The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Guardian]

So because on one or a few examples the whole thing needs redone? Is that what you are saying?

[Guardian]

It’s the assault and arrest of law abiding citizens that bothers me. And it’s the mindset of those that blindly support all police at all costs - even when there are equivocally some that have grossly abused and are abusing power literally right now.
Not the arrest of looters or people that are breaking the law. Lock em up.

Are you assuming they are being arrested vice detained? Both are legal.

[ThreeHoler]

I haven’t read the whole thread but the use of OCPs is to sell the narrative that the Democrat-controlled cities are “war zones.”


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

12 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

I haven’t read the whole thread but the use of OCPs is to sell the narrative that the Democrat-controlled cities are “war zones.”


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Which is I think a bad position to take. As stupid as I think the destruction is, painting your own citizens as a wartime enemy isn’t good. 
 

But I also see videos from Portland where people are using guerrilla tactics trying to burn down federal buildings. Clearly some people think the USG is the enemy. 

[di1630]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[di1630]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[busdriver]

19 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean...that's being extremely generous based on the types of activities they do. I mean some of the Proud Boys chanted, "Jews will not replace us!" in Charlottesville so 🤷‍♂️ Not the type of dudes I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to in the vein of, "Oh, we're reformed, etc. etc." after all the shit press from that event.

I didn't mean to imply they're wholesome, good dudes.  McInnes bailed partly because his joke got out of control, too many assholes were tagging along, and he got swept up into the mob mentality.

I was thinking more along the lines of the original motorcycle clubs, before they went full on organized crime.

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, brawnie said:

Legality =/= morality.

Cheers.

Are we to act on one’s own morality then, or within the law? Because there are plenty of things that different groups of people consider immoral that are legal. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by SurelySerious

[SurelySerious]

3 minutes ago, brawnie said:

When the lines are fuzzy it should be morality and constitutionality.

Legality entails the Constitution inherently, and working off of one’s own morality instead of said legality is vigilantism. If you think the laws are inadequate, you should probably consult your elected officials. 

[SurelySerious]

2 minutes ago, brawnie said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Morality vs legality. As an example, in many US states, the police can permanently seize your assets without charging you with a crime. I would argue that shouldn’t happen.

It’s never as clear cut as “the law says so,” and just because laws have loopholes and ways you can take advantage of them shouldnt give carte blanche authority for you, or me, or police to do so.

Cheers.

You can’t hold law enforcement accountable to your morality, only what is codified as law. If you think there is a disparity, you should lobby your elected representatives. 

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, brawnie said:

I as a human am entitled to say that I believe something is wrong. An argument that it is legal is a non-sequitur and not the point.

It’s not a non sequitur when you argue that law enforcement should be held accountable according to what you view as moral instead of what is codified as law. That was your entire argument 50 minutes ago. 
 

Sure, you can say what you want, but you didn’t merely say you thought it was wrong, you argued others should be held to what you view is wrong instead of what is in the law. It does indeed follow then that we are legally accountable to the law, and not to your thoughts. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by SurelySerious

[busdriver]

People follow the law for three reasons:

1. They believe the law is just

2. The are afraid of getting caught

3. It's just not worth it to fight back (minor nuisance)

At the end of the day, the state only has force as a tool to enforce laws.  If you aren't comfortable enforcing a law at gun point, it probably shouldn't be a law.  All the stupid laws only work when everyone agrees that they're good and just.  That requires a common culture of shared values.

[di1630]

Although, to be clear, there are innumerable accounts of illegal and unlawful abuses of power and authority that have been demonstrated over the last few months.

Name em.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Guardian]

I as a human am entitled to say that I believe something is wrong. An argument that it is legal is a non-sequitur and not the point.

An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world.

[Breckey]

The Lawfare Podcast had a good analysis of the legal justification for the DHS surveillance and federal response in Portland: lawful but awful. 

Quote

Responding to protesters vandalizing a federal courthouse is not what the DHS was created to do. The executive branches use of some isolated acts of vandalism against federal property and one assault on a US Marshall deputy as justification for effectively a massive federal response that now includes intelligence gathering on peaceful protesters who happen to be in the neighborhood with some vandals. 

[Guest nsplayr]

57 minutes ago, Guardian said:

An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world.

Are you sure about this?

[sixblades]

An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world.

Completely inaccurate... What’s your point? He shouldn’t be able to share his viewpoint? Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyingWolf]

18 minutes ago, sixblades said:

Completely inaccurate... What’s your point? He shouldn’t be able to share his viewpoint? Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Real question.... where else?

[Clark Griswold]

I'd like to file a micro-aggression complaint:

AP says it will capitalize Black but not white

To be fair or as some on this thread consider fair, not all parties in the current conversation / scream-fest think this is a good idea (article lists several black organizations that think this is a bad idea) but this is just an interesting window into the vain mind of the vanguards of woke.  

[Guardian]

Are you sure about this?

Yes

[Guardian]

Completely inaccurate... What’s your point? He shouldn’t be able to share his viewpoint? Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with? 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My point is that this is the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, any thing you say is legal. And that it is not the case anywhere else.  

Wasn’t implying he should or shouldn’t feel any particular way. Not sure how you would jump to that conclusion. Just read what I said and take it at face value.

If it’s in accurate then I ask you how or why is that the case? I don’t know of anywhere else where you can’t be fined, imprisoned, etc for speaking your mind.

 

[AirGuardianC141747]

Maybe it’s not the: “Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?“

But rather understand how these freedoms were established, why they were established and the sacrifices made to have these freedoms. I am no History Scholar by any means but it’s common sense. Cancel cancel culture as many nations have done this to other nations or it has come from within to overtake like a virus for the greater good or bad. Just a means of erasing the past to reset mindset. Destroy monuments, art, flags, books, eradicate nationals/citizens by the millions

Definitely don’t turn a blind eye, hence it’s your freedom to express yourself peacefully however that is defined seems to be the issue. 
Definitely don’t turn a blind eye - both sides have their limits on what is acceptable whatever that may be, but once that “line in the sand” is crossed the outcome hasn’t been good historically. So many opinions, so many answers it’s a match-lite situation.

Edited July 23, 2020 by AirGuardianC141747

[sixblades]

My point is that this is the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, any thing you say is legal. And that it is not the case anywhere else.  Wasn’t implying he should or shouldn’t feel any particular way. Not sure how you would jump to that conclusion. Just read what I said and take it at face value.
If it’s in accurate then I ask you how or why is that the case? I don’t know of anywhere else where you can’t be fined, imprisoned, etc for speaking your mind.
 

Yeah, I can see how what I wrote could look like an attack - not my intention.

I was trying to address the ideas that freedom of speech is unique to the US and that his freedom to express his viewpoint is only possible because he’s in the US. Like the US, most democratic nations legally protect freedom of speech. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but it’s the most succinct list I could quickly find addressing the topic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country). The big difference we see is the degree to which these countries espouse the value of freedom of speech at their founding as well as the lengths they go to establish and protect a free and independent press, and that’s the big plus the US, but not a unique characteristic.

I was just trying to to say that Individual freedom of expression is more widely protected than we may believe.

[SurelySerious]

6 hours ago, busdriver said:

People follow the law for three reasons:

1. They believe the law is just

2. The are afraid of getting caught

3. It's just not worth it to fight back (minor nuisance)

At the end of the day, the state only has force as a tool to enforce laws.  If you aren't comfortable enforcing a law at gun point, it probably shouldn't be a law.  All the stupid laws only work when everyone agrees that they're good and just.  That requires a common culture of shared values.

 

1 hour ago, brawnie said:

Brother, they are held accountable morally, whether you like it or not. Maybe not in a court of law, but you surely understand that really, when it comes down to it, right and wrong is defined by humanity - not by the US legal system. Maybe it’s too philosophical, but your actions actually are judged not just on legality, just as I’m judging the police not just on legality. E.g. you go cheat on your wife, I’ll judge you for it even though it’s not illegal.

With that being said, I believe the US legal system gets it mostly right, but my point is that when 50 cops resign from the Buffalo police department after cracking open the skull of a senior citizen because they were mad that they got “in trouble,” it’s not illegal. But it’s pathetic. And they are and should be judged for it.

Cheers, friend.

So the common ground of moral fabric generally dictates the laws of the government. Right now one grievance is improper/inappropriate/downright bad policing at various levels (local/state/federal), which aren’t meeting the expectations of many people. I thought at first glance Tim Scott’s (R) policing reform proposal from a few weeks ago looked like a good start, but the (D) wouldn’t even let it be debated from what I understand. So that makes me skeptical that the (D) party takes reform seriously.
 

Brawnie I think it was you who alluded earlier to something along the lines of a UCMJ for police to increase accountability. Since the organizations are so varied I’m not sure that’s practical, however it is currently very difficult to hold police accountable to a high standard against the laws that currently exist due to union arbitration agreements. Even when a policeman commits what would otherwise be a crime in some instances, due to the governmental agreement with the union the court is bound to the arbitration process instead of further legal action. Essentially sweeping things under the rug. 
 

I think reducing the power of these arbitration agreements in disciplinary actions when there is an allegation that amounts to a crime would be a step in the direction of holding people to a higher moral standard. As we in the military are subject to the UCMJ because we have been entrusted to do violence on behalf of the people against enemies in upholding the constitution, hold police truly accountable to existing laws since they are entrusted with using violence to protect and defend the people domestically.  
 

From where I sit, those with the biggest share to lose, if you will, are police unions in this push. Which party has police unions in its pocketbooks, and which party has recently not taken policing reform seriously via holding people accountable? (D). This is admittedly the conspiracy paragraph, but it’s plausible. 

[sixblades]

Maybe it’s not the: “Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?“
But rather understand how these freedoms were established, why they were established and the sacrifices made to have these freedoms. I am no History Scholar by any means but it’s common sense. Cancel cancel culture as many nations have done this to other nations or it has come from within to overtake like a virus for the greater good or bad. Just a means of erasing the past to reset mindset. Destroy monuments, art, flags, books, eradicate nationals/citizens by the millions
Definitely don’t turn a blind eye, hence it’s your freedom to express yourself peacefully however that is defined seems to be the issue. 
Definitely don’t turn a blind eye - both sides have their limits on what is acceptable whatever that may be, but once that “line in the sand” is crossed the outcome hasn’t been good historically. So many opinions, so many answers it’s a match-lite situation.

I think I get where you’re going, but I respectfully disagree with your notion that cancel culture leads to destruction of monuments, art, flags, etc. I can’t fundamentally get behind the idea that a group’s ethical or moral dissent equates to a harmful anti-cultural or ethnic cleansing movement. Cancel culture isn’t Nazi Germany. Cancel culture isn’t the Rwandan Genocide. Cancel culture isn’t The Crusades. Cancel culture is probably an overly misused, faddish approach to raising public awareness to highlight a topic.

I know you’re probably not saying what’s going on now is going to result in something as horrendous as a genocide, but the tough conversations and opposing viewpoints we’re seeing now, that some may consider synonymous with “cancel culture”, could in fact be a crazy idea not so different than women deserving equal rights (Equal Rights Act) or minorities deserving equal rights (Civil Rights Act), and are just difficult to grasp and support in the moment but is common sense in hindsight.

I believe few people exclusively want to destroy monuments, art, flags. Instead they want to have a conversation about why and how we celebrate these symbols and individuals. We don’t celebrate monuments of the kings or queens of England in our public squares so why do we do that for generals of the confederacy? If Milley, Goldfein, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs unsuccessfully tried to execute a coup d’etat next week I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be celebrating them 50+ years from now with public statues and buildings named after them. However, I wholeheartedly believe we would know about their background, accomplishments, and the history behind the events like everything else in US history. What you don’t hear is people asking for these historical artifacts and heraldry to be removed from museums. I don’t believe people want to rewrite history, they want to address who and what celebrate.

Historical context matters. The US has done some pretty f’d stuff over the years and people recognize that. Our civic and social leaders have supported things in the past that would be distasteful today and people recognize that. But when you decide to celebrate something that was contextually f’d up and/or distasteful both then and now, it’s not hard to understand why people would have issues that.