Re: George Floyd and the Ensuing Protests
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:52 pm
All Things Kansas.
https://www.kansascrimson.com/boards/
I like the idea of a Social Contract, but one could argue that it's completely useless because there is and never has been an even playing field. Our leaders abuse it often and get away with it. For the poor and people of color, that's not the case.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:22 amOK. But that's not really an argument. That's a reaction -- and understandable one, to be sure.Feral wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:08 am(I hadn't seen the long version of Trevor Noah's talk when I posted it, but have now and it's worth the time, imo.)PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:51 am
I think he makes a good point in that it's important to understand WHY that's happening. Empathy is a big part of the path forward.
But, I agree with you in that what Noah is missing, is that he thinks NOT looting Target won't get anything done. I think that what made the acts of people like Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandella, Jackie Robinson, etc. so inspirational and so great and so lasting was that they stood up to injustice without letting their anger turn destructive. They didn't stoop to the level of the people that they were fighting against.
My guess is that Trevor would repeat the question, how has adhering to the "social contract", (by following the rules, i.e., not looting Target), worked out for Blacks when in just the last ~ 10 days(?) you've seen the White woman in central park weaponize her Whiteness falsely against a Black man; the way the White father and son were going to avoid any retribution for killing Black Ahmaud Arbery until a video was found, and now, to watch a Black man have the life choked out of him live on camera, by a law enforcement official who knew he was being taped, most likely because he knew from experience he could get away with it. (I don't think he was trying to kill Floyd, but still, ~ 9 minutes?)
This is why twocoach's blather drove me nuts over the weekend. If we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, then we're in for a long, hard slog. Yes, it's shocking and horrifying and maddening to see police kill an unarmed, subdued man -- and a black man in particular. And yes, we should do everything in our power to try to ensure that never happens again. But given that man is a fallen creature (whether you believe that religiously or not), there is NO way to guarantee it will never happen again, no matter what we do.
There is no question that the lives of black people in this country are better than they were on December 31, 1862, the day before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. And there is no question that their lives are better than they were on July 1, 1964, the day before the Civil Rights Act was signed.
The social contract binds the sovereign and the people. But in a case in which the sovereign IS the people, then it's a self-governing contract. And we become responsible for policing ourselves. Do our leaders violate the contract? Yes. All the time. Does that mean the contract is useless? Of course not. It means the leaders are useless.
The social contract has always been theoretical and ASPIRATIONAL. It's what we would be, what we could be. It's also the reason that Derek Chauvin is in jail and awaiting trial, because what we aspire to is a society in which things like that don't happen but, when they do, they are punished appropriately -- and publicly.chiknbut wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:06 pm I like the idea of a Social Contract, but one could argue that it's completely useless because there is and never has been an even playing field. Our leaders abuse it often and get away with it. For the poor and people of color, that's not the case.
The Social Contract asks that people who have been continually oppressed - people of color, the poor - adhere to the same contract as those who have benefited greatly from this oppression. If the Social Contract was just about acting respectfully toward others, obeying laws and being polite, I'd say most would agree with it.
But it's not just about that. It's about people of color or the poor being asked to hold their tongues and behaving while at the same time they don't receive the same benefits of society as others. They experience redlining and have to move into more "suitable" neighborhoods where other poor people of color live. They get profiled by law enforcement. They fill up jails because they're too poor to pay bail for even minor offenses.
The reason we see rioting right now - and it's happening less than two blocks from my house and has me quite on edge right now - is because to a lot of people, a Social Contract doesn't mean shit.
This was destined to happen. And they have a point.
Agree with you on some of this. But strongly disagree on the following: Derek Chauvin is not in jail because of the Social Contract. Not even close. If he wasn't filmed, he'd be on administrative leave, filling out paperwork and waiting for the next time he could go thug again. He was destined to walk. His biggest problem was he finally got caught doing something he'd done dozens of times before. I don't think that's the Social Contract norm. It's absolutely the exception.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:24 pmThe social contract has always been theoretical and ASPIRATIONAL. It's what we would be, what we could be. It's also the reason that Derek Chauvin is in jail and awaiting trial, because what we aspire to is a society in which things like that don't happen but, when they do, they are punished appropriately -- and publicly.chiknbut wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:06 pm I like the idea of a Social Contract, but one could argue that it's completely useless because there is and never has been an even playing field. Our leaders abuse it often and get away with it. For the poor and people of color, that's not the case.
The Social Contract asks that people who have been continually oppressed - people of color, the poor - adhere to the same contract as those who have benefited greatly from this oppression. If the Social Contract was just about acting respectfully toward others, obeying laws and being polite, I'd say most would agree with it.
But it's not just about that. It's about people of color or the poor being asked to hold their tongues and behaving while at the same time they don't receive the same benefits of society as others. They experience redlining and have to move into more "suitable" neighborhoods where other poor people of color live. They get profiled by law enforcement. They fill up jails because they're too poor to pay bail for even minor offenses.
The reason we see rioting right now - and it's happening less than two blocks from my house and has me quite on edge right now - is because to a lot of people, a Social Contract doesn't mean shit.
This was destined to happen. And they have a point.
Unfortunately, in a practical sense, I think the current rioting, etc. is going to push us in the direction of updating the social contract to enshrine the dual system, to force us to abandon our aspirations and to decide, implicitly, that we can have two systems, that we MUST have two systems. Other Western nations have already gone there -- the Germans and especially the French, who treat the banlieue as bantustans in what amounts, effectively, to an off-the-books apartheid.
We're not the French, obviously. And we aspire to a different social contract than they do. But it's not difficult to imagine it playing out that way. Which would be tragic.
A. You are correct. Chauvin is in jail because he was filmed. I'd argue that, in this instance, the advance of technology has been very much to the benefit of the people, in that it allows them to verify that which was previously unverifiable. I don't think the next wave of technology will be quite as friendly to the people.chiknbut wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:47 pm
Agree with you on some of this. But strongly disagree on the following: Derek Chauvin is not in jail because of the Social Contract. Not even close. If he wasn't filmed, he'd be on administrative leave, filling out paperwork and waiting for the next time he could go thug again. He was destined to walk. His biggest problem was he finally got caught doing something he'd done dozens of times before. I don't think that's the Social Contract norm. It's absolutely the exception.
I know what you're trying to say. I don't share your optimism. I think the rioting is going to slow down in a few days and the same old shit that got us here today will continue and we'll be setting us up for something even worse down the road.
I'm sorry, I just can't deal with this today. I'm scared for my family and my City. I know stupid people take advantage of situations like this all the time. Cars were turned over and burned and liquor stores were looted after Bulls, White Sox and Cubs titles, too. Most people chose to adhere to the Social Contract. You have to expect to have some people who just want anarchy. It's in our nature, I suppose.
This is just a slightly different version of the same festering societal problem. But this time it seems more real and legit. And it scares the shit out of me.
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:02 pmA. You are correct. Chauvin is in jail because he was filmed. I'd argue that, in this instance, the advance of technology has been very much to the benefit of the people, in that it allows them to verify that which was previously unverifiable. I don't think the next wave of technology will be quite as friendly to the people. Nice.chiknbut wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:47 pm
Agree with you on some of this. But strongly disagree on the following: Derek Chauvin is not in jail because of the Social Contract. Not even close. If he wasn't filmed, he'd be on administrative leave, filling out paperwork and waiting for the next time he could go thug again. He was destined to walk. His biggest problem was he finally got caught doing something he'd done dozens of times before. I don't think that's the Social Contract norm. It's absolutely the exception.
I know what you're trying to say. I don't share your optimism. I think the rioting is going to slow down in a few days and the same old shit that got us here today will continue and we'll be setting us up for something even worse down the road.
I'm sorry, I just can't deal with this today. I'm scared for my family and my City. I know stupid people take advantage of situations like this all the time. Cars were turned over and burned and liquor stores were looted after Bulls, White Sox and Cubs titles, too. Most people chose to adhere to the Social Contract. You have to expect to have some people who just want anarchy. It's in our nature, I suppose.
This is just a slightly different version of the same festering societal problem. But this time it seems more real and legit. And it scares the shit out of me.
B. I don't think any of that is incompatible with the social contract. Neither Nice or Not Nice.
C. I'm not optimistic. I'm dreadfully pessimistic. A soft-totalitarian corporatist state run by Republicans AND Democrats is how I see the next twenty-five years playing out. Not Nice.
D. None of this matters right now. I'm sorry you have to deal with this, and I hope you stay safe. Nice!
I think, unfortunately, that there are going to have to be some very hard choices made. And the current COVID-inspired economic crisis is going to make them even harder.
or, maybe redirect some of that bloated federal military budgetDCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:22 pmI think, unfortunately, that there are going to have to be some very hard choices made. And the current COVID-inspired economic crisis is going to make them even harder.
Right now, most municipalities don't spend what is necessary to maintain, train, and monitor a police force of adequate size to do the job we ask of them (which I think is 2.5 officers per 1000 residents).
We have three options:
1. Muddle through with the status quo.
2. Reassess what we ask our police to do.
3. Find the money -- which at the municipal level means raising sales and property taxes, encouraging business development, and ending the practice of paying ridiculous sums to keep or attract sports teams.