OT: and we wonder why there is so much anger.

User Forum Topic
Submitted by no_such_reality on July 22, 2016 - 5:19pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bullet-...

"Rivera called the officer who shot Charles Kinsey “decorated" and said he was a member of city’s SWAT team."

"Then, while Kinsey was lying supine with his hands in the air and the autistic man sat beside him, an officer fired three rounds from an assault rifle, according to North Miami police. One bullet found a target — Kinsey."

They claim they couldn't hear him, yet he is clearly audible on a cell phone video from further away.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 22, 2016 - 6:18pm.

i can understand the anger of the people targeted (or who feel unjustly targeted) by police. But what about the anger at the anger? It's a good time to be a sociologist/social scientist.

Submitted by svelte on July 22, 2016 - 10:29pm.

This is all a result of having so many cameras available in public now: cell phone, surveillance, etc.

Just 10 short years ago, the police would have said it was justified and created some sort of scenario to make their case. The general public would have believed it, since police are generally more trustworthy than the general public. Now, videos tell the real story.

Over the next 10-20 years, the whole environment will change. Police will be much more careful in how they apply force (as they should be), and the cameras will verify the situations where it was justified.

That's all a good thing. Things are getting better. It's just going to be a painful transition in the meantime.

Cameras are a good thing. It's gonna keep people honest - both police and citizens.

Submitted by harvey on July 23, 2016 - 7:53am.

The deeds themselves are shameful.

The entirely predictable collective self-righteous attempts at justifying the deeds are disgusting.

Common sense tells us that we've only seen a fraction of what really happens. And every time, every cop involved compromises their integrity to protect their own.

The definition of a coward is someone who protects themselves at the cost of others.

Until cops start holding other cops accountable for their misdeeds, they are all cowards in my view.

Submitted by zk on July 23, 2016 - 9:31am.

Let's assume for a second that the story the officer is telling is the truth. You have to figure that's the best case scenario for the officer. But if his story is true:

First of all, to think that the toy was a gun is ridiculous. I can see thinking a toy gun is a gun, but a toy car? Jesus.

And, B: If you really think the therapist is in trouble, you're going to shoot at the guy you think is the bad guy sitting there while the guy you're trying to "save" is in your line of fire?

Number 3, I read that he shot him with a rifle. You can't hit a 3-foot by 2-foot target with a rifle from 30 yards away? In 3 tries? You should never miss that target with that gun from that distance. You should be able to hit his left hand or his right thigh or whatever part you want from that distance with that gun.

D: And this is number 1, really: His reading of the whole situation was outrageously bad.

It's possible that he's telling the truth. But if he is, he's an extremely incompetent officer and should not be in that line of work.

Submitted by dumbrenter on July 23, 2016 - 9:40am.

zk wrote:
Let's assume for a second that the story the officer is telling is the truth. You have to figure that's the best case scenario for the officer. But if his story is true:

First of all, to think that the toy was a gun is ridiculous. I can see thinking a toy gun is a gun, but a toy car? Jesus.

And, B: If you really think the therapist is in trouble, you're going to shoot at the guy you think is the bad guy sitting there while the guy you're trying to "save" is in your line of fire?

Number 3, I read that he shot him with a rifle. You can't hit a 3-foot by 2-foot target with a rifle from 30 yards away? In 3 tries? You should never miss that target with that gun from that distance. You should be able to hit his left hand or his right thigh or whatever part you want from that distance with that gun.

D: And this is number 1, really: His reading of the whole situation was outrageously bad.

It's possible that he's telling the truth. But if he is, he's an extremely incompetent officer and should not be in that line of work.

And a really bad shot even by cop standards. How do they even manage to hire these people?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 23, 2016 - 9:42am.

harvey wrote:
The deeds themselves are shameful.

The entirely predictable collective self-righteous attempts at justifying the deeds are disgusting.

Common sense tells us that we've only seen a fraction of what really happens. And every time, every cop involved compromises their integrity to protect their own.

The definition of a coward is someone who protects themselves at the cost of others.

Until cops start holding other cops accountable for their misdeeds, they are all cowards in my view.

true bravery is putting yourself at risk for others. not just making it home safe.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 23, 2016 - 10:01am.

For sure cameras are bringing old habits to light. Now everyone has portable phone/camera. It won't be long before there are cameras are everywhere. Even cars will have front facing and rear facing cameras that record on a loop. Now we have proof of police abuse.

The question we have to ask ourselves is why a large portion of the population feels anger and resentment at this new knowledge of police abuse. Why do they try to minimize and justify it by pointing to what they feel are more pressing problems?

Sociologists must be busy doing research and writing papers.

Submitted by zk on July 23, 2016 - 10:08am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

The question we have to ask ourselves is why a large portion of the population feels anger and resentment at this new knowledge of police abuse. Why do they try to minimize and justify it by pointing to what they feel are more pressing problems?

That's easy. I can sum it up in 4 words: Right-wing noise machine. They've been brainwashed into thinking that the view of the world they want to be real (which includes most black people being the bad guys and all cops being the good guys) is reality. And humans get upset when their view of reality is challenged, especially if it's one they've invested a lot of emotional energy in. And they don't like to be wrong.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 23, 2016 - 12:15pm.

Very interesting ZK. I have a hard time figuring out how that squares ideologically in the minds of those people. Police abuse is government overreach to the extreme. If one cares about the constitution, one should never want the police to hold arbitrary powers over people.

Submitted by ocrenter on July 23, 2016 - 6:55pm.

svelte wrote:
This is all a result of having so many cameras available in public now: cell phone, surveillance, etc.

Just 10 short years ago, the police would have said it was justified and created some sort of scenario to make their case. The general public would have believed it, since police are generally more trustworthy than the general public. Now, videos tell the real story.

Over the next 10-20 years, the whole environment will change. Police will be much more careful in how they apply force (as they should be), and the cameras will verify the situations where it was justified.

That's all a good thing. Things are getting better. It's just going to be a painful transition in the meantime.

Cameras are a good thing. It's gonna keep people honest - both police and citizens.

Agree, +1

Submitted by ocrenter on July 23, 2016 - 7:00pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Very interesting ZK. I have a hard time figuring out how that squares ideologically in the minds of those people. Police abuse is government overreach to the extreme. If one cares about the constitution, one should never want the police to hold arbitrary powers over people.

Just authoritarianism using the flag and the constitution as cover for that authoritarian tendency.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11720276/do...

Submitted by njtosd on July 24, 2016 - 12:52am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
For sure cameras are bringing old habits to light. Now everyone has portable phone/camera. It won't be long before there are cameras are everywhere. Even cars will have front facing and rear facing cameras that record on a loop. Now we have proof of police abuse.

The question we have to ask ourselves is why a large portion of the population feels anger and resentment at this new knowledge of police abuse. Why do they try to minimize and justify it by pointing to what they feel are more pressing problems?

Sociologists must be busy doing research and writing papers.

Who is pointing to these more pressing problems? Everything that I've heard suggests that these instances of abuse are investigated pretty thoroughly.

Submitted by njtosd on July 24, 2016 - 1:19am.

zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:

The question we have to ask ourselves is why a large portion of the population feels anger and resentment at this new knowledge of police abuse. Why do they try to minimize and justify it by pointing to what they feel are more pressing problems?

That's easy. I can sum it up in 4 words: Right-wing noise machine. They've been brainwashed into thinking that the view of the world they want to be real (which includes most black people being the bad guys and all cops being the good guys) is reality. And humans get upset when their view of reality is challenged, especially if it's one they've invested a lot of emotional energy in. And they don't like to be wrong.

You realize that your answer can be condensed somewhat: Those other guys (who are totally weak minded and prejudiced) are causing this "minimizing" (although no data has been supplied that suggests that any "minimizing" has happened). In other words, even theoretical issues are "the other guy's fault".

When are people going to accept that others can disagree with them politically without being stupid racists (conservatives) or hypocritical narcissists (liberals)? And frankly - I agree that conservatives don't like to be wrong. Neither do liberals. Do you know anyone, zk, who likes to be wrong? There is equal jerkish behavior on both sides of the political fence - it just bugs you more when you don't agree with the jerk's politics.

I don't like the behavior that a lot of these police officers have been accused of. . But when did a virtual jury of the Internet replace a careful and thorough investigation? Police behaving badly makes great copy for the news networks, but there is a reason we pay people to conduct careful investigations before we decide to prosecute.

Submitted by outtamojo on July 24, 2016 - 3:37am.

Do they always conduct careful investigations? Are there no loopholes?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-...

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/enha...

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 24, 2016 - 7:46am.

njtosd wrote:
zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:

The question we have to ask ourselves is why a large portion of the population feels anger and resentment at this new knowledge of police abuse. Why do they try to minimize and justify it by pointing to what they feel are more pressing problems?

That's easy. I can sum it up in 4 words: Right-wing noise machine. They've been brainwashed into thinking that the view of the world they want to be real (which includes most black people being the bad guys and all cops being the good guys) is reality. And humans get upset when their view of reality is challenged, especially if it's one they've invested a lot of emotional energy in. And they don't like to be wrong.

You realize that your answer can be condensed somewhat: Those other guys (who are totally weak minded and prejudiced) are causing this "minimizing" (although no data has been supplied that suggests that any "minimizing" has happened). In other words, even theoretical issues are "the other guy's fault".

When are people going to accept that others can disagree with them politically without being stupid racists (conservatives) or hypocritical narcissists (liberals)? And frankly - I agree that conservatives don't like to be wrong. Neither do liberals. Do you know anyone, zk, who likes to be wrong? There is equal jerkish behavior on both sides of the political fence - it just bugs you more when you don't agree with the jerk's politics.

I don't like the behavior that a lot of these police officers have been accused of. . But when did a virtual jury of the Internet replace a careful and thorough investigation? Police behaving badly makes great copy for the news networks, but there is a reason we pay people to conduct careful investigations before we decide to prosecute.

public opinion moves the law, from the united states supreme ct down to the lowly line prosecutor decision to prosecute.

gay marriage could not have been legal in 1986...but it is in 2016. the constitutions text is the same. pay is similar.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 24, 2016 - 8:14am.

i dont mind being wrong in matters of opinion..

not in situations involving money, or important exams, or situations where being right matters in an objective way...but just "being wrong" on an opinion is, well, kind of exciting, especially if it is unexpected.

the only really firmly held position i would refuse to give up is that my ability to know is very very limited.

also, a corollary...you can be right, or you can be married but you cant be both.

Submitted by zk on July 24, 2016 - 8:31am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Very interesting ZK. I have a hard time figuring out how that squares ideologically in the minds of those people. Police abuse is government overreach to the extreme. If one cares about the constitution, one should never want the police to hold arbitrary powers over people.

Squares? Are you kidding? They don't square anything in their minds. If you've been emotionally manipulated, things like facts and squaring cease to matter.

Submitted by zk on July 24, 2016 - 8:39am.

njtosd wrote:

Do you know anyone, zk, who likes to be wrong? There is equal jerkish behavior on both sides of the political fence - it just bugs you more when you don't agree with the jerk's politics.

No, nobody likes to be wrong. That was my point.

And I don't disagree with their politics as much as you probably think. I have many views that are right of center.

What bugs me is that this massive apparatus, the right-wing noise machine, is set up to manipulate them. If there were a left-wing noise machine that continually and powerfully and pervasively, ubiquitously, even, tried to manipulate those who lean left, that would bug me just as much.

What I would like is for there to be less emotional manipulation going on. People being told how to feel and then feeling that way. Never mind how to think; thinking, unfortunately, doesn't even enter into it.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 24, 2016 - 9:25am.

society is a noise machine.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 24, 2016 - 10:03am.

scaredyclassic wrote:
i dont mind being wrong in matters of opinion..

not in situations involving money, or important exams, or situations where being right matters in an objective way...but just "being wrong" on an opinion is, well, kind of exciting, especially if it is unexpected.

the only really firmly held position i would refuse to give up is that my ability to know is very very limited.

also, a corollary...you can be right, or you can be married but you cant be both.

You are my soul mate, scaredy. And you have that ability to say things beautifully in few words.

I'm not married because I'm always right. Haha.. Even about interior design. I need to marry an architect who can reason with me

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 24, 2016 - 10:20am.

Njtosd, no there is not "equal jerkish behavior on both sides". There is assymetry and as Paul Krugman said the truth is not equidistant from either side.

Someone right here said what about black on black crime. It's a way to minimize, deflect, and say let's deal with the "real" issues first.

i read an article in the Federalist the argues conservative are soft on police abuse because they believe it's needed to deal with the bad elements. The argument goes police work is hard, officers face dangerous situations, so let's forgive the lapses. Afterall the police protect us good guys from bad guys.

Submitted by zk on July 24, 2016 - 5:01pm.

zk wrote:

What I would like is for there to be less emotional manipulation going on. People being told how to feel and then feeling that way. Never mind how to think; thinking, unfortunately, doesn't even enter into it.

Of course, this emotional manipulation has been going on since humans have been humans (at least). What could be (but isn't and won't be) different is that, now, most people have almost unlimited access to the same facts and other information as almost everybody else. We don't have the same excuse to not understand what's really happening as the serf in the field being told by his lord what the deal is.

Silly me, when the internet started to get big, I thought it would usher in a new era of enlightenment, all over (or almost all over) the world. How utterly naive that thought was. It's done the opposite. And the reason it's done the opposite is that it afforded a greater opportunity to emotionally manipulate people, and human beings are not only easily emotionally manipulated, they want to be told how to feel. They want to be led around by their amygdalas and put into boxes. They like their well-defined little boxes where they "know" what's what. They don't want to have to think or analyze or evaluate or use logic or reason or facts or evidence. That's all too much work or too nebulous or too scary or too lacking in certainty.

That's very disappointing to me. And I guess it's why I hate the right-wing noise machine so much. It's shown me a lot about human nature, and I don't like what I see.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 24, 2016 - 5:20pm.

1st time in the flotation tank today in miramar. weird.

as i wss getting on the freeway, i was driving a little slow and some guy was going crazy honking and giving me the finger.

angry world. my mind was still all tank calmed.

Submitted by zk on July 24, 2016 - 6:49pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
1st time in the flotation tank today in miramar. weird.

as i wss getting on the freeway, i was driving a little slow and some guy was going crazy honking and giving me the finger.

angry world. my mind was still all tank calmed.

I've always wanted to try that. I wonder how different it is from land-bound meditating.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 24, 2016 - 7:52pm.

zk wrote:
scaredyclassic wrote:
1st time in the flotation tank today in miramar. weird.

as i wss getting on the freeway, i was driving a little slow and some guy was going crazy honking and giving me the finger.

angry world. my mind was still all tank calmed.

I've always wanted to try that. I wonder how different it is from land-bound meditating.

not sure.

its very very very dark.
youre naked, floating.
its quiet.

Submitted by spdrun on July 24, 2016 - 8:22pm.

You think you can trust the government to investigate itself impartially? LOL.

There might be jerkish behavior on both sides, but guess what? Cops are paid to be professionals, and put their safety on the line to protect the public. Not shoot first or use physical force first and ask questions later.

The way things are now, if I have kids (G-d willing), they're likely to be a shade or three darker than me. I'd hate to think they'd be at risk of violence from their own government because of the skin color they'd be born with.

When are people going to accept that others can disagree with them politically without being stupid racists (conservatives) or hypocritical narcissists (liberals)? And frankly - I agree that conservatives don't like to be wrong. Neither do liberals. Do you know anyone, zk, who likes to be wrong? There is equal jerkish behavior on both sides of the political fence - it just bugs you more when you don't agree with the jerk's politics.

I don't like the behavior that a lot of these police officers have been accused of. . But when did a virtual jury of the Internet replace a careful and thorough investigation? Police behaving badly makes great copy for the news networks, but there is a reason we pay people to conduct careful investigations before we decide to prosecute.

Submitted by njtosd on July 24, 2016 - 10:59pm.

zk wrote:
njtosd wrote:

Do you know anyone, zk, who likes to be wrong? There is equal jerkish behavior on both sides of the political fence - it just bugs you more when you don't agree with the jerk's politics.

No, nobody likes to be wrong. That was my point.

And I don't disagree with their politics as much as you probably think. I have many views that are right of center.

What bugs me is that this massive apparatus, the right-wing noise machine, is set up to manipulate them. If there were a left-wing noise machine that continually and powerfully and pervasively, ubiquitously, even, tried to manipulate those who lean left, that would bug me just as much.

What I would like is for there to be less emotional manipulation going on. People being told how to feel and then feeling that way. Never mind how to think; thinking, unfortunately, doesn't even enter into it.

I believe that both sides have massive noise machines designed to encourage the "manipulatees" to make political donations. You can't be a hero if there isn't a crisis. I have pointed out in other posts that people's politics have been shown to have a genetic and perhaps biochemical basis. For example: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...

And I see the ongoing political debate as something similar to a cat arguing with a rabbit about whether meat is better than grass. The two sides see the world very differently. And I believe the rabbit and the cat both believe the other is stupid for its preferences and that if they could just express things the right way, that stupid rabbit/cat will see the light. Plus it's fun to feel smug and trade stories with other cats/rabbits about the absolute obliviousness and/or moral depravity of the other group. It's as old as the hills. Doesn't anyone see it?

Submitted by zk on July 25, 2016 - 8:40am.

njtosd wrote:

I believe that both sides have massive noise machines designed to encourage the "manipulatees" to make political donations.

The vast majority of Americans don't make political donations at all. So, if such apparatus exist, they're not working.

The right-wing noise machine creates an echo chamber large and loud enough that one who subscribes to it can get the impression that the whole world agrees with his views. Any such apparatus on the left is dwarfed by that on the right. Unless you've been duped into thinking that the mainstream media is liberally biased. That ruse, as I've said on this forum before, is one of the most brilliant strokes of propaganda in the history of American propaganda.

Submitted by harvey on July 25, 2016 - 9:24am.

zk wrote:
That ruse, as I've said on this forum before, is one of the most brilliant strokes of propaganda in the history of American propaganda.

Absolutely.

Ironically it was information technology that enabled the ignorance. It started with cable television in the 1980s. With effectively unlimited TV channels piped into every home in America, big media could customize channels to particular viewpoints. Viewers only watched the news channels that reported what they wanted to hear. Journalists no longer had to be balanced to reach a broad audience.

And then the internet took it many steps further.

Fox News, Limbaugh and the rest saw this opportunity and capitalized on it, big time.

Brilliant and sinister.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 25, 2016 - 12:38pm.

Njtosd, I assume the genetics work the same in communist countries where being communist is considered conservative.

Genes are not conservartve or liberal. It's believe people's inate inclinations are to be fearing of change, or embracing of change.

People who are tolerant of police abuse see it as a necessary law and order measure. They rationalize it as not evil because the abuse is directed as those they consider evil. They see all the video recordings of police abuse as upsetting the status quo and therefore a danger to their place in society.

Those same people are ok with torturing suspected terrorists or profiling Muslims. They are ok with prohibiting gay marriage or even banning gays altogether as if it would work. Resistant to change and authoritarian in protecting the status quo.

There is no moral equivalence between conservatism (resistant to change) and liberalism (embracing of change). Sure, conversatives are free to advocate pragmatism, but they are not morally upright, and becoming less and less so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.