SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for mecctro
After a night of violent protests, Milwaukee residents gathered Sunday evening to mourn an armed man shot to death by police and begin the healing process.
Family and friends of Sylville Smith, 23, held a candlelight vigil at the site of Saturday's shooting in a residential area of North Milwaukee.
The shooting triggered unrest in the city's north side Saturday night as protesters torched businesses and threw rocks at officers. Four officers were injured and 17 people were arrested, Mayor Tom Barrett said.
Tensions on Sunday gave way to calls for peace as activists gathered outside the affected businesses.
Smith's sister, Sherelle Smith, condemned violence carried out in her brother's name, saying the community needs those businesses.
Black Lives Shatter
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/us/milwaukee-violence-police-shooting/
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @12:21PM
Not necessarily true. Being armed in and of itself is the right of every citizen and should not be construed to necessitate the use of lethal force or even the unholstering of an officer's gun. Having drawn your weapon... That's another matter entirely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday August 15 2016, @12:55PM
Being armed in and of itself is the right of every citizen
Well... not every citizen.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @01:03PM
Well, every citizen who hasn't thrown said right away by becoming a felon. That's a choice though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday August 15 2016, @02:44PM
Being under the age of 16 isn't a choice! Won't someone please think of the children?!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @03:52PM
Under 16 it's up to your parents. I owned a shotgun at 8.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday August 15 2016, @04:35PM
For all too many people, becoming a felon is simply bad luck. Born the wrong color, in the wrong place at the wrong time, vindictive girlfriend (or boyfriend I guess but I rarely hear of that), encounter the wrong cop, you'll end up a felon even when you're innocent. If you have no money to fight the case, you lose. The system doesn't listen to the poor or racial minorities when they claim innocence, it tells them to accept the deal or get hit twice as hard for fighting the case. Even if you have resources, you'll get fucked if you're ignorant of the law and your rights (and the system will never tell you your rights, they'll always try to push you through the system fast and make waiving your rights seem like standard procedure).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Monday August 15 2016, @05:04PM
There's luck of course but our drug laws are, from the top to the bottom, deliberately racist through design and enforcement. Drug laws would be the single biggest, most efficacious, change we could make. If BLM had any sense they'd focus on that instead of this radical social justice overhaul of society which the majority of people will never go along with.
The civil rights movement of the 1960s succeeded because MLK et al realized they needed white people to be on board. Passion, even anger, are understandable. MLK was passionate. He wasn't out shooting at police, burning cars, demanding cash money reparations.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 15 2016, @07:53PM
Yeah, about that:
1. BLM largely does support ending the War on Drugs.
2. I'm trying to figure out why "cops shouldn't shoot black Americans for no good reason" is a "radical social justice overhaul of society which the majority of people will never go along with". I'll put it this way: If that's true, then it strongly suggests that BLM is long past due.
And neither are the vast majority of BLM activists. For example, the BLM folks in my city are talking about the need for community policing, external investigation of police shootings, punishment of officers who break the rules, better vetting of would-be officers (e.g. the cop who killed Tamir Rice had been fired from another department for being mentally unstable, and the Cleveland Police either didn't know that or ignored it), and improving job opportunities for black youth to keep them out of trouble in the first place.
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that just about everything that is being said about Black Lives Matter was said about Martin Luther King's various organizations.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:08PM
Except BLM incites violence the same way trump does towards Muslims.
How many police officers have been killed in retaliation in the last few weeks? How many buildings and cars were set on fire after MLK spoke to a crowd? How many cops did MLK's followers kill?
BLM should focus on why so many young black males are killing each other, if you put a stop to black on black crime, then the police won't be involved.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday August 15 2016, @09:55PM
I actually support all the things you listed. But this latest conflagration in Wisconsin wasn't the result of a policeman shooting a black man for "no reason." He stole a gun, had it drawn, and refused to surrender to police. That's exactly the situation I would expect deadly force to be on the table. I do consider any loss of life to be a tragedy, and our society undoubtedly failed that young man as much as he failed himself.
Those other incidents you mentioned are more straightforward examples of criminal misconduct by police.
I recommend listening to Sam Harris's last podcast with Glenn Loury. [samharris.org] Some of the statistics they go over were rather surprising and illuminating.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @05:05PM
Yeah, the less than a percent error rate of the jury trial is intolerable. We should go ahead and allow felons to have guns. I mean they're going to have them anyway so we might as well make it legal and tax them, right?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:14AM
Yeah, the less than a percent error rate of the jury trial is intolerable.
Even if I were to agree that that was the actual error rate, it would still be intolerable. People shouldn't be punished forever in the first place.
Besides, I consider it an error when someone is convicted of violating an unjust and/or unconstitutional law, whether or not they are actually guilty of doing so.
We should go ahead and allow felons to have guns.
I'd be fine with that. Why are they out of prison if they're still deemed to be highly dangerous?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:11AM
Well, for starters there's this thing called "parole". Most everyone in prison gets out early on it. But really I'd just rather criminals not be legally armed. They've already proven they can't be trusted.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:59AM
I'd rather the government have no such power, because it has shown it can't be trusted. And the government is astronomically more powerful and dangerous than any individual criminal.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:56AM
You mean follow the Constitution? Next you'll be saying that felons should have free speech, need a warrant to be searched and horror of horrors, have the right to due process and be protected from self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:18AM
You don't so much get the concept that committing a crime means giving up your rights, do you? A hell of a lot of them, really. Every sentence ever was a violation of the defendant's rights if you want to be reductio ad absurdum about it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:28AM
Sentences are given by Judges and often end. Division of power, legislature writes the laws, executive enforces them and judiciary decides on guilt and punishment. This is why the 1st says Congress will pass no laws limiting speech rather then the government will never limit speech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday August 15 2016, @06:31PM
For all too many people, becoming a felon is simply bad luck.
Nice theory.
Too bad it isn't even remotely true.
Oh yes, everybody likes to trot out arrest rates, and their lopsided nature.
But nobody likes to look too carefully as actual crime commission rates. Because its embarrassing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @10:44PM
> But nobody likes to look too carefully as actual crime commission rates. Because its embarrassing.
What does that even mean? Please provide a link to these "crime commission rates" so that I can be embarrassed.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:32AM
You've obviously never been to jail, never talked at length worth anyone who has, and place an inordinate amount of trust in the abilities and ethics of law enforcement officers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:07AM
It's not a good idea for the government to have the power to arbitrarily strip people of some rights forever simply because they were felons, especially since many laws are unjust and/or unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:04AM
No, it's a fair enough idea. I do agree the laws that can land you as a felon need fixing but that doesn't mean you throw out all the good ideas with the bad.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:40AM
The 2nd amendment doesn't mention felons. If you are willing to throw away the 2nd amendment over felonies, then what meaning is there in the 8th amendment?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:12AM
S'a fair point. It should be amended in instead of its current state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:41AM
I've read the 2nd amendment, it's really simple, people have the right to bear arms. Not honest citizens have the right to bear arms. Not Protestants have the right to bear arms as the Bill of Rights of 1689 stated.
I'm not American and my country doesn't have that right, yet it takes a Judge, as part of sentencing, to remove the privilege of bearing arms. And it's only done when someone deserves it, eg doing something stupid with a firearm such as the guy who recently lost the privilege for 10 years (after getting out of prison) for trying to shoot a cop.
Your founding fathers knew that arms were important for dealing with unjust laws, just like voting, another thing Americans remove from citizens for simple shit like possessing a plant.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:15AM
Criminals routinely have their rights taken away. The whole concept of going to jail is a massive rights violation if you want to be picky about it. I'll agree this one should be codified as an amendment but it's not remotely exceptional.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:32AM
Criminals also routinely have their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The idea of a blanket law removing rights forever seems very repressive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:33PM
Many criminals are repeat offenders. Why should any criminal, including violent ones, be allowed to purchase fire arms upon release? Your choices in life have lasting effects, not that it really stops ex-cons from access to guns anyhow.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:21AM
Lots of people are potential criminals, why should anyone be allowed to purchase firearms? Oh right, it is considered a right, at least in the USA.
If you don't like your Constitution, change it (assuming you're an American)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @01:05PM
Only if not all citizens are "People". You know, as in "The Right of the People..."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 15 2016, @01:13PM
Alright - I can imagine instances in which an innocent man is running from the cops. But, that isn't the kind of thing that happens every day.
But, more important than the man's innocence, is the percieved necessity to use lethal force against a man who is RUNNING AWAY. Given body cameras, facial recognition programs, and ever improving technology, WTF do they need to shoot anyone? Because the suspect might enjoy an extra day of freedom, before the cops kick down his mama's door?
I'll say it again - in our old "wild west", it was a given that shooting a man in the back was an act of cowardice, and murder.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday August 15 2016, @03:20PM
Because the suspect might enjoy an extra day of freedom, before the cops kick down his mama's door?
Because an armed suspect may kill or injure someone before they are caught.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @03:45PM
that's pretty fracking stupid! so, some young dumbass who's scared of the cops runs to keep from getting busted for selling weed or something else that is none of the government's business and you figure just shoot him in the back cuz who knows maybe he'll do something else? why don't we just let the pigs shoot everyone who makes them do their jobs?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @03:56PM
Because he's drawn a weapon is reason enough.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Oakenshield on Monday August 15 2016, @04:03PM
He was shot in the chest and arm. I hate to have to confuse you with facts. It looks like you have your mind already made up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:17AM
They might do something violent in the future, so kill them now. That could apply to anyone. If someone isn't armed now, they might be later. This can't be construed as self-defense or defense of others, since there isn't an imminent threat to someone's life.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:29AM
They might do something violent in the future, so kill them now. That could apply to anyone. If someone isn't armed now, they might be later. This can't be construed as self-defense or defense of others, since there isn't an imminent threat to someone's life.
No, I don't grant your point at all. A reasonable person would expect that this person would be a far greater danger to others than "anyone". And this is defense of others despite your assertion to the contrary. Imminent threat to someone's life is not necessary.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @03:15AM
A reasonable person would expect that this person would be a far greater danger to others than "anyone".
Who cares what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect? I can simply assert that any hypothetical "reasonable person" would agree with me; it's painfully easy.
Imminent threat to someone's life is not necessary.
I would say you have to have at least some evidence that they either do pose an imminent threat to someone's life or will pose an imminent threat to someone's life, or else what reason do you have to kill them? Because you imagine something bad might happen if you don't? How much danger is enough before you can just kill someone based on what you imagine might happen if you don't? How is the probability of the bad event happening calculated? This seems awfully subjective.
Furthermore, does this apply to anyone with a gun? Just those who deal with the police? Only those who run from the police? What if someone runs from the police but doesn't have a gun? What if they later get a gun and then shoot someone? Just because someone doesn't have a gun at the moment doesn't mean they can't get one later. Imagine the frightening things that could happen if they did.
This is just a convenient excuse for government thugs to kill people unnecessarily.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:40AM
Who cares what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect?
Courts do.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 17 2016, @01:32AM
Courts don't even define it in any rigorous way, and often use the term to justify authoritarian rulings.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 16 2016, @10:58PM
So are you saying police have a right to execute people on the street rather than trying to ensure suspects are tried before a court of law? Or are you advocating a "pre-crime" system where they execute specific people who they suspect might commit a crime in the future?
In case you aren't familiar with it, that's not how the US legal system works. Criminals are supposed to be caught and brought before a judge, and the judge determines the sentence. The fact that some cop on the street decides you deserve an execution isn't sufficient justification for that to be carried out. Punishment is never legal unless it is determined in a court of law, generally involving a jury of one's peers. Of course, every citizen including police officers also have a right to self-defense, which is wholly separate from the act of bringing criminals to justice. The law states that: "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another." Whether the shooter is a police officer or an average citizen, to legally kill someone else outside of a court-mandated execution, they must be an immediate threat. Not a hypothetical one.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:38AM
So are you saying police have a right to execute people on the street rather than trying to ensure suspects are tried before a court of law?
How about you? Are you saying that?
Maybe we should read what people actually write.
Here, we have a person fleeing the police with a gun out. It's not just Joe Blow walking down the street. It's not execution to shoot someone who presents a danger to others.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:21AM
Just holding a gun is not an immediate threat. It's not even illegal!
Running away *certainly* is not an immediate threat either. Quite the opposite.
So where exactly is the threat which made the officer fear that he would or someone else would lose their life within seconds if he did not shoot that suspect?
If the guy turned around and aimed the gun at the officers, then yes, that shooting is justified as self-defense. Otherwise, it's homicide.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:27AM
So are you saying police have a right to execute people on the street rather than trying to ensure suspects are tried before a court of law? Or are you advocating a "pre-crime" system where they execute specific people who they suspect might commit a crime in the future?
now
Just holding a gun is not an immediate threat.
Running away *certainly* is not an immediate threat either. Quite the opposite.
You have yet to describe the actual circumstances of the shooting. It wasn't a pre-crime execution of a future murderer, it wasn't police executing a man for being on the street, and it wasn't just holding a gun or running. You also have greatly downplayed the danger here. We can't be concerned merely about "immediate threat", but future danger as well.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:37AM
Federal law says otherwise.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:55AM
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:20PM
Yeah I already posted it....but here you are again:
"[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#cite_note-1 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:49PM
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @11:25PM
Police aren't people? Since when? What is this, Robocop?
They certainly don't have a right to just ignore laws that they find inconvenient. They don't get to decide what is legal or not. Unless there is another law which explicitly defines a more general definition of "defense" for police officers, they ARE bound by that same law. They're unlikely to actually be tried and convicted, because the prosecutors are playing for the same team, but that still doesn't make it legal.
So...where is the law that you claim exists which gives police greater leeway here?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 19 2016, @11:37PM
Police aren't people?
Police are legally distinct from people in general which is an obvious fact. Why are you pushing this angle?
They certainly don't have a right to just ignore laws that they find inconvenient.
You have yet to cite such a "inconvenient" law. Police have special powers and special restrictions that regular people do not have.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday August 22 2016, @07:28PM
They are legally distinct only where there are specific laws that make this so. They are still required to obey the law.
I've cited that law twice now, and I'm waiting for you to cite the law that gives them special powers to ignore it. I'm not saying they DON'T have any special powers, but those special powers must be enumerated in law as well. Police certainly do not get to just do whatever the hell they want at any time for any reason.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 22 2016, @07:42PM
They are legally distinct only where there are specific laws that make this so.
Which is the case here.
I've cited that law twice now, and I'm waiting for you to cite the law that gives them special powers to ignore it. I'm not saying they DON'T have any special powers, but those special powers must be enumerated in law as well. Police certainly do not get to just do whatever the hell they want at any time for any reason.
I'm not wasting my time. Courts would be ruling differently, if your assertion were true.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday August 22 2016, @08:34PM
Yes, because if there's anything we learn from reading this site, it's that courts ALWAYS make the right decision, especially when they're discussing the actions of government officials...right?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:08AM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @03:59PM
Guy has a gun out, waving it around, it's a legit kill. Doesn't matter which way he's facing. "Shooting a man in the back" in the old west assumed he didn't know you were there and hadn't drawn his gun to defend himself. Once his weapon cleared the holster all bets were off.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:48PM
Guy has a gun out, waving it around, it's a legit kill
...but the chances of it going down the way you describe seems HIGHLY dependent on the skin color of the non-cop with the gun.
A 63-year-old white man, [alternet.org] clad in pajamas, was waving a large gun around, threatening people
[...]
Cops [...] showed up in a cruiser and attempted to convince the man to "put the gun down," so they could talk to him.
[...]
The man says, "shoot me." The cops don't.
.
[White woman] [alternet.org] Julia Shields, 45, drove around a Chattanooga neighborhood Friday just before 4pm dressed in body armor, randomly shooting into vehicles
[...]
Police were called and she was found in a parking lot, where she then led police on a chase and continued to point her weapon at passing cars, and at police during the chase.
Shields was taken into custody without incident or injury
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @03:53AM
Not remotely. Cops take a dim view of anyone waving a gun around. That you can find exceptions only means that you can find exceptions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @02:33PM
What does BLM want? That violent criminals should get a free pass just because they're black? It's not like this guy was a non-violent burglar. Non-violent burglars don't keep the guns and draw them in response to a police stop. The cops had reason to stop the car, which we don't yet know. Sure it could've been a racial-profiled vehicle stop, but it caught actual criminals who would rather run than surrender peacefully.
The protests are also not just people holding hands and marching down the streets. Here's a video, repeatedly taken down from Youtube, which shows 'protestors' shouting "Black Power" and urging each other to beat up any white people they can catch. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=956_1471230717 [liveleak.com]
This may not be actually representative of the typical protestor, but this video itself shows more terrorism than protest. Is it terrible this man was shot and killed? I sure think so. Terrible he did what he did to get shot, and terrible that certain people are praising him under the aegis of BLM.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @03:53PM
Which is why i mentioned it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @04:23PM
this kind of shit won't end well. keep teaching your kids to hate white people and all you're going to do is activate the true nature of spoiled, repressed whites all over the country. Genes don't change that quickly. They are still the same raiding barbarians they were before but with the illusion of safety and success. take that away and they will revert to their true selves.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 15 2016, @05:08PM
Heh - surprised that moderators haven't modded you to hell. Half of them don't see AC posts though. But, I actually agree with you. Thin veneer, and all that - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-07/thin-veneer-civilization-we-all-take-granted-evaporating-all-over-globe [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:40PM
So, you're saying we shouldn't hate white people because they are violent barbarians?
They are still the same raiding barbarians they were before but with the illusion of safety and success. take that away and they will revert to their true selves.
In short, we should fear white people whether we hate them or not! Grate! Damn whites! Now who is going to make America grate again? You will have to take my shredded cheese out of my cold, dead refridgerator! Moron Labia!!
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Monday August 15 2016, @06:43PM
What does BLM want? That violent criminals should get a free pass just because they're black?
Yes. They want police to stop policing in 'black areas' and give them a free pass. They want the prisons emptied of all blacks. They won't say these things openly but it is the only rational policy direction discernible from their demands and actions. It is of course utterly irrational so it isn't said.
Or it is utterly irrational to any K selected mind, makes perfect sense to r types. Random predation by dindu doesn't worry them all that much but any selective pressure does. Random street crime is just random predation, exactly like foxes hunting rabbits, it just is and there is nothing to be done but keep breeding. Police eliminating criminals by jail and gunfire is selective pressure that touches any r type deeply in their subconscious.
Makes even more sense to the people pulling their strings, they just want chaos and fire so they can reforge the world 'closer to their heart's desire.' Look up the Fabian Society and see that their goals match the American Progressives so closely they might as well be the same organization. Hmmm.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 15 2016, @09:14PM
This is some Alex-Jones-level crazy here. Much as I clash with Uzzard up there he's at least (mostly) rational. You? You've gone off the damn reservation, probably years ago.
What the hell makes you think humans are r-selected? We're almost the textbook example of K-selected breeders! The rest of your pseudoscientific rant doesn't even make sense from the perspective of r-type (no, not the Bydo...) reproduction: the entire point of the r-selected strategy is to overwhelm a smaller number of predators with a flood of offspring, believing that "well they can't kill ALL of us" as, for example, insects and small rodents do.
The very existence of a movement like BLM is testament to our K-selected strategy; were we truly r-selected, our immediate and visceral reaction would be "eh, no lives matter THAT much, really...". Which means everything that follows this accusation of r-selected breeding by "certain people" is good ol' scientific racism again. Tell us about how, being r-selected, "those people" don't put resources into their kids, don't mind some of them dying off, and are lower-IQ and deserve to be squelched because of it, go on...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday August 15 2016, @10:09PM
What the hell makes you think humans are r-selected?
Go read Anonymous Conservative's book for the gory details. Humans actually use both r and K reproductive strategies based on resource abundance. Some people can go either way, early childhood seems very important, others are pretty hard set. And the tendency seems to be highly inheritable. And we in the West have been in abundance for a long time now.
Glenn Beck has had his (actually William Strauss) four cycles of history theory but couldn't/wouldn't propose a mechanism driving it. Anonymous Conservative does and it is horrifyingly clear in both the power to explain and in the long term implications. We go through four basic phases:
K is when civilizations are born from strife, chaos and lack of resources. It breeds hard men who form strong nations. They bring order, hierarchy and laws. These things work every time they are tried and success beings plenty.
K into R is the phase usually described in histories as the flowering of civilizations as resources increase and permit more r types to
survive. Since they also tend to be where you get your highly creative types, as long as the K types maintain a stable order they boost growth of knowledge and the arts.
R is the phase typically described as the decadent phase. Prolonged resource availability keeps increasing the r selected population. The K types begin to lose control and crazy things become normal. -We are Here Now-
R into K is the collapse when the stupidity from r behavior finally overwhelms production and brings on a shortage of resources. Coming soon to a Western Nation near you.
this accusation of r-selected breeding by "certain people" is good ol' scientific racism again
Not really. Hipsters and SJWs are the poster children for r selected behavior just as much as the hood rats they have bred up as a voting bloc. When we tip back toward K, Trigglypuff is going to be toast faster than anyone in the hood.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:30AM
Ah, I see where you're going with this now.
It's not worded properly though. We don't have true r-selection; what you think is it looks more like an overly-successful K-type strategy. We see this among K-selected large mammals all the time; take deer population booms for example. Just because some aspect of this looks, at a shallow glance, something like r-selected breeding, doesn't make it so. If we were actually r-selected, if we really had a "disposable soma" strategy, we'd have about the same attitude toward our kids as a queen ant does to her brood.
And, I can't help but notice, the classic cultural "hooks" for fascism and populism to gain hold are evident in your explanation. The Golden Age, the idea that everything must be fighting and struggle and warfare, the feeling that "those people" are doing anything from holding "the deserving" back to outright stabbing der Volk in the spine, the drooling anticipation of societal collapse (which you OF COURSE, being a good K-type, will come out of as one of the new elite...), all of it. This is all so predictable, and so half-baked. I've seen this memeplex play out over and over and over again through the last 6,000 years of human history.
Here's a better idea: how about we, as intelligent beings, tell mother nature and her abusive pimp Malthus to go cram it with walnuts, figure out thorium fission and thermal solar and tower farms and synergistic desalinization, and stop tearing one another apart?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:55AM
Very hard to summarize a 300 page, heavily footnoted book (The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans - ISBN: 0982947933) in a forum post so let me recommend you follow up with the actual book. But in a nutshell his thesis is that evolution embedded both strategies in humans, environmental triggers to push us toward one or the other and very different psychologies to go with each because they are both the winning strategy at different times. If resources are abundant or new territory is available to expand into, complex social structure, tribal warfare and all that K stuff really is counter productive. Don't fight, go forth and multiply. But the world isn't infinite so we would always hit a limit and K selection would kick back in before we became too degenerate.
But we aren't animals anymore. We have civilization (and now atom bombs) and that vestigial programming is likely to get us killed. It is why every single civilization has went bust, often in very messy ways. If he is right there aren't any good solutions, your suggestion to just science the shit out of things until we have unlimited resources will just get us Idiocracy, where we eventually become so dumb we can't maintain the science keeping us alive. The author(s) really don't have an answer. I think there has to be a way out of the trap but I'm still thinking on it.
And, I can't help but notice, the classic cultural "hooks" for fascism and populism to gain hold are evident in your explanation. The Golden Age, the idea that everything must be fighting and struggle and warfare, the feeling that "those people" are doing anything from holding "the deserving" back to outright stabbing der Volk in the spine, the drooling anticipation of societal collapse (which you OF COURSE, being a good K-type, will come out of as one of the new elite...), all of it.
Reread what I wrote. The high point of a civilization is when both groups are in balance but the K groups is still maintaining order and productivity. But it can't last because they are utterly incompatible and at that point the abundance of resources assures the eventual dominance of the r types, they will simply breed uncontrollably until they win... kinda like what is happening NOW with the wrinkle of science and birth control throwing things slightly off the usual plot but not enough to save us. That is the part that is depressing, the inability to find a way out of the evolutionary trap we are in. The pointless cycle of history that will just keep spinning around and around unless we do manage to figure out a way to beat the trap. Otherwise, as you note, it is going to play out exactly like it has for 6,000 years and counting.
If we were actually r-selected, if we really had a "disposable soma" strategy, we'd have about the same attitude toward our kids as a queen ant does to her brood.
The example r selected animal used in the book is rabbits. They reproduce heedlessly with low parental involvement with only the mother involved, early onset of sexual activity, low attachment to offspring, they almost never fight over mates or territory, etc. Wolves are the K example: highly social, complex structure, very territorial, high parental (both) involvement,later onset of sexuality, emphasis on low number of highly fit offspring capable of survival in a competitive environment and high chance of success in attracting a fit mate.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:53PM
You don't actually seem upset about all this so much as annoyed that "those people" (sed s/nigger/r-selected breeders/g -i /mnt/jmorris/racial_theory.sh) are pushing the more "worthy" (read: people like jmorris) out.
I swear to Cthulhu, this whole thing is the same eugenics/Lebensraum propaganda that the elite have been pushing since the late 19th century. It's got all the elements. What's next, are you going to tell me that the putative r-types are life unworthy of life? That only proper K-types deserve to breed or even live? Christ on a Sea-Doo, there's even the classic identification with the "virtuous predator" contrasted with the stupid, useless, and most of all WEAK breeders...fuck 'em, right?
This book you're talking about sounds like the social-Darwinist version of Das Kapital: mostly right about the problems it describes, but wrong in subtle and important ways, and God forbid anyone follow the proposed "solution."
I also disagree very strongly with you that solving the symptoms of these issues through technology will lead to Idiocracy; it's well-documented that birth rate drops with prosperity and especially womens' education. I can't think of a more K-type strategy, in fact, than using tech to bring the material standard of living up. It doesn't, of course, solve the mental and spiritual problems on its own...but it's like people who say money can't buy happiness: that's strictly true but anyone who's ever had to scrounge in a dumpster will tell you it buys security and peace of mind, which allows you to pursue happiness.
Plus, remember, we're a social species. We're all connected at some level, even if Dunbar's Number limits us to about 150 people we can concretely care for. We're capable of agape, which you can think of as transcending that number if only in an abstract way. Especially now that we can communicate almost instantly across the internet. Why not encourage this to follow to its proper conclusion?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday August 16 2016, @06:07PM
so much as annoyed that "those people"
Of course I hate them. I'm rational. :) Burning yer own shit because you are mad is so dumb there are few words in human tongues to describe it.
What's next, are you going to tell me that the putative r-types are life unworthy of life? That only proper K-types deserve to breed or even live?
Well all of our social and moral codes are K selected. But if you would read the whole book and not attempts to summarize it on a web forum.... You would find the truth to be even worse. There isn't any simple answer, even if the K selected types could overcome their altruistic impulse to aid anyone in their in group and 'do the hard thing' and wipe/drive out the r selected folk it wouldn't help. Remember where almost everyone carries both sets of genes and environmental triggers in early childhood control which dominate? Every time civilization succeeds it creates safety and excess resources, and because K selected people are high investment child rearers.... guess what happens next? HInt: Britney Spears rocks in the new Century dancing on a pole with a snake is what.
More Science is where the only hope seems to be, if we understood the mechanism better we might be able to adopt child rearing customs intentionally designed to create the proper environment to bring on more K selection even if the society isn't living on the ragged edge of war, famine and general lack of resources.
Das Kapital: mostly right about the problems it describes, but wrong in subtle and important ways..
No excuse for not actually reading enough of Marx to avoid saying things like that. Marx is not wrong in subtle ways; He is obviously wrong from fifty pages in, starting with his Labor Theory of Value and everything else rests weakly on that bad foundation. It wears the cloak of Science but is purely a work of political philosophy. Anybody who got taken in by that old fraud wanted to believe. Envy is a powerful motivator in weak minds.
Or maybe I'm just suupar smart and stuff? But I didn't fall for Marx, didn't fall for Jesus and even avoided the Ayn Rand trap. Those three get 99% of folks. Same for Moldbug, some of his stuff is great but some of it..... needs work. They all have useful things to teach but all of them have obvious flaws if you are looking for them.
Which is why I liked Anonymous Conservative, he/they admit the limits of where the Science can currently take their work. It is why there is no solution proposed though. His book is an attempt to explore the current state of the art in Science applied to humans and limits itself to where the rest of the scientific community could go if they weren't afraid. There is probably a reason the author is "Anonymous Conservative" after all. The footnotes tend to point to science and history, not political and philosophical tracts.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 16 2016, @06:22PM
Keep telling yourself that. You're still fatally and permanently stuck in an egoistic mode of thinking, and NO solution scientific or otherwise is going to solve THAT. The irony here is just sickening...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...