Utopia Talk / Politics / God Damn Police are stupid

Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Thu Jun 03 16:28:33 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INy5Dunx9PM
Paramount Member	Fri Jun 04 01:46:56 If China or Russia did this then the US would put sanctions on them.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jun 04 10:17:03 Lol @ like six faggots walking around discussing the visibility of the number on his house. Kill them
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Fri Jun 04 13:10:55 His grass wasn't even that long. I seriously don't know how a man can go home and fuck his wife after doing this crap.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 04 13:30:58 How exactly are you Murican ”free” if the government can tell you how long grass you can have?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 04 13:32:10 I honestly could never have percieved such trivial forms of fascism, was even possible.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 14:03:08 It would be interesting to see the ethnic breakdown of the people on this list...
Forwyn Member	Fri Jun 04 14:08:06 Income brackets would be a better preindicator, though undoubtedly certain ethnicities are thus unduly represented.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 14:08:45 This scheme would violate GDPR...
habebe Member	Fri Jun 04 14:11:29 Seb would point out that the guy was a repeat criminal who has broken the law, even if its a stupid one. Nimatzo, I remember we had these new neighbors after the lesbians moved out, they were total assholes , filed complaints that our tomato garden was too tall and unsightly.They liked their house, but not the neighborhood, they had issues with most the neighbors, absolute Karen's.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 14:15:54 Forwyn: Often this kind of stuff does weird shit and finds proxy for something like race or sex even if race or sex or other protected characteristic is explicitly removed as a factor; if the training data has bias in it. Getting unbiased training data is hard. Amazon found this out when they discovered an algo they built to aid recruitment was heavily biased towards selecting male applicants (such that no other factor could explain the difference when each other variable was controlled for). They eventually found out the algo was finding things that were a good proxy for sex, using that to work out sex. And inadvertently proved their prior hiring criteria was biased by sex - in that the deep learning model found the best way to replicate the training data was find a proxy for sex rather than other factors that are supposed to be indicators of merit.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 14:17:47 Habebe: If you think that you haven't been paying attention. This is such a fucking self own, it is like if I said "Habebe is likely to come here and say 'This is good and proper as it accords with marxist principles which I, habebe, fully endorse".
habebe Member	Fri Jun 04 14:22:22 Seb, On numerous occasions you have adequate criminality with morality and being a good citizen. I actually almost.started an.entire thread about morality and the law because of some your views. " This woman led some protests (as is her democratic right), and advocated a rather silly offenders register for racists. She doesn't appear to have broken any laws - which is something you cannot say. So, if the world is better off without her in it, is it not better off without you in it? And if so, could we not say, just have a law that made it illegal to pay, house, or provide medical treatment to ex convicts?"
habebe Member	Fri Jun 04 14:28:33 More recent Seb quotes. "The law is the law - if the world is better off without people in who abide by the law but advocate for change, surely is even better off without people in it who knowingly break the law, even if the last is stupid."
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 15:02:10 habebe: I was pointing out the dribbling inconsistency with you arguing that certain people lost their worth in your eyes for fairly trivial actions when you yourself had actually gone as far as to break laws. Note the conditional voice in those quotes "IF". I was basically accusing you of rank hypocrisy.
habebe Member	Fri Jun 04 15:13:47 The law is the law, his grass was too tall. Its a well you go back to semi frequently. IMPO yes, someone who wants a government registry of people who commit thought crimes is bad, and while I advocated no violence towards her, but I also wouldnt shed a tear as she had IMPO the propensity to cause great harm and spread ideas that would cause great harm.The same.goes for KKK members. They may be entirely peacefull and legal, but I wouldn't shed a.tear if some Cyclops got shot at BBQ for similar reasons. Do you now admit that breaking the law is not necessarily immoral?
habebe Member	Fri Jun 04 15:22:49 Also, as for this OP. I fully like the idea that Sherriffs are local and elected. However, I think the problem is that there is very little scrutiny and choice. Most people just vote whoever, and considering the power of a Sherriffs , that can be very dangerous.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 17:48:34 Habebe, truly, you are the new hotrod.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 17:54:16 "Do you now admit that breaking the law is not necessarily immoral?" I don't think I ever said it was. I said if you argue that to advocate for a policy you don't think it's agreeable is sufficient basis to say "the world is better off without them" - i.e. let that difference of policy totally eclipse them as a human being; then surely the same can be argued with you. You broke the law, and by doing so showed utter disrespect for democratic process. So you can hardly trump around about how someone who says they are trained in Marxist political theory (which you've conflated with Stalinism, because you are basically a moron) is better off dead because they represent a threat to democracy. The point is not that I think breaking the law is immoral - no - my point is you are guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy and general inhumanity. It's a bit like Dukhat really.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 18:04:22 I'm pretty sure there isn't a criminal law against grass being too high in the US. If it is, well that just goes to show how fucked up the US is. However I'll bet it was a civil infraction against some bylaw which is punishable by fine, but in actual fact won't be upheld in court. US police have been documented using this a lot (often against particular racial groups). Issue a ticket, the individual either pays up or takes it court but then loses days off work. The process is the punishment. Ho ho. And hey, the stats prove blacks are more criminal. Which justifies policing them more heavily with zero tolerance policies coincidentally creating the statistical basis for doing so. Maths isn't racist bro. The US police and justice system is riddled with this kind of systemic corruption. Nim thinks "defund the police" is crazy because he doesn't get the concept is as much about limiting the role of police to direct enforcement of criminal law rather than the tools and approach of criminal law to issues that in many other countries would be dealt with by social work (this scheme being a classic example - if you identify prior likely to fall into a life of crime there are positive interventions to prevent that rather than trying to jail them early). But it's pretty clear there are many police forces in the US that essentially need to be replaced with entirely new forces, with new culture, and entirely new staff. So it's unsurprising they picked a slogan that implies abolishing police forces.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 18:06:47 Sorry, I forgot, it wasn't her that was the marxist, it was one of the women that founded the decentralised political movement with hundreds of thousands of members who said she was trained in Marxist political theory; which conveniently means anyone associated with BLM is advocating the great leap forward and culling of the Kulaks, or so you claim.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 04 18:11:13 Similar logic: "Heisenberg was German and worked on the German nuclear bomb program, ergo anyone who cites the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is advocating for the genocide against Jews".
Habebe Member	Fri Jun 04 18:31:01 So you now are backpedaling your statements, but whatever. Ive been very consistent in my disdain for marxism and the damage it can cause.Ive also been consistent that the law is easily abused and stupid laws being broken is not a bad thing. These two thoughts are not contradictory. I'd also say that your conflating dangerous movements that are in my personal opinion a great threat to humanity are the equivelant of breaking stupid laws. The issue that I take with your stances is your dogmatic faith in what you "know" is right and wrong and refuse to accept alternative theories of thought. You also tend to go towards dismissiveness when you lack sufficient backing to.your arguments. The rebel flag=always evil and racist. Marxism= Often misundnerstood and the bad people and acts linked to it are not any fault of the ideology that is explicitly violent Your favored groups and symbols ate judged by you on an entirely different scale. The lack of self awareness is astonishing. People like Hitler and Stalin and generally agreed to be some of the worst people of all time. Now, it does get messy because they are considered such BECAUSE of the mass suffering they have caused, sp far on this even you and I agree. People will often then say stupid shit like " Hitler drank milk" and equate the awfulness to other milk drinkers. ( bad example, but you get the point) Noe I will argue that their political ideologies were a driving force that helped them commit such acts. You would treat Hitlerism and Marxism not just differently, but judge them by different scales to reach your favored outcome. As for the sanctity of life, my example of Hitler/Stalin was using the extremes as an example. If it is ok to not be bothered by the death of a particular human due to the propensity to commit mass harm, than there is no universal sanctity of human life, there are clear exceptions in certain circumstances and its all on a sliding scale up to the individual. A propensity of great harm and breaking the law is not equateable measurements. MLK was a rampant repeat criminal, and yet most people would say that he had a good effect on Democracy. Again, using an extreme example, but there are plenty of other examples, just lesser known. That does not mean that I thought this lady was equal to Hitler or Stalin, but both of these men didnt act alone and had many smaller cogs in a machine *who meant well* The road to help is paved with the greatest of intentions, and no one is the bad guy in theor own story. From her point of view she was helping to rid the world of evil. With her registry of racists, a noble cause. But who judges what is and is not racist? Which thought crime should have people on a registry and likely take away gainful employment and privacy because of a misconception by an over zealous beuroccrat or judge? Thought crimes and intent are what make this so touchy. Its not the same as a violent crime for instance which has standards of proof and such. This case in the OP is great example on why we should be weary of giving such authority to list possible bad doers and arm them with the powers of the law as she proposed. And again, I never advocated any violence what so ever to her. I merely said the world is probably better off with out her. A rather benign statement.
Habebe Member	Fri Jun 04 18:34:11 " Similar logic: "Heisenberg was German and worked on the German nuclear bomb program, ergo anyone who cites the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is advocating for the genocide against Jews"." No, your either being disengenous or stupid. The creators of BLM in an interview discussing the ideology behind the movement (this context is important) said they are Marxists ideology and that was thendriving force behind. Their creation of the group. Now do you really think that is the same thing as your silly example?
Seb Member	Sat Jun 05 14:03:12 Habebe: Nope, not back pedaling. You just failed to understand my position. Rule of law is a fundamental requirement for stable society. If we can all ignore the laws we think are stupid, you get anarchy. "Marxism= Often misundnerstood and the bad people and acts linked to it are not any fault of the ideology that is explicitly violent" Nope, as I said, you've confused Marxist political theory - which is a theory about how societies evolve, not a policy prescription; with Communism, political ideology about how a society should be ordered. Marx was inventor of the former, and a major instigator of the second. But Marxist political theory can be used to analyse anything - you have Marxist interpretations on the forces that gave rise to the American war of independence (i.e. as an inevitable consequence of the conflict between capital Vs trade). You seem to be thinking when I say you've misunderstood, that the nature of confusion is that Marxism is an kind of utopian version of communism compared to Stalinism and if only Marxism had been put into practice rather than Stalinism or Leninism, then the Russian Communist Revolution would have been lovely. This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are completely different things. Your confusion is far far deeper than that. It's like you are confusing engineering - a set of methods and tools you might use to design a house (Marxism) - with the design of the house itself (communism).
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 05 14:05:53 "Rule of law is a fundamental requirement for stable society. If we can all ignore the laws we think are stupid, you get anarchy." So MLK was an anarchist?
Seb Member	Sat Jun 05 14:08:35 And in fact you are arguing that communism is always going to lead to 100m odd deaths. People will dispute that, but I don't really care. The point is someone who is trained in Marxism doesn't necessarily even believe in communism of any flavour. They just believe that social and political dynamics can be entirely explained in terms of the struggle between labour and capital. How those struggles are resolved, or if they even need to be, is a policy choice.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 05 14:12:10 Habebe: "So MLK was an anarchist?" Civil disobedience for political protest is a different thing to committing a crime for economic gain. And part of the point of civil disobedience wa a willingness to pay the price of that crime. I'd also argue that a country that doesn't afford universal civil rights isn't a proper democracy anyway but that is by the by. You are the one arguing that people's lives are worth less or worth less when they are pushing dangerous ideas (which is what Orwell actually meant by thought crime). Not me. You were selling drugs for political protest were you?
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 05 14:43:22 "And in fact you are arguing that communism is always going to lead to 100m odd deaths." Never said that. "The point is someone who is trained in Marxism doesn't necessarily even believe in communism of any flavour. " Ok, this is the last time I will explain this to you, if you still cant grasp it, its not my fault. In the context of discussing the creation and driving force ideology of BLM 2 of the three founders said that they were trained Marxists and that's the basis ideology on the creation of BLM. Context is key.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: