cause of police militarization.
I thought it had a lot to do with the leftover hardware from the military, which was given to the cops so that it didn't go to waste. Well, where do you expect that to lead? Perhaps the militarization is the cause of the drug war (as opposed to the pharmacological problems that drugs can cause).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:And of course, that drug war is largely the cause of police militarization.
I thought it had a lot to do with the leftover hardware from the military, which was given to the cops so that it didn't go to waste. Well, where do you expect that to lead? Perhaps the militarization is the cause of the drug war (as opposed to the pharmacological problems that drugs can cause).

Jose


That's only part of it. The trend of SWAT teams, for instance, is not driven by military surplus, but is still a relatively new thing in police terms. The idea that often even relatively small towns need entry teams is a bit odd from a historical perspective.

From the wiki SWAT article "In 1972, paramilitary police units launched a few hundred drug raids annually within the United States. In the early 1980s, SWAT drug raid numbers increased to 3,000 annually, and by 1996, 30,000 raids annually."

That's a massive increase in militarization, and one that connects directly to drugs. The fact that they got a few of their armored vehicles as leftovers from Iraq is a pretty direct military parallel, but certainly not the cause.

morriswalters
Posts: 6627
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:05 pm UTC

I suppose this is fruitless to ask, but what has the militarization of the police have to do with the Bundy's? The protests and the government's response were open to anybody and everybody, it was heavily covered by the press. When push came to shove the Bundys did the smart thing and gave it up without violence. If Pincus had stayed put there would have been no fatalities at all. The elder Bundy came out to where an arrest could be made without the benefit of a shootout. Overall, all things considered, it turned out pretty well. I'm not sure that it could have been handled better. Even with the acquittals.
sardia wrote:My counter argument is that society is just fine with horrific violence... As long as it's kept sorta under the table and directed at minorities.
Yeah, we love drones and airstrikes.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:33 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote: if after 24 hours or so, the nonviolent option doesn't show good progress, the interest of preventing further attacks is served better by a quick-but-violent solution than a nonviolent-but-slow one.
Why? Especially when the nonviolent-but-slow one can provide a better outcome?


If the outcome you want is one with the minimum potential for future attacks, then nonviolent-but-slow does *not* provide a better outcome.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

commodorejohn
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:If the outcome you want is one with the minimum potential for future attacks, then nonviolent-but-slow does *not* provide a better outcome.

If you want fewer protests, then treating protests (legal or otherwise) as terrorist attacks and escalating to violence before the protesters do does not provide a better outcome.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5609
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:46 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
ucim wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote: if after 24 hours or so, the nonviolent option doesn't show good progress, the interest of preventing further attacks is served better by a quick-but-violent solution than a nonviolent-but-slow one.
Why? Especially when the nonviolent-but-slow one can provide a better outcome?


If the outcome you want is one with the minimum potential for future attacks, then nonviolent-but-slow does *not* provide a better outcome.

Is there a source for this?

For example, Singapore is draconian but the rule of law there is fairly decent with a functioning society. Maybe Edgar is thinking of the Russian insurgency, swift brutal violence eventually pacified the region. But that's a bad example.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:46 pm UTC

When you have a tens of thousands of people who believe that a war between the US public and federal government is inevitable, and whom have been listening to right-wing propaganda spread fear, uncertainty, doubt, and anger about the future of the country because they disagree with the current head of the federal government, and that have children in the group with them, then another shooting incident, especially one where children are in the cross fire yet again, is probably a bad long term strategy for dealing with anti-government militias.

sardia wrote:swift brutal violence eventually pacified the region. But that's a bad example.


Yeah, that requires being willing and having the authority and ability to assassinate any opposition leaders and open fire on non-violent protestors in your own country.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests