Fuck the State

[Wolter]

Long's post:
http://aaeblog.com/2010/06/04/defend-red-black-cafe/

Check out the comments.

Those comments sicken me.

[Dr. Medulla]

Long's post:
http://aaeblog.com/2010/06/04/defend-red-black-cafe/

Check out the comments.

Those comments sicken me.

The cultural groundwork for creating a police state has definitely been laid based on those comments. In some respects, it's more unsettling than the brazen thuggishness of the cops themselves.

[Flex]

Those comments are brutal. The threats of violence against people who don't display proper subservience towards the police are sickening.

[eumaas]

I would've served the cop, but used it as an opportunity to try to dissuade him from being a cop.

Then, of course, I would get tasered for disorderly conduct and assaulting an officer with speech.

[eumaas]

But seriously, I probably wouldn't have tossed the dude out. It seems too much like giving the police force what they want--I'd rather try to find some way of opening up the situation into dialogue or something.

[Wolter]

But seriously, I probably wouldn't have tossed the dude out. It seems too much like giving the police force what they want--I'd rather try to find some way of opening up the situation into dialogue or something.

Faggot.


No, I kid. I think that's the best option.

[eumaas]

Long's post:
http://aaeblog.com/2010/06/04/defend-red-black-cafe/

Check out the comments.

Those comments sicken me.

Nice response to one:

“Without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back.”

If humankind is so dangerous and violent and murderous that we must constantly be held in check using physical force and threats of violence, lest we descend into chaos; if you truly believe that “without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back,” how can you reconcile that with the fact that police officers are also human and thus, unlikely to be any better than the savages who would rape you and tear you asunder if not for the police?

Or do you posit that police are a better breed of humans, our ’superiors’, and they alone are capable of beating us back from the violent urges of our most primal, animal selves?

That is to say, the contention that the police hold the line between order and chaos is a laughably ignorant proposition. It is humanity itself, every person, who creates order in our world, not a select group of our betters.

[Dr. Medulla]

Long's post:
http://aaeblog.com/2010/06/04/defend-red-black-cafe/

Check out the comments.

Those comments sicken me.

Nice response to one:

“Without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back.”

If humankind is so dangerous and violent and murderous that we must constantly be held in check using physical force and threats of violence, lest we descend into chaos; if you truly believe that “without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back,” how can you reconcile that with the fact that police officers are also human and thus, unlikely to be any better than the savages who would rape you and tear you asunder if not for the police?

Or do you posit that police are a better breed of humans, our ’superiors’, and they alone are capable of beating us back from the violent urges of our most primal, animal selves?

That is to say, the contention that the police hold the line between order and chaos is a laughably ignorant proposition. It is humanity itself, every person, who creates order in our world, not a select group of our betters.

I don't think the counter is especially strong. One doesn't have to be logically trapped into thinking that police are superior humans. One could argue that the organization and training that cops receive, and the rules of conduct that they are exposed to (indoctrinated, if you want), raises them over the impulsive and destructive behaviour of the average guy. I'm not making that claim, mind you, just saying that inserting a supposed inescapable position in the other guy's mouth isn't that compelling.

[eumaas]

“Without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back.”

If humankind is so dangerous and violent and murderous that we must constantly be held in check using physical force and threats of violence, lest we descend into chaos; if you truly believe that “without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back,” how can you reconcile that with the fact that police officers are also human and thus, unlikely to be any better than the savages who would rape you and tear you asunder if not for the police?

Or do you posit that police are a better breed of humans, our ’superiors’, and they alone are capable of beating us back from the violent urges of our most primal, animal selves?

That is to say, the contention that the police hold the line between order and chaos is a laughably ignorant proposition. It is humanity itself, every person, who creates order in our world, not a select group of our betters.

I don't think the counter is especially strong. One doesn't have to be logically trapped into thinking that police are superior humans. One could argue that the organization and training that cops receive, and the rules of conduct that they are exposed to (indoctrinated, if you want), raises them over the impulsive and destructive behaviour of the average guy. I'm not making that claim, mind you, just saying that inserting a supposed inescapable position in the other guy's mouth isn't that compelling.

That doesn't really work as a defense; all you've done is regress it. You can keep deferring it, but at some point you have to account for a minority that deviates from the posited essential condition (war of each against all) of humanity.

[eumaas]

“Without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back.”

If humankind is so dangerous and violent and murderous that we must constantly be held in check using physical force and threats of violence, lest we descend into chaos; if you truly believe that “without the police relentlessly patrolling, you would not be able to walk to the corner and back,” how can you reconcile that with the fact that police officers are also human and thus, unlikely to be any better than the savages who would rape you and tear you asunder if not for the police?

Or do you posit that police are a better breed of humans, our ’superiors’, and they alone are capable of beating us back from the violent urges of our most primal, animal selves?

That is to say, the contention that the police hold the line between order and chaos is a laughably ignorant proposition. It is humanity itself, every person, who creates order in our world, not a select group of our betters.

I don't think the counter is especially strong. One doesn't have to be logically trapped into thinking that police are superior humans. One could argue that the organization and training that cops receive, and the rules of conduct that they are exposed to (indoctrinated, if you want), raises them over the impulsive and destructive behaviour of the average guy. I'm not making that claim, mind you, just saying that inserting a supposed inescapable position in the other guy's mouth isn't that compelling.

That doesn't really work as a defense; all you've done is regress it. You can keep deferring it, but at some point you have to account for a minority that deviates from the posited essential condition (war of each against all) of humanity.

I wrote this quick between doing dishes and forgot to add my second point: if organization, training, and rules of conduct are all that is necessary to remove an individual from the condition of war, why should that work for police but not for the majority upon whom force must be exercised to keep them in line? Either internalizing rules works or it doesn't. Again, you could say that force is necessary to keep the police themselves in line, but that puts you into regress again. You still end up with an individual (a monarch) or individuals who are able to internalize rules and behave well without the application of force. If you say that it's the checks and balances of various forces keeping rulers in line (say the monarch is subject to pressure from parliament), then you have to account for why that balance of power isn't applicable to the majority as a way of maintaining order--why shouldn't the checks and balances of each individual being a sovereign subject to other sovereigns work just as well as the checks and balances in the structure of the state? At some point, if you want to maintain the idea of the essential condition of humanity being chaotic war, you have to say that some people are just plain better.

[eumaas]

Just using the general you, by the way. I know you aren't a Hobbesian, Hooky.

[Dr. Medulla]

I really don't want to get into this because it'll end up placing me in a position of arguing a pro-police position—or at least it'll end up devolving into that, I suspect—which is not where I want to go. I'd prefer to just leave it by suggesting that one doesn't need to say that only some are capable of learning than others—a superior group by any other name—but rather that there may be a calculated interest by those in charge in training some rather than others.

[eumaas]

I really don't want to get into this because it'll end up placing me in a position of arguing a pro-police position—or at least it'll end up devolving into that, I suspect—which is not where I want to go. I'd prefer to just leave it by suggesting that one doesn't need to say that only some are capable of learning than others—a superior group by any other name—but rather that there may be a calculated interest by those in charge in training some rather than others.

Well, if you don't want to get into it, I can't force you. My only closing remark is that, again, there can't be any "those in charge" with a "calculated interest" if they aren't somehow removed from what's posited as an essential condition of human being.

[Dr. Medulla]

My only closing remark is that, again, there can't be any "those in charge" with a "calculated interest" if they aren't somehow removed from what's posited as an essential condition of human being.

Okay, I'll play along for a bit as it does interest me. One of things that I pause at with this notion of "superiority" or "better" is that it seems to be treated as essential or objective. This guy is objectively better than that guy. Every human being, every animal, is a mish mosh of skill sets, some being quite useful in some situations, perhaps a detriment in others. A social microcosm of the evolutionary process, if you will. Some people are innately skilled at motivating others. They may be charismatic, they may be able to "read" what others want or fear or both, they may be adept at strategic thinking—they may have all three. Some people are able to command by their very being. Bill Clinton, by all accounts, is just that kind of individual. Such figures also tend to generate jealousy and hostility in others, putting themselves in danger, so it's not necessarily all plaques and hams. My point here, however, is that there is nothing about these people that makes them any more or less human, only that they possess qualities that stand out in some situations. This isn't to suggest that everything is innate, but that these types of individuals emerge and help establish/confirm systems of education (broadly speaking) that justify their own worldviews. And from there the whole notion of training some people as guardians to safeguard society from the random barbarians of humanity.

[eumaas]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/0 ... 01064.html

John Ardelean, a police officer who was seen drinking extensively just before killing two men in a car crash, walked free from the Criminal Courts building today. All charges against him had been dropped.

The prosecution was forced to drop charges after a ruling in late April by Judge Thomas Gainer, Jr. who threw out blood-alcohol evidence against Ardelean, saying it was obtained illegally.

...

On Thanksgiving Day 2007, Ardelean was captured on video taking at least five shots at the Martini Ranch Bar before driving away. The subsequent wreck killed Lagunas and 22-year-old Miguel Flores.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010 ... le-avenues

The state's attorney's office initially charged him with misdemeanors but upgraded them to felonies in January 2008, citing a video recording from the bar showing him drinking three beers and four shots in a little more than two hours.

At a preliminary hearing the next month, an expert on drivers under the influence testified that Ardelean's blood-alcohol level could have been 0.104 to 0.177 at the time of the crash, much higher than the legal limit. But prosecutors did not show Judge Donald Panarese Jr. the security video, and a bartender testified Ardelean was drinking shots of water. Panarese found there was no probable cause for the arrest .