Most BLM protesters were white people advocating for Black civil rights.♥️ All their lives, they thought that they had the 1st amendment right to protest, because they had seen white supremacists march without being beaten by cops. They didn't realize that the right to free speech depends heavily on what you are speaking about, and who you are speaking for.
Now I'm seeing college professors and students learn the same lesson about what US cops will do to you if you speak up for the wrong thing.
When you can understand why there weren't mass arrests of the proud boys, or mass arrests at Jan 6, but there were mass arrests at BLM protests, and there are mass arrests on college campuses... you'll be one step closer to understanding free speech in America.
@psa@mekkaokereke You seem to be implying that "free speech ought to be universal" or "rights are universal." My response is, of course rights are not universal. The concept of rights was flawed from the start. The concept has its roots in deontological ethics which are circular and not action guiding. The bill of rights just confuses things and it's up to the judges of the era to decide arbitrarily what's an "unreasonable" search or an "unusual" punishment.
@psa@mekkaokereke The second amendment as written indicates that the right to bear arms ought not to be infringed (no exceptions) but amendments 4 and 5 seem to indicate your arms can be seized for "probable cause" or "due process" (whatever those subjective concepts mean).
@psa@mekkaokereke Deontological ethics is plagued with these sorts of judgment calls and contradictions, leaving people like me to wonder "what's the point of this?" What's the point of the categorical imperative if it can't resolve conflicts between duties?
I'm not sure if that's what Paul meant, but my point is much simpler. You don't need to read Immanuel Kant to know that the 2nd amendment is not a real right. It is not "the right to bear arms." It's "the white to bear arms."
Because simply trying to exercise that right, can get a Black man summarily executed in the streets by the state. And there will be no consequences for the executioner. "Police shot an armed Black man, etc" Having a gun is the only justification needed.
@mekkaokereke@psa I think you're not giving the second amendment enough "credit" (philosophically), and I'm saying that as someone who personally detests guns. The 2nd amendment is a beautiful example of the problem with rights, more so than the 1st amendment. The 1st is sort of propaganda for the idea of rights: it's a right people can "get behind", despite it also having all the flaws of rights. The 2nd amendment just lays bare the problem of rights.
@mekkaokereke@psa In my view, the first and second amendments, and all other rights laid down in the bill of rights, are equally just some people's opinions at some point in time. They are vague, up to different interpretations, and internally inconsistent. I suspect that one cannot make an internally consistent and action guiding ethical framework based on rights. You don't have to read Kant, but I can tell you that problem was Kant's undoing in my opinion.
I 100% am not giving the 2nd amendment enough credit, philosophically. Because philosophy doesn't come into my reality.
Do you know that many cops in major cities keep toy guns in their glove compartment? This is called a "drop gun." If the police officer shoots an unarmed Black child, they go back to their car, grab the toy gun, walk over to the child's body, and drop the toy gun on it.
The presence of a toy gun justifies the killing in the eyes of the average American.
Sometimes the drop gun is not a toy gun. It's an unregistered firearm. Some cops keep one of each in the glove compartment. Toys are more credible for younger Black kids without criminal pasts. Unregistered firearms for the adults.
I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of white Americans than Black Americans could tell you about Kant. But a higher percentage of Black Americans than white Americans could tell you about drop guns.
@mekkaokereke@psa Philosophy does come into your reality. You are making an ethical claim that it is "morally bad" that police officers keep drop guns on them. You are proposing an ethical framework wherein drop guns are not ethically permissible.
@escarpment@mekkaokereke@psa I don't think that is what he's saying. I mean, I'm pretty sure he believes it to be bad, but it's not the point he's making here.
The point is that there clearly isn't a "right" for black people to bear arms, no matter what the constitution says, when cops know and act in the knowledge that if they murder a black person, all they have to do to get away with it is make it look like their victim was exercising that "right".
@escarpment@mekkaokereke@psa ...and therefore he's not going to pretend that there is such a right, in the face of overwhelming evidence that there isn't.
@mekkaokereke@escarpment@psa Am I the only one with an urge to point out a solution might be to do the following?
a.) Have surprise inspections.
b.) Fire anyone who has a "drop gun" on their person or in their vehicle and put their name on an offender list of likely sociopaths who like to wear a badge.
@alakest@mekkaokereke@escarpment@psa the problem is that if you do anything to hold police accountable, they will run countless attack ads suggesting you are “soft on crime” and blame you for every violent crime that happens
Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
@alakest@mekkaokereke@escarpment@psa oh, I completely agree. We need to keep pushing for police accountability. I was just explaining why this is hard.
@mekkaokereke@escarpment@psa I have this account muted and blocked, likely because they engage in disingenuous, trollish behavior and are best removed from timelines.
@mekkaokereke We had an occupation here in Ottawa where the police did nothing. I think it was because they were afraid. They aren't afraid of Black people, Indigenous people, or college students.
Alignment of values may have played a part, especially in the beginning, but everyone knows right wing extremists are dangerous.
I was working in NYC in 2k4 for the republican convention. At the time, something like 85% of new yorkers thought bush at least allowed 9/11 if not orchestrated it. Protesters were kept corralled in razorwire topped chain link pens called "free speech zones". Of course, I was, like, "isn't the whole country a free speech zone?"
I also saw a jackbooted cop carrying a P90. I must've missed the memo where beat cops were allowed to carry full auto.
@mekkaokereke Saw this video today of a teacher being arrested, saying "we're better than this." I wish that were true but…apparently we aren't. If we were better than this, we wouldn't allow it to happen.
@ArcusM@mekkaokereke
Every time an USAmerican says:
"we are better than this"
or
"this is not who we are"
I want to slap them so many times until they see the 13th Amendment for what it is: making Slavery perfectly legal since 1865, allowing the US of Assholes to legally now keep more Slaves than ever before in history.
THAT IS what USAmericans ARE. Slaver.
They had 159 years to actually get rid of Slavery and not even Black politicians and Black member of parliament are pushing this topic.
Add comment