Monday, 26 April 2021
Tabloidisation.
Woke vs. anti-woke is a representation of...
Everything that is divisive as far as woke vs. anti-woke is a representation of and by the extremes?
Radical opinions, mostly from the fringe of politics, reacted too and removed from context, and fired like a shell towards the ideological foe. Terms like "leftist" used as characterisation, equal to other terms used to suggest the nature of the right. Ignorance of authoritarian or libertarian positions, except when to hijack these terms to suggest which side is good and which is ill. Scraping the barrel, finding the loony statement from an non-expert, suggesting trouble on your side is from radical elements aligned to the other side. Suggesting a woke person who isn't woke enough is anti-woke and an anti-woke not against the woke enough is on the wrong side. Quote-mining and personal attacks are commonplace, as are other tools employed to cause confusion. The result, many on the left see the centre-right as fascism-lite and many on the right see the centre-left as diet-communism. And much of this ideological warfare, the pathetic work of characterisation, is lead by social media polemics. Who are not without value, yet they crow about victories and ignore or delete their defeats. They're professional victims when the conditions are suitable and the abusers when the war cry sounds. Often, the reality when fleshed out with all of the facts are far less controversial, and if expressed as-is, very few arguments of note would take place. The mask slips the most when there is no major news of note, when the hacks and ranters are forced to stretch the facts more than usual. Making mountains out of mole hills, creating attention and often profit out of wild misunderstandings.
American liberals can't tell good cops from evil action??
American
liberals can't tell good cops from evil action??
As far as the
US, are the good cops the bad cops, is racism institutional, are
there good solutions for violence and violence by police officers?
When
people say if a hundred good cops don't out a bad cop they're bad
too, what makes them think that cops, whether good or not, know if a
person they need to put their trust is actually bad?
Surely,
a bad cop wouldn't last long if they were a bad cop from day one and
often marked as a corrupt cop, and if involved in violence often, you
would find they wouldn't be likely to get promoted, might end up on
report, or even get fired if they are found to be in error. So the
good cops, they hear of a person they know, someone they've trusted
while on patrol or on a case, that that guy has been accused of an
illegal act. Such as going too far, leading to the death of someone
without enough provocation to call it defence, etc. In that
situation, you might think that that person has been accused
unfairly, he works hard, he seems down to earth, but turns out you
are wrong. And if you're wrong, you're wrong. You may have had years
of working with or near to a sound person who, while under pressure,
was acting out of character, maybe, kneed on a guys neck, and has
been found guilty of murder.
How many people who worked with or knew a cop, a cop they thought was a good cop, might have been shocked to know that such an action took place. Many "bad cops" have spotless careers until they fuck up. Very much like many criminals, including those involved in mass shootings at schools and the like.
It is almost like a greater problem of mental health is the bigger issue that overlaps with many subjects and present protections in the united states let some people through the net or that some instability isn't easily detectable. The result eventually being someone, somewhere, for some reason, snaps.
I
don't think the United States nor the Police forces are racist,
however, there is a problem within that seems to be poorly dealt
with. Cutting funding is the wrong choice, pulling back isn't a
helpful method, although I do admit that investment in communities is
key to lowering crime. The acts of racism by some cops, rare thought
it is, and other actions of unjustified force, are a problem that
requires some serious attention. Not that you can say that there is a
toxic racism that is everywhere in policing. Nor would I call it
logical to insist that average cops, good or not, are part of the
problem too. And liberal witch-hunts that ignore the lack of evidence
in some cases are far from helpful. Indeed, as far as BLM, there are
many people willing to react long before the facts are out, long
before an investigation takes place. And sadly, mainstream liberal
politicians are overly supportive of this thinking while poorly
organised for reform in how the rule of law is implemented.
The
problems go beyond the united states and their set of issues in some
cases and places, at some times. Every case should be treated as a
case by case issue unless their is reason to judge otherwise. For
example, if police in one area seem to be targeting black youths and
not simply trying to police a crime ridden area that happens to be
heavily populated by black people. The types of crimes and areas tend
to give an impression, just as I am sure that in a location dominated
by white people, the vast vast majority of criminals are likely to be
of European descent. And so on and so forth as far as areas dominated
by an Asian population. The complexity is when a city or district is
very mixed, and, sadly, gangs do throw any basic calculation off
beyond mere proportion of the population. And some communities admire
violence and alpha male status over that of hard work and honesty
when it comes to life's hardships. Obviously, the mentality is not
exclusive to people of sub-Saharan African descent. In fact, most
people of African ethnicity are not bound to such things, most
African Americans aren't trash. Enough people of every community or
culture or ethnicity, are in fact far from the best people in
society.
I
am reminded of some of the local white trash near my small Somerset
town, some people who seem to think they're above the law as they get
messed up on drugs or steal from average people, or try to fight the
police. It is very rare, yet if I said this without making this clear
you might imagine things are far worse. And if you have an handful of
street gang members in an inner-city, they're likely to be less than
1% of young males for that district, probably less. So no need to
characterise people beyond the reality. And often, of the people
killed by police in the US, it is petty criminals who are worried
about other issues. Such as not keeping up with actions they should
be up to date with, like seeing their parole officer or whatever the
case.
Imagine
if you had something on you, drugs or something, or you were behind
on payments you were ordered to pay by the courts. And you're scared
that this means the cops will throw you in a cell and the courts will
bang you up behind bars. If you were in that boat, you might try to
run or resist. And if you have a bunch of people around you, they
might try to make the cops back off. They might film it too. As they
probably should, even if often edited videos surface later online
singing a different tune. I'm thinking there are so many dimensions
to this subject that go far beyond simply saying police forces are a
racist organisation or may as well be, as some people seem to parrot.
Investment in the police, communities and mental health services is
likely to be a great way to deal the problem in real world terms.
Progressive entertainment.
A
first world problem. Companies creating comic book super heroes to
suit aims, insisting that the company is very diverse and inclusive.
The result in almost every case is something that has a hint of the
offensive characterisation to make a black super hero character.
Cliché and unoriginality are common, often simply creating a direct
rip off of an existing popular character. Praise is meant to be piled
upon such things, because you end up with a black-female ironman
clone with a poor black criminal clichéd template, a thing that can
be easily promoted for stance and quality can be ignored.
Old
news. Strong female character in a lead role, sold online as a first,
even if it is many years behind the actual first. Female this or
that, even better, or worse, first black-female this or that, firsts
counted over creative excellence. Studio choices in TV and film,
novels and comic book series, to promote a sense of progressive
values by rushing out, green lighting projects that make them the
first, or the first great success. Media coverage places great praise
on characters that are wooden and stories that have been done to
death. And stuff that might otherwise be called racial stereotypes is
accepted because you have a person in a role that means it would be
absurd to call them racist or sexist. Often, it is better to note the
lack of creativity, although, that opens you up for absurdity
yourself. Making it easy to call you a bigot for daring to critique a
film that many think of as social justice in action.
The
heart of the problem is that one or other avenue of creativity is
chosen, it is how forced such acts are, to say that they placed their
flag on the mountain. That kind of positive press, a prestige as a
legacy for opportunistic corporations. When they wish it, the
progressive media promote their work for free. Even if the
progressives are truly ignorant of if a thing is a first or not.
First black lead in star trek, scratch that. First female lead in
star trek, correct that. Correction after you get told that it wasn't
the case, first black-female lead, only realising error when readers
correct the authors who do no research. Often, they're too busy
preaching a first, or a great leap of a kind, instead of offering a
review. The narrative of the progressive media is praise without
insight, long drawn-out reviews that seem to read as "About-time"
stretched out to five hundred letters. The quality of the art is
placed on the back-burner, on a low heat, it never seems to boil over,
while the politics is often cooked up front and a little too fast.
Making the prepared dish seem like a combination of under cooked meat
and over cooked vegetables. Which can make it a little hard to
digest.
Tuesday, 19 January 2021
Thoughts on how racial-supremacists may think.
Thoughts
on how racial supremacists may think.
Often those with
notions of racial supremacy exhibit warning signs in their softness
on key historical characters. Describing a specific fascist leaders
as geniuses and misunderstood. They like to insist that they are part
of a higher group of people. They romance the idea of some historical
characters, they downplay their crimes against humanity, often admire
power and militarism. Maybe describing Hitler as a madman, but a
genius. Only suggesting the insanity because they are not
Germanic themselves or because Hitler failed, which they may regret. Other characters or leaders can be suggested by a variety of
ethnic groups as their symbol or their misunderstood mad-genius.
They
show extreme loyalty to a national and racial identity, personal and
group superiority. Claims of historical, genetic, racial, national
values, great virtues and morals, vast amounts of pride in things
they've had no part in. Ancient acts, myths and modern heroes are
considered evidence for their delusions of superiority. They are
often those who have done little and have few signs of deep human
value, yet they boost their self-esteem by waving flags, talking to
other delusionals.
Often they insist that
they're promoting the greater good, even non-religious supremacists
seem to have the idea that they are doing what must be done for a
greater good. Morally, they believe they can justify their goals,
even their potentially genocidal views. They're often those who have
painted history as their story, that of their people, and from the
dream of the past they seek to create that vision in the present.
Making the super-man a reality through a new order which would purge
the defects and perfect society around a strict ideological view of
race.
Their ideology and reality are often on different pages, their
efforts to force reality to obey their dream fails, but through
strict effort they throw resources at their goal. Historically, they
fails even when it seems to have won. As such things are unlikely to
be a stable force, it may be that it is unlikely that any power that
seeks to demote every other nation and people could not easily
maintain power and nothing lasts without end.
The cult of racial
supremacism lingers on, mostly in the minds of those fooled by the
idea that ethnic characteristics of one kind or another mark one
people are a master-race. And, to those who don't know better and are
swayed when told that they are a superman, the idea of being a giant
amongst ants a powerful idea. Much of this fundamentally linked to
excesses of ego. I cannot speak of those who think themselves to be
superior in totality, some carry some of these traits, some are
sympathetic but not serious supremacists. There are those who are
deeply ingrained in this kind of ideology and those who would be
likely to fall into line if such ideas became mainstream.
Given
lessons from history, when given a direction and a sense of
importance, otherwise moral characters can be converted to carry out
evil deeds.