I guess I've been doing it wrong all along.

Thanks Mike. I'll respond with some comments later but looking through one of the sources, it says that the officers' body cam footage was released. I'm at work right now so I don't think it'd be smart of me to search for it but has anyone else seen it?

Well now...I'll make a partial defense of Sam's position....this got long. I apologize.

Mike,

Do you remember us talking about identity politics and me telling you I wanted to write some posts? Well, seeing as I'm sifting through about 100 sources and trying to make sense of a number of different things, I don't know when that's going to happen, but please allow me the opportunity to apply what I've learned to this discussion, starting with this comment...

"I’m not picking that variable because it’s convenient for me. That’s just a bonus. The reason I picked that variable is because I actually understand what I am talking about, while it appears you do not."

The post that was published here a few weeks back, The Apolitical Myth, fell short in two ways that I'll clarify here. They both relate to this discussion.

The first was about the nature of "the personal is political". The discussion was far too vague. While he was correct to point out that the idea was attributed to second wave feminism, that he failed to point out that it was radical feminism and not liberal feminism. To me, this is a critical distinction.

Where liberal feminists focused on political and legal equality (and some degree social), radical feminists believe women are THE oppressed class - oppressed by men through a power structure that transcended sovereign power and social power and went straight to "private" interpersonal relationships.

This wasn't just an assertion. Through the use of consciousness raising groups, they acquired knowledge of the lived experiences of women, experiences including rape, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, domestic violence, and other horrors women were subjected to at the hands of men. Given the extent to which this was occurring, they argued that these actions were not individual acts of violence but part of a larger power structure which allowed men to oppress women with impunity.

Whether or not you agree that it was a class-based form of oppression, you MUST respect the fact that their theory was evidence-based in that they had the blood, bruises and broken bones to show for it. You should also respect, to a degree, the fact that the consciousness raising groups were part of an apparatus that produced knowledge well outside what you or I could have produced. This goes to the development of feminist standpoint epistemology, the three main tenets being:

a) knowledge is socially situated - seeing as we aren't in those social situations

b) marginalized groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things

These are descriptive and correct in the context. There's a normative claim that research should start with marginalized communities but it wasn't applicable to this situation. Also, as I'm aware that standpoint epistemology is controversial and can speak to it, but the way it was applied in the late '60's-early '70's isn't the issue. Radical feminists were asserting oppression based on knowledge of it. They weren't asserting privilege or any of the things associated with modern day identity politics. Right or wrong, they saw a problem and they went after it politically and sought change, doing what they criticized liberal feminists for not doing.

A way to diagram this - Knowledge ----->theory (oppression) -----> political action

Note that they didn't bust out the slide rules or statistical models. Note that they weren't concerned about the opinions of anthropologists or sociologists or anyone that could have approached from an "objective" or positivist perspective. This was a political issue requiring that people acknowledge the problem as a political one and moving from there. The pencil necks could piss off as far as they were concerned.

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this, and I'm glad that you were kind enough to post the Quillette article because while you're averse to "wokeness", as am I, I don't think Sam's article hits the "woke" threshold by a longshot.

The only criteria that comes remotely close is the second one - bigotry being pervasive. My concern is that there are ways to make that claim without falling back on moral or ideological dogma. I'm not sure how Sam does that seeing as that he's using the response to police shootings of unarmed black men by prosecutors. Put that in the context of this country's history on race and even the historical issues between the black community and police. We can agree or disagree on the evidence-based claims, but "bigotry being pervasive" in wokeland takes on a different meaning.

So no, Sam's writing on this issue is not woke. Hell, if I wanted to, I'd draft a response filled with so much critical race theory and accusations of complicity, privilege and fragility that it would make your head spin. That's woke. It would also make me sick to my stomach and require me to take a shower after writing it so no thanks.

However, don't think you're in the clear. Putting my pessimist hat on, I can make an argument that you've failed to engage Sam's broader arguments. You've claimed a certain form of authority on the subject perhaps based on personal/professional grounds...understandable as I'd do the same in certain subjects. However, and I do have to question your approach because I think this is ultimately a POLITICAL matter and should be engaged as such.

I'll lay something out in the way I'd approach it rather than me pointing out how wrong everyone else has been...for all I know, I'm the one that's whacked.

- We know there's been longstanding tensions between the black communities and law enforcement. It exists. For the purpose of this discussion, the causes don't matter.

- For now, as an analytical tool, but not the only one, take the same broader approach to power structures as the second wave radical feminists understood it. If the idea of an oppressed group is too much, just use dominant/non-dominant. So what if it originates from Marxist thought. It's a tool. At least I'm not asking you to apply Foucault so give me some credit ;)

- Standpoint knowledge from non-dominant groups needs to be considered because it may provide insight you (or me) can't have based on our own standpoints. Note that I'm not asking you to PRIVILEGE their knowledge (that's the "woke" way) but make efforts to acquire it and understand it the way they do. I know standpoint epistemology is controversial because woke types use it to convey moral and epistemic authority. I reject that approach. I think a deeper dive is required and would most likely require some form of political engagement...I'm lost on the details.

- I'm not here to argue about structural racism on an abstract level, but I am wondering if there's a form of racism originating at the personal level that can when combined can pose systemic issues politically or in matters of justice. The radical feminists didn't need to show that every man was an oppressive abuser, only enough of them. Same goes for bigots, albeit it may be a little harder to demonstrate. The best example I can see clearly is the rise of white identity politics on the far right (and nationalist right wing movements elsewhere).

- Prosecutors don't want to prosecute because they don't think they can secure conviction or the risk-reward ratio is skewed. Are the reasons based on the facts of the case and evidence? Is it a general attitude towards giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt? Are there concerns about the racial nature of the case that could bias jurors one way or the other? I'd hope jury selection is such that the jury can put personal differences aside, but who the hell knows? It wouldn't be the first time.

This isn't meant to be clean. I'm as much a fan of universalism, objectivity, rationality and reason as the next person, but these are messy problems that geeks and their spreadsheets, models and "objective" standards aren't going to solve. It requires a different set of rules of engagement.

None of this should be read to suggest Sam is right. I have no clue. Mike, you could end up being right. I have no clue. What I do know is this - to the extent I see what's known as systemic racism, I don't follow the "woke" definition but recognize it two ways:

1) That there are ways that acts of individual racism or individual racists can create larger collective action problems. I think this can pose a problem in juries in certain kinds of case.

2) Reactionary politics creating political movements that get propelled to power and then have some control over political institutions. White identity politics on the American Right will always be better at doing this than any kind of left wing identity politics for reasons that should be obvious.

It's a tough subject to discuss. It's an even tougher discussion to have when we talk about figuring out what to do about it.

All I'm asking for is a look through a different perspective.

My apologies for the length. I've written enough, and lest anyone think I'm writing from a "woke" perspective, I can respond to that with my highest degree of disagreement but until then, this is the best I got for now...

Reality may be worse...

Poe's Law...

This is your brain on grievance studies.

And then some.

Whether you eat meat or not can become a Matter of politics because of issues concerning animal rights or the environment.

There are people that would look at the way I lost weight, kept it off and continue to lift weights as political in that I'm perpetuating the kind of diet culture that oppresses fat people. That makes my individual decision political, at least according to them.

They can think what they want. I'm under no obligation to agree to see the world as they do or even engage.

Mike,

It's not a tantrum...he's "negotiating" Remember, he wrote the Art of the Deal. This IS the art of the deal.

Trump is going to deliver his first Oval Office prime time address Tuesday, and the subject is the national security emergency occurring on the border.

In other words, Donald Trump is going to treat us with his usual dose of fiction during a prime time address. Nice. Take notes for me.

Going by the economic data on the last partial government shutdown, this one has already cost the country more dollars than the wall would cost, two to five times more, depending on which numbers you go by, and Trump says he is willing to leave the government shutdown for months or years if need be.

I take it you don't work with numbers for a living.

It's kind of f--dup isn't it?

The alt-right uses it as an excuse to erase whiteness.

The illiberal left** reminds people of their whiteness when a certain subject gets brought up and puts bigots that belong to "oppressed" classes under the gun.

They can both go f--k themselves for their bigotry, but I wasn't talking about the former.

**EDIT (part of the left not the whole left itself)

Dragonfrog,

My apologies. I saw Lee's response as soon as my response went up and I should have deleted mine. I was chatting with Lee in real time so I must have forgotten.

It was a bit of a defensive move on my part and apparently unnecessary. All good.

Where do I apologize for my white privilege and white fragility?

Is this where I apologize and repent by going forth and being the kind of ally that should educate myself and let others speak up?

I saw a lot of that recently. Would you like me to tell you who I saw it directed to?

I want to reform the government by destroying the Senate and adding 8 35-year-old liberal Harvard law grads to the Supreme Court.

Great idea, kind of like Medicare for All only for toddlers.

Awesome. Great job.

So who now is going to say, “eff that, we need higher wages!”

Fight for $15 is fighting for lower wages?

No, it's not conspiracy oriented at all. It just needs explaining and with care and consideration because of the implications and how I've seen this go online.

Try again Saul. It's not kids that are the problem.

I call you a zealot and you ask me to explain the worldview of conservatives.

Dude...quit while you're ahead or this is going to go downhill fast.

You really need to get out more.

That’s mostly my point. They wanted to wring as much profit as possible out of the company in as short a time as possible and move on.

You say that like it's a bad thing. It's really not if you look at it the right way.

They had no long term vision and no real desire to preserve the brand reputation.

What makes you think that? Do you understand what moving on constitutes?

Sam Wilkinson: She worked for a law firm that covered for Larry Nassar’s abuse. It does not matter if she was personally involved. It matters that USAG thought that this was not an issue at all. It matters that USAG did not even consider what sort of message this would be sending to its athletes.

It's a sad world when things like this need to be explained to people.

Em Carpenter: Or are their only acceptable options 1) subject themselves to the justice system, or 2) STFU forever?

Alrighty you all win.

Short answer - no. Long answer - it's complicated.

I can't possibly do this subject justice in a comments section. As much as I'd rather be lifting or writing about making the kinds of godly gains most other 45 year olds don't, I need to respond to your post in full. Stay tuned.

You believe him. I think he's full of shit.

@dark-matter

Dark Matter: Only true if we’re expecting the gov to mandate things. What should be happening is the gov corrects the current failures it’s allowed and (re)creates markets. In other words…

Force all HC providers to publish prices (and probably some other data such as infection rates and success rates).

That allows market solutions to be possible, considering how many people would like HC to be cheaper, I’d think it might be the only thing we need the gov to do (although I’d like mandated standards for electronic records as well).

https://go.beckershospitalreview.com/the-case-for-price-transparency-why-it-pays-to-empower-patient-choice

This has been long underway since the ACA went into effect. Not only is there more price transparency than there ever has been, which improves competition and a functioning market but the shift from inpatient to outpatient care has forced the health systems to change the way they think about healthcare delivery and are now actively competing heavily for market share.

Ten years ago, you didn't see a competing health system open a multi-specialty outpatient center in the backyard of a competing system in order to chase market share and increase patient referrals to inpatient and other facilities. Today, it's the nature of the course.

There's the whole healthcare following a model that has more in common with traditional bricks and mortar retail than the more institutional on-campus healthcare delivery model in years past.

@dark-matter

What we have is NOTHING close to or similar to a market.

You are so wrong on this point that I don't even know where to begin to pick apart at this other than to say your free market ideology doesn't help you at all in this conversation, which seems to be a problem among the more ideological libertarians that don't understand real world markets.