- An "officer came running up to her vehicle yelling for her to stop. ... Rogers 'panicked and drove the wrong way' down a bus-only lane." Assuming that's accurate, then if the police tell you to stop, and you drive your vehicle away, they're probably going to get physical with you once they catch up to you. That's their job. Their only alternative to responding with physical force at that point is to just shrug shoulders and say "O well we tried" and let someone drive around "panicked" in unexpected places in an environment where little school children are walking around.
- I do not understand why it's difficult to find just the long, unedited cut of the bodycam footage of what happened. Every single video I was able to find is this weirdly intercut and looped version which focuses on the one part that everyone agrees happened, where you can't really see the context, and then it's overlaid over someone's interpretation of what happened, which is a whole bunch of irritating bullshit.
- With #2 in mind as a caveat, I think that reading between the lines, what happened is that they stopped her car by blocking it with their cars, pulled her out, put her on the ground to handcuff her, she started screaming about ants, and then after 13 seconds they pulled her up. Then she started struggling, and they put her back on the ground and held her there in the ant pile for a long time while they hogtied her, and that's where all the carpet of ant bites in the photo came from.
- I am far from an ACAB person, but I do not understand what goes on in US police training that if someone's actively struggling with you, you need to start hurting them until they calm down. I've seen this reaction over and over in police videos, and I think I have literally never once seen it be successful at the supposed goal. It's just not how people operate. I get it that you need to use force if someone's using force against the police to try to avoid getting arrested. That part actually makes sense to me. But the part where someone's resisting getting arrested, and the cops start hurting them and then usually seem for-real surprised that now they're struggling more, is genuinely confusing to me how they can't figure it out.
mozz
joined 2 years ago
Oh, and since I missed it: So Biden didn't say anything about how many anti genocide sentiment was on Tiktok, actually it was Blinken, oh wait, he didn't say that at all, he said "You have a social media ecosystem environment in which context, history, facts get lost, and the emotion—the impact of images—dominates." I would 100% agree with that. That's of the problems in my experience with talking with people who get their picture of the world from TikTok. There are other anti-establishment news sources which lend themselves a lot better to depth of understanding in addition to, yes, seeing the imagery and emotion which for something like Gaza is an important part to include.
Then, Romney said, "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites—it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts." Which is at least vaguely adjacent to what you said, but also is (1) just someone who's not in the executive branch who's just kind of guessing (2) not at all the same as "how much anti genocide sentiment was on it".
Oh, no doubt. Biden's not nearly enough.
Example: Biden made a massive improvement to the US's greenhouse gas emissions, the impact of which is predicted to be a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030. Is that enough? Uh... if it had been by the year 2000, maybe. We're still facing a guaranteed global catastrophe. We need to keep pushing for more change, right now, and anyone who's satisfied with what Biden did so far is living in a dream world.
Where I have a problem with it is when someone extrapolates that out to "and that's why there's no reason to support Biden in his contest vs Trump, when Trump wants to undo even that much, and when Biden's climate action was the first big-scale thing any US politician has ever done to make the problem into an actual priority."
If anything I'm saying sounds like "and so Biden is good enough," it is not. What I am saying is that affirmatively choosing the Biden solution in this election while also pushing for big improvements in any one of 10-20 additional ways to achieve actual progress sounds like the way to go.
I said: "Also, there are a ton of issues e.g. related to safety and wages. It's not just sick days." and then linked to some sources for why the sick days were the main flashpoint where things broke down.
Then you said: "there was definitely more than sick days to it." basically re-reexplained back to me what I had just got done saying, just changing the sourced statements into unsourced disagreements with those statements, based on your off the dome beliefs on it maybe.
I said: "just forgot about Mastodon, Twitter, Lemmy, and all the other sources where people can get anti-US news freely? (Or Fox News or Newsmax, which actually present an affirmative threat to his presidency and in an indirect way to his actual personal safety, and show some fairly legitimate reasons why someone could argue for shutting them down?)" (note: I edited it shortly after posting to add Fox News and Newsmax when I realized they should be included)
Then you said: "what are the anti administration media that isn't getting banned?"
It feels like you're not really listening, and just kind of have a set of points you want to make, and if I ask questions or make citations to disagree with it, you just rewind to the start and push play on the set of points you want to make.
Also:
to get liberals to realize that it's okay not to vote for biden
Not really, dude. I mean in a technical sense, you can do whatever you want to do, but if your house is burning down and someone's saying hey it's okay if we don't put out the fire, because I heard some bad things about the firefighters and anyway the back stairs weren't up to code, that person is objectively wrong. Put out the fucking fire. Trump is the fire.
because i genuinely believe that no one under 50 can look back at their adult life and say "yeah, this is good, actually, i'm happy with this, it should be biden, not literally any other candidate. the democrats are really my ally and i should lend them my support". i mean, there's the butigeegs (I can't spell his name) of the world, but you know, like real people. anyway i'm not trying to convert people to anarchism or communism but just to meet people where they're at with the message that "things are bad and they're not gonna get better from one or the other ruling class party. reject their tickets and choose something else. organize in your communities and try to build resilliency"
I would support you in doing all of those things. If it ever sounded like I was against the idea of improving the Democrats or replacing them with something better, or against organizing in your community, or anything like that, I'm not. But in this election, it's Trump vs Biden, and all of those things will get 10 times harder to do if Trump wins and shuts down community organizing and unions and protest movements and starts throwing anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan in political prison or if they're in congress killing them.
I'm not saying any disagreement with any of what you said up there; a good bit of my support for voting for Biden is based on the alternative being the end of the fuckin world. But sure, improving the system outside voting for Biden is also 100% necessary, yes. On that we definitely agree.
It's hard to say who is a genuine leftist and who is a please-don't-vote-for-Biden-so-Trump-can-win shill, but if we take e.g. @brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml at face value, I think it's safe to say that they don't care:
- About any given good thing Biden might have done domestically (forget about that, how dare you run around supporting this genocide man)
- If Biden personally isn't doing the genocide (forget about that, how dare you run around supporting this genocide man)
- If Trump will probably do much worse genocides both in the middle east and in the United States (forget about that etc you get the idea)
It's like the Republican-type thing, where only one answer is allowed. If Biden did a good thing, then no he didn't, because Netanyahu is killing Gazans and anything Biden is doing to try to prevent that didn't happen and it's all Biden's fault and he's a bad man and I'm going to start to shout if you try to tell me anything about how even if that's all true then Trump is ten times worse and those are the only two options in this election.
I mean, I kind of get it. Biden is materially aiding in a genocide and it's easy at that point in the conversation to shut down anything further and say, okay I've heard enough. I think the right answer though is to figure out how to put pressure on Biden from the left to at least undo some of the harm he's been abetting up to this point, figure out how to install better candidates in the future who will undo American's war-crime-adjacent foreign policy in the future, while also voting for Biden in the election because he doesn't want 10 genocides like Trump does. However much bullshit is the resistance Biden has been giving Netanyahu up until this point, it's definitely better than the full-throated support and assistance Trump would give him.
(Edit: Fixed @ link)
Yeah, all makes sense.
So what I'm getting at, is not like disagreeing with any of that. I'm just saying that, for example, it's relevant that the USSR starved millions of people in the territories it expanded into when their agricultural policies failed. So if we're going to say "We have to fight capitalism!" (which, yes, we do, or at least limit its bad effects) by saying "We need to install communism!", it's a relevant question to ask, okay what are the details, how do you plan to prevent that even-worse-than-capitalism outcome from happening again (which, I'm not saying that's every communist system, just that it's a relevant example to bring up as why "this isn't capitalism" isn't a sufficient or safe reason to switch to any particular other-than-capitalism system as the new answer).
Surely that makes sense? Or no?
whether this works still remains to be seen
Labor has been winning in a big way since Biden came in, including both many strikes and many legal battles. Legal battles means forcing union elections at the UAW, or fighting court battles whether the strikes are legal (which for some fuckin reason is a thing in the US) for example. It doesn't remain to be seen whether it'll work; it already has been happening.
i dont think the more open fascim republicans plan have will change anything for us until the international correlation of power changes
You do understand that giving an opinion on the US election, but following it up with saying but that's only the US, so even if millions suffer or die there it doesn't really impact me here in Brazil... that isn't gonna convince me as a US voter to obey your way of looking at the election here?
This is one reason, but by far not the only reason, that it's weird that I'm running into so many people on Lemmy who have strong opinions on the US election (and always in the direction of not voting for Biden) who follow it up with, oh by the way I'm not even from the US, I just have super strong opinions about the election there.
strong unions are something that would 100% definetly push back but with bidens move to deflate the most important one at the time
I feel like you probably haven't been reading my links about what Biden has been doing with unions and labor, and just know that one example that everyone knows and likes bringing up.
I'm just interested in reality, is all.
If someone shows up and says "HITLER HAD THREE EYES" I'm like, no, he didn't, he had two. If someone shows up and says Biden hates labor, I say, no he doesn't, and then I give some explanation why. If they then say "HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT HITLER/BIDEN WHEN HE DID A GENOCIDE," I can point them to some comments where I also said that genocide is bad, but at the end of the day Hitler still had two eyes.
This system where any "support" for Biden by talking about good facts about Biden, when he's also yes assisted the US's longstanding policy of helping the Israelis kill brown people, is a Republican-like thing. If someone says a good thing about a Democrat they say "HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THEM WHEN THEY'RE A MARXIST / CHILD MOLESTER / WHATEVER." I don't operate that way. Telling the truth is not a forbidden act, even if it crosses up the lines you've chosen for who the allies and enemies are.
If that means I am "singing praises" then sure.
Raw milk is not inherently dangerous
Unless there's some sort of deadly disease commonly involved in it (which, in the American food supply right now, is what's up.)
I mean bullets are not inherently dangerous either, but if the environment you're going into involves them moving at high speeds sometimes, you probably want to take some precautions about it.
she has to have ignored or dismissed a LOT of red flags to get to where she was
Every news she watched told her a certain picture of how the world was.
Every person she talked to swears to her that the world is a certain way (and, if she starts questioning, they get real suspicious of her and maybe might ostracize her from their social circle).
It would be weird if she had arrived at the truth on her own before this point. And usually, it actually takes a lot more than just reading over the primary sources and realizing that they don't say what the news and all her friends said they say, before someone realizes the truth.
She didn't ignore any red flags, because the red flags exist in reality. You're well acquainted with some information about reality that she's not privy to, and so in your mind it was easy to spot. For her, her world picture is carefully managed and curated, and the instant that she saw some information that it wasn't the way she'd been told, she realized the truth, told everyone (alienating more or less 100% of her former allies), and started working to try to put it right.
Don't hedge your support for her, would be my way of looking at it. She wants to stop the Nazis. Okay, sounds great. I wouldn't kick Eisenhower out of the wagon train because he's a Republican, while the shooting against the ones who want to kill you and me and also her, is still going on.
i never said biden hates unions
Okay, sure. You said "labor demonstrations have been crushed just a few short years ago." That's a huge stretch, since multiple labor demonstrations have been materially assisted by Biden's revamped NLRB, and the one that was "crushed" was more complex than what you're implying.
Here's a story about some of the details of how the attendance policy specifically was the most proximate cause of the strike. Probably Wikipedia's article is the clearest overview -- in brief, negotiations broke down with workers getting wage increase but only 1 day of paid leave a year, as opposed to the 15 that they wanted. The law that broke the strike limited them to 1 day per year, which was kind of a "fuck you" to the unions.
Then, after that, the NLRB kept negotiations going with the railroads. E.g. as of March, they had 3-7 days per year. IDK, that's not as good as I thought it was, so maybe there's still an argument to be made that the workers got screwed.
Also, there are a ton of issues e.g. related to safety and wages. It's not just sick days. But, the sick days were the immediate proximate disagreement that led to the strike.
I choose to not meticulously source and check stuff because it both makes people i'm responding to get hostile and feel like theyre being attacked or accused of being ignorant
I am the exact opposite. I think it's important to have reasons for what you're saying and demonstrate that there's a reason and link to more information about it. I'm sometimes kinda condescending about it I guess but I think it's important to refer to what the reality is, instead of just taking turns talking at each other about our different opinions.
that last part is one of the reasons i don't like to quote
i've been trying to keep things civil and not resort to insulting you either directly or indirectly through implication. please do the same.
So this is just something about me: If someone starts saying things like "For more on this topic the 1988 book Manufacturing Consent is a great start and not too out there to scare off liberals" I get real offended, because I take that as that exact kind of accusing of being ignorant that you were talking about before. I think it's more about me, so maybe I shouldn't have reacted badly -- but yeah, if we were talking face to face and you said something like that to me I would get irritated by it. That's more why I got hostile with you. Like bro don't tell me what to read or imply that I might be scared off by it. I've read it, yes. If we're talking we can talk, and maybe I might be abrasive about some things and if so I apologize, but also don't try to take this you-maybe-haven't-heard-of-Noam-Chomsky tone with me. And in particular, don't try to change the subject from "hey here's my coherent argument for why banning TikTok is motivated by something other than censorship" by starting to imply that maybe I'm just clueless about the idea of US government interfering with media in general, and you need to help me by recommending some sources on it that I might not have heard of.
I never said there were more media sources that the administration wants to ban.
So it's just Tiktok? Is it relevant to you that there are other much more anti-administration sources that they aren't banning?
who was the politician who admitted that the tiktok ban was at least partially motivated by how much anti genocide sentiment was on it?
When did this happen?
"Biden took the first big step towards addressing climate change of any US politician ever, and was able to achieve significant success even within our horribly broken political system. While I fully support extra-electoral change (it is 100% needed), I would say that that's a relevant fact to the question of whether we should spend time shitting on him and only him, as part of our quest to produce positive change in the system."
"Well now you have turned me away."
Yeah, I'm comfortable letting that person go.