Police are too quick to break up and use violence against protests about police brutality, racism and Indigenous rights.
Police are too slow to break up protests about Covid mandates.
It's hard not to see the role demographics plays there.
I believe in the right to protest, even if it inconveniences. I also believe that the state has a responsibility to act when it exceeds reasonable limits. Like most cases of civil disobedience, arrests are an expected cost to pay. If no cost, no deterrence.
Individuals who disperse when asked to shouldn't face consequences. Authorities shouldn't escalate with violence (e.g beatings). There's a balance, and the refusal to make it clear that the balance isn't driven by demographics and politics, speaks volumes.
I hope I don't have to deal with the "I thought you were a radical Marxist that wants to destroy Western Civilization and make black people our overlords" BS on this post. 🤦🏾♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'd like to remind people that heterodox implies atypical or even fringe.
It tells you nothing about reasonableness or correctness.
"Here's this heterodox black person that has a different opinion about racism than you do" reflects way less on me than some people may think.
Tells me some stuff about the person using the argument though.
Really interesting how Identity Politics and Standpoint Epistemology are embraced by those looking to their favorite black people to help them dismiss racism.
Even today, our kids generally say "the s word" when referring to the word "stupid".
We don't allow them to call anyone that in any sense. They can refer to things that way, but not people.
My wife and I swear, in my case rarely. We almost never swear in the presence of our kids, and when we do they call us out on it.
I'm not making any moral judgment with this, just thinking of how differently even good parents parent.
Derogatory references to people just seem like something we don't want to encourage. If they truly mean to refer to a person under that derogatory term then it's legitimate, but they better be prepared to defend that use or face consequences.
Some argue you must abide offensive speech, because freedom. They also argue you must not use your speech in retaliation, because freedom.
I remain convinced that all sides just want to set their own boundaries on socially acceptable speech, but only one side insists they want to constrain the speech of others in the name of free speech.
There was a time I would argue that side would only socially constrain the speech of others using speech, a tactic I believe to be fair.
But over the last few years, I've realized a tremendous willingness to support the use of state power to constrain speech.
If there was a movement to have Spotify remove sexist or racist content, I'd support it.
The free market can be used for good things too.
Let's see how long before someone comes in and calls me an authoritarian or illiberal... because I support using the free market for something good.
The free market shouldn't only be used for exploiting the poor and marginalized.
I remember one time someone was insisting on his right to use the n-word because rappers do. He then asked if I preferred he boycotted such music. I said "yes, and I'd support you!"
He proceeded to call me names like illiberal and authoritarian.
So now anyone who suggests black students are less qualified for elite schools, or black workers for management jobs, is engaging in racism.
All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now being racist.
All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now engaging in racism according to the Anti-Defamation League.
All those who assume black people are less intelligent or capable, are engaging in racism.
I know some like it because it also labels attempt to address the impacts of racism are racist, but they rarely want their assumptions of inferiority to be labeled racism.