Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 388: Ashley Madison Cawthorn

(+) Yeah! (+)

masterplum posted...

But what does this even mean? Is being a boy actually better? I feel like there is an argument that makes people think that boys are getting guns and body armor which is worse than a man.

I just don't see why people are upset over this. The language is different but I don't know if it means anything.

Also that tony tweet is weird as hell.

Dude I posted the article about why it matters

Jakyl25 posted...

Dude I posted the article about why it matters

But what is the the "so what"

So suppose black people are viewed to be older, how is that relevant or noteworthy in this context? If he was 17 instead of 18 would that change the narative about a neo nazi buying guns to commit terrorism?

masterplum posted...

But what is the the "so what"

So suppose black people are viewed to be older, how is that relevant or noteworthy in this context? If he was 17 instead of 18 would that change the narative about a neo nazi buying guns to commit terrorism?

One is an adult capable of owning his actions

One is a child who shouldn't have to own his actions.

In terms of language used.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

One is an adult capable of owning his actions

One is a child who shouldn't have to own his actions.

In terms of language used.

But it also has other conotations

One is an adult who we can't control because society says that person is now able to fend for themselves
The other is a child who should have been protected meaning proper safe guards should be enacted to prevent it in the future

If you were a gun control advocate, I would think a teenager committing a shooting would do more to bolster your cause than an adult, so being upset over this is nonsensical to begin with

Plum, which of these makes the police look worse?

"Police shot and killed an unarmed man."

OR

"Police shot and killed an unarmed boy."

Inviso posted...

Plum, which of these makes the police look worse?

"Police shot and killed an unarmed man."

OR

"Police shot and killed an unarmed boy."

In that context it absolutely would be a problem to label an 18 year old differently based on race

But that isn't what happened

masterplum posted...

But it also has other conotations

One is an adult who we can't control because society says that person is now able to fend for themselves
The other is a child who should have been protected meaning proper safe guards should be enacted to prevent it in the future

If you were a gun control advocate, I would think a teenager committing a shooting would do more to bolster your cause than an adult, so being upset over this is nonsensical to begin with

Gosh bud, I think sometimes you willfully miss the nuance of things like this. All you need do I'd see the narrative difference between people of color and white people in our country to know this is just an example of a systemic problem that has far reaching and horrific consequences at times.

A white 18-year-old is a kid (perhaps a troubled or misguided kid, depending on the crime they committed). A black 18-year-old is scary and a potential threat to the carefully cultivated safety of America's suburbs. This is the philosophy that a simple difference in semantics like in those articles is perpetuating. Anyone with their eyes open can see it.

masterplum posted...

One is an adult who we can't control because society says that person is now able to fend for themselves
The other is a child who should have been protected

Yes, and this perception is starkly unfair toward the black person, glad you're acknowle

masterplum posted...

If you were a gun control advocate, I would think a teenager committing a shooting would do more to bolster your cause than an adult, so being upset over this is nonsensical to begin with

Jesus fucking Christ

masterplum posted...

In that context it absolutely would be a problem to label an 18 year old differently based on race

But that isn't what happened

Here's another question then. Which of the following descriptions is a softer portrayal in terms of how reader/viewer/listener feels about the person in question and their actions?

"The killer was an adult man."

OR

"The killer was a teenaged boy."

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Gosh bud, I think sometimes you willfully miss the nuance of things like this. All you need do I'd see the narrative difference between people of color and white people in our country to know this is just an example of a systemic problem that has far reaching and horrific consequences at times.

If anything I see it more nuanced. Police shooting a black man and a white man committing terrorism are two entirely different events, and all sorts of societal factors are going to impact the language of a reporter talking about them.

Were those articles even the same author and time period?

Inviso posted...

Here's another question then. Which of the following descriptions is a softer portrayal in terms of how reader/viewer/listener feels about the person in question and their actions?

"The killer was an adult man."

OR

"The killer was a teenaged boy."

Adult man?

But that assumes the news story is the killer, Most articles I have read have had the lead of the 10 people killed, which makes the killer additional details which changes the readers perception.

It probably doesn't help that I discuss rhetoric quite a bit with my spouse who teaches high school rhetoric classes so the nuances of these sort of things are especially apparent to me so it bothers me when people make blanket statements about them

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Anyone with their eyes open can see it.

And this is why my first thought was that Plum was bad faith pretending here.

He should know better.

If he doesn't, then just start treating him like a child, because he clearly wants that at this point.

masterplum posted...

In that context it absolutely would be a problem to label an 18 year old differently based on race

But that isn't what happened

But it happens all the time. That's the whole point. This is ANOTHER example of how the media portrays people differently based on race, not the only example.

StealThisSheen posted...

the media

One dude who wrote an AP article that got rewritten hours later is as much "The Media" as when Republicans say "The media" is out to get them.

The fact that it got redacted and reposted shows people are trying to improve

Hey, maybe the specific white boys who commit crimes just deserve more sympathy than black men who commit similar crimes? It's not racism, maybe literally every example of this is just because the white boys are better people in the first place. Why would the media portray individual black men as worse if they didn't all happen to deserve it for non-race related reasons?

Sorry, I've just heard this argument from people who do believe it too many times.

masterplum posted...

One dude who wrote an AP article that got rewritten hours later is as much "The Media" as when Republicans say "The media" is out to get them.

The fact that it got redacted and reposted shows people are trying to improve

So I see you're sticking with the "it never happens this is only one occurrence" bit, huh

You're not even trying to pretend you argue in good faith anymore.

masterplum posted...

Adult man?

But that assumes the news story is the killer, Most articles I have read have had the lead of the 10 people killed, which makes the killer additional details which changes the readers perception.

It probably doesn't help that I discuss rhetoric quite a bit with my spouse who teaches high school rhetoric classes so the nuances of these sort of things are especially apparent to me so it bothers me when people make blanket statements about them

Yeah, at this point you're being willfully obtuse if you're going to die on the hill of "being called a teenager is actually worse for a killer than being called an adult". Even in your earlier example, look at your own words:

"One is an adult who we can't control because society says that person is now able to fend for themselves
The other is a child who should have been protected meaning proper safe guards should be enacted to prevent it in the future"

According to you, we can't control an adult, while a child should have been protected. The latter infantilizes the mass murderer and makes it seem like he's a victim in his own right.

The whole reason for this wording debate is to point out how the black VICTIM of an act of violence is called a "man", which is an inherently more threatening term than "boy", thus making the violence against him seem more justified by comparison. Meanwhile, the white PERPETRATOR of an act of violence is called a "boy", which makes him come across as less rational and less in-control of his own actions, thus his actions, however horrific and heinous, can be downplayed.

I just completely disagree with your assertion that a boy committing a mass terrorism attack is less horrific.

If it was committed by a 13 year old would it really be better?

This isnt an alleged self defense or police violence situation where you could argue the age matters at all. He killed 10 people. At 18 thats horrific. At 13 that is arguably more horrific, but certainly isnt so less horrific we should accuse the media of having a bias because of one redacted AP headline

masterplum posted...

I just completely disagree with your assertion that a boy committing a mass terrorism attack is less horrific.

If it was committed by a 13 year old would it really be better?

This isnt an alleged self defense or police violence situation where you could argue the age matters at all. He killed 10 people. At 18 thats horrific. At 13 that is arguably more horrific, but certainly isnt so less horrific we should accuse the media of having a bias because of one redacted AP headline

It isn't that the reality is true. It is how it is a very clear pattern for media to paint white killers in general with more sympathy than minorities. The fact you can sit here and think this is about one article is absurd.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

It isn't that the reality is true. It is how it is a very clear pattern for media to paint white killers in general with more sympathy than minorities. The fact you can sit here and think this is about one article is absurd.

I think we are arguing two different things here then, because I dont disagree this happens and is a problem. I was uncomfortable with people generalizing this one specific article into that existing problem.

masterplum posted...

I think we are arguing two different things here then, because I dont disagree this happens and is a problem. I was uncomfortable with people generalizing this one specific article into that existing problem.

It's kind of like seeing a part of a trend and sighing at yet another example. We are also all bracing for tucker Carlson's spin on this tomorrow tbh.

But yeah it wasn't about the article itself. If it wasn't part of a trend no one would care.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

It's kind of like seeing a part of a trend and sighing at yet another example. We are also all bracing for tucker Carlson's spin on this tomorrow tbh.

But yeah it wasn't about the article itself. If it wasn't part of a trend no one would care.

Fair

masterplum posted...

I just completely disagree with your assertion that a boy committing a mass terrorism attack is less horrific.

If it was committed by a 13 year old would it really be better?

This isnt an alleged self defense or police violence situation where you could argue the age matters at all. He killed 10 people. At 18 thats horrific. At 13 that is arguably more horrific, but certainly isnt so less horrific we should accuse the media of having a bias because of one redacted AP headline

The act would be horrific if it was committed by a thirteen-year-old just as if it's committed by a fully-grown adult. But the younger the killer, the more inherent sympathy is afforded by society for the killer. I'm not saying anyone is going out there like "oh my God, that poor kid who shot and killed ten people". But there's a subconscious reaction to hearing a killer called a boy as opposed to a man: a man is inherently a threat and took his actions, fully aware of what he was doing; a boy is too immature to understand what he's doing.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Look if they actually police union busted and actually increased accountability I wouldn't care how much money they gave them. Buuuut... they don't do that so giving them more money isn't going to work!

Well, the people most vocal about police reform are also brain washed union stans that don't understand that unions have no point in 2022 besides stopping companies from firing the most inept and useless employees, so yes, that is something that will never happen.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Well, the people most vocal about police reform are also brain washed union stans that don't understand that unions have no point in 2022 besides stopping companies from firing the most inept and useless employees, so yes, that is something that will never happen.

Police unions are not the same as labor unions, @PrivateBiscuit1 sicc him

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

They can allocate funds for the police elsewhere. They already have entirely too much money that's spend on bullshit they don't need. But none of this matters because Joe Biden had no intent to change anything about cops as they are, and he won't do anything to actually tangibly change it.

And shoveling more money at them won't fix anything if they can't make it work with the exorbitant amount of money they have. If you think the money wouldn't be completely misused then I don't know what to tell you. But as always, the police union is the major issue and nothing changes until they force changes on their reach.

There is literally no reason to give cops MORE money.

While I agree that the hilarious over equipping of police in the US with military surplus is stupid on so many levels, at the same time, the thing we need is more cops with more accountability, not less cops and a bunch of useless "psyche 101" students trying to provide "mental health services" to hardened and violent criminals.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Police unions are not the same as labor unions, @PrivateBiscuit1 sicc him

LOL

Here we go with some likely "No true Scotsman" garbage

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

LOL

Here we go with some likely "No true Scotsman" garbage

No black turtle it is about power dynamics. Police enforce laws labor unions are subject to to them. I know everyone hates you but I am trying my best to be good especially to people who enjoy health care. The history of police unions and labor unions is vastly different. Come on, try to be better

Also, 2 pages of people arguing about the arbitrary "teenager" versus "young adult" use in a single media article instead of questioning why the US is the only country in the world that has a problem with constant, never-ending mass shootings?

This isn't even an issue of white supremacy, since only a portion of these mass murders are done by supremacists. Leftists using these situations to push idpol arguments are almost as bad as the right wingers that use the same situations to argue for even MORE relaxing of gun laws. The root of this problem is guns. Guns. Guns. Full stop, end of sentence. Guns. Why is it that an 18 year old psychopath can just walk over to his local Walmart and pick up extremely lethal weapons? If you found a way to magically wish away racism and white supremacists tomorrow, it still doesn't solve the root issue at play here.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

No black turtle it is about power dynamics. Police enforce laws labor unions are subject to to them. I know everyone hates you but I am trying my best to be good especially to people who enjoy health care. The history of police unions and labor unions is vastly different. Come on, try to be better

I see no points here that differentiate police unions from every other union, besides the fact that them being the exact same thing doesn't "fit your narrative". Have you ever worked for a union?

Hey Black Turtle, what's your opinion on forgiving student debt?

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

I see no points here that differentiate police unions from every other union, besides the fact that them being the exact same thing doesn't "fit your narrative". Have you ever worked for a union?

I have not and I agree some policies in some unions aren't great. But also without unions I'm the US we wouldn't have a third of our labor laws. Unions are not perfect but their erosion in the US (which is also a difference. Labor unions have weakened while police unions have grown stronger) has led to horrible workers conditions and wage stagnation.

I think it is a terrible idea that opens a pandora's box of every financially irresponsible person making arguments for why their car/home/credit card/gambling debts should also be forgiven. There is a huge problem with the fact that colleges are allowed to charge so much for tuition which should be looked at and fixed, but at the end of the day, if you are going to school for a major that has zero job prospects, and you don't have a way to pay back the loans, you shouldn't be taking them out. I don't see why the people who paid their debts, used their degree to get a good job and pay taxes, have to be punished because someone signed up for a 4 year philosophy degree at an out of state school, partied for 2 years then dropped out to work a minimum wage job.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I have not and I agree some policies in some unions aren't great. But also without unions I'm the US we wouldn't have a third of our labor laws. Unions are not perfect but their erosion in the US (which is also a difference. Labor unions have weakened while police unions have grown stronger) has led to horrible workers conditions and wage stagnation.

Labour unions have weakened because the things they fought for and achieved have been codified into laws and regulations. I am 100% on board with the work unions did from the 1900s to the 1960s or so in terms of worker safety, working standards, etc. My point is that in 2022, with all of these things handled by the government and legal system, labour unions don't serve a purpose anymore. You could make the argument that they are needed to push back against corporate interests eroding the labour laws that are currently in place, but I think the better approach is to protest those attempts, and if they succeed bring back labour unions. Why should people be forced to pay union dues so that the 90% of the workforce are forced to cover for the laziest 10%?

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

LOL

Here we go with some likely "No true Scotsman" garbage

Normal work unions are designed to protect workers from the predatory practices of their employers/superiors.

Police have no employers/superiors to need to be protected from. They ARE their own boss. Thus, in practice, all a police union does is fight to keep them from being held accountable in court/etc. for their actions.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Labour unions have weakened because the things they fought for and achieved have been codified into laws and regulations. I am 100% on board with the work unions did from the 1900s to the 1960s or so in terms of worker safety, working standards, etc. My point is that in 2022, with all of these things handled by the government and legal system, labour unions don't serve a purpose anymore. You could make the argument that they are needed to push back against corporate interests eroding the labour laws that are currently in place, but I think the better approach is to protest those attempts, and if they succeed bring back labour unions. Why should people be forced to pay union dues so that the 90% of the workforce are forced to cover for the laziest 10%?

What are your thoughts on wage stagnation with no end in sight? Also there can be unions that don't protect outright bad employees. It is a harsh reality in my country that the wealth gasp is crippling and the ability to collectively bargain has to be a part of that. I would hope that any decent union could gain more money for its employees than union dues owed after all. I feel as if not every union is designed around keeping every bad employee.

StealThisSheen posted...

Normal work unions are designed to protect workers from the predatory practices of their employers/superiors.

Police have no employers/superiors to need to be protected from. They ARE their own boss. Thus, in practice, all a police union does is fight to keep them from being held accountable in court/etc. for their actions.

This is false on a bunch of levels. The "employer/superiors" of the police are the government. Ultimately the employers/superiors of the government are the people. Police unions protect individual officers who are garbage/incompetent at their jobs from facing any of the consequences that should fall on them. I truly feel if organizations like BLM focused on this point (along with stringent body cam regulations), they would have found far more support. Instead they pushed a nebulous and nonsensical "defund the police" narrative that was further confused by other groups pushing for "more mental health psychology majors" and less armed/trained officers.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

This is false on a bunch of levels. The "employer/superiors" of the police are the government. Ultimately the employers/superiors of the government are the people.

Which, I'm sure, if you use your noggin, you'll see how that greatly differs from actually having a direct boss/superior that directly controls every day of your working life.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

What are your thoughts on wage stagnation with no end in sight? Also there can be unions that don't protect outright bad employees. It is a harsh reality in my country that the wealth gasp is crippling and the ability to collectively bargain has to be a part of that. I would hope that any decent union could gain more money for its employees than union dues owed after all. I feel as if not every union is designed around keeping every bad employee.

Wage stagnation is a proven fact, there is no argument there. Unions are not the solution. There is no easy solution here as the correct one would be to have all western countries agree to corporate taxation that eliminates tax havens and loop holes. The problem there is places like Ireland/Luxembourg/Isle of Man etc. make an absolute killing by offering low tax rates, money that they otherwise would not have.

In a perfect world, closing corporate tax loopholes, adding in higher taxation for capital gains/income over a certain level, and implementing a minimum wage that is tied to the rate of inflation are the solutions to wage stagnation.

While we're at it we need to add to every high school curriculum and explanation of how the financial system works, including an explanation about how Elon Musk doesn't actually have "eleventy bajillion dollars" because I find a lot of the people that push for these policies get so bogged down in complete ignorance that they do their arguments a huge disservice.

StealThisSheen posted...

Which, I'm sure, if you use your noggin, you'll see how that greatly differs from actually having a direct boss/superior that directly controls every day of your working life.

Explain how so? Any time a case of police incompetence gets enough mainstream attention, the hammer absolutely gets brought down on them, sometimes to levels that don't make sense given the crime committed. The BLM riots, Jan 6 riot and all the "trucker convoys" over the last 2 years have show that the police are very much scared of people "rising up"

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Explain how so? Any time a case of police incompetence gets enough mainstream attention, the hammer absolutely gets brought down on them, sometimes to levels that don't make sense given the crime committed. The BLM riots, Jan 6 riot and all the "trucker convoys" over the last 2 years have show that the police are very much scared of people "rising up"

Pfft. It took Derek Chauvin kneeling on a man's neck for almost nine minutes, AND the whole incident being recorded, live, before one of the most clear-cut instances of police misconduct was actually punished in a proper fashion. Most of the time this shit happens, there's a defense force claiming "he feared for his life, fair, next" or finding some reason why the victim deserved to die for some misdemeanor.

The reason a police union is different is spelled out in your own explanation. In a labor union, the management holds greater power than the employees, so it benefits the employees to unionize to protect themselves from mistreatment (either in terms of having wages kept artificially low, or being retaliated against for non-offenses). But with a police union, the boss is the government, who are appointed by the people, so the police union is a defense against the people...which would be fine, except the very nature of police gives them inherent power over the common populace. So effectively, the police have more power than the people in doing their job, AND they have more power than the people in terms of accountability.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Explain how so? Any time a case of police incompetence gets enough mainstream attention, the hammer absolutely gets brought down on them, sometimes to levels that don't make sense given the crime committed. The BLM riots, Jan 6 riot and all the "trucker convoys" over the last 2 years have show that the police are very much scared of people "rising up"

Literally none of that has anything to actually do with what a police union does, other than a police union fighting to keep incompetent police from seeing any kind of consequences.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Any time a case of police incompetence gets enough mainstream attention, the hammer absolutely gets brought down on them

Just one of the most unbelievably incorrect statements I've ever seen in this topic

Hopefully things have changed post-George Floyd, but jesus christ how can you be so wrong about all the years before that

I mean everyone is taking care of this for me, but I can't even touch the outrageous claim that "any time a case of police incompetence gets mainstream attention, the hammer gets brought down on them" like homie do you realize how much cops fuck up and get protected that you don't even hear about? How about the amount of corruption that happens with cops, or just outright unfairness or brutality? If it gets mainstream attention nowadays, it's because it's recorded. Like dude. I can't.

Aside from that, the only other thing I'll chime in about police unions is that they use their money to help politicians get elected, who then in turn work with them to decide how cops are regulated (i.e., incredibly poorly). Politicians are incentivized to give in to whatever police unions demand, and if they pledge not to then they lose out on the police union backing and money.

It's a broken fucking system. Only Washington D.C. has done anything about the contracts to disallow union tampering when it comes to misconduct.

Most of the police brutality/incompetence that gets mainstream attention doesn't even end in punishment for the cops anyway

Your first point seems to miss the entire gist of my point, which is that the cases that get enough public attention are the ones that get dealt with. Obviously there are cases that happen that we aren't aware of, noone is arguing that.

The second point is also silly, since all labour unions are heavy political donors, which is another great reason why they are a blight

People get hung up on the semantics that the left is pro-union

No, the left is pro-organized labor. The police arent labor. If there was a nationwide state senators union wed be against that too.

Sure, Black Turtle, in your utopia you outlined, where the governments actually always looked out for laborers, we might not need unions. But we are SO far away from that.

You say many of the things earlier unions fought for are now codified into law, yet we still see things like Starbucks workers voting to organize a labor union, and places like Kelloggs where the labor feels the need to go on strike. Have you ever seen a labor union strike and thought their demands are unfair?

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Your first point seems to miss the entire gist of my point, which is that the cases that get enough public attention are the ones that get dealt with. Obviously there are cases that happen that we aren't aware of, noone is arguing that.

The second point is also silly, since all labour unions are heavy political donors, which is another great reason why they are a blight

By that logic, companies are also a blight.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Your first point seems to miss the entire gist of my point, which is that the cases that get enough public attention are the ones that get dealt with. Obviously there are cases that happen that we aren't aware of, noone is arguing that.

The second point is also silly, since all labour unions are heavy political donors, which is another great reason why they are a blight

Bruh, that's like 1% of police misconduct that gets public attention. Chauvin had 47 different charges on his record before George Floyd and nobody heard about a single one of them. And imagine how many times he did something that didn't get a charge on his record.

The problem is that the government is supposed to serve the people, not protect the police from failing to serve people. That is why this does not work.

Clearly racism doesn't exist.