Talk:Post-Cold War
Do we really need multiple subheadings for the events of the 21st Century? I think they're pretty generally well covered under the two previously existing ones, and frankly, any more could very well turn into a damned edit war due to the politically charged climate. Frankly, I'd rather not risk it and just keep this page short, simple, and to the point.
I would argue otherwise. The header quote by Fukuyama is an interesting point, because the article is written on the assumption that we are in the 'end of history'. But Fukuyama was proven wrong. History did not and has not ended, and to treat it as such is to ignore where we are and where we are going. 9/11 ended the idea of western triumphalism following the Cold War that inspired Fukuyama's theory in the first place, and the times we live in now are clear proof of that. We should not treat modern times as the end of history or a clear-cut ending. 9/11 mattered, as did the 2008 financial crisis and the current age of political polarization. Even if this is just a page to inspire RPG and Wargame ideas, we should not just give in to an easy narrative of post-Cold War triumph. --Ahriman's Aide (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that that notion is still held by many Americans, especially in the farther-right parties (like the Tea Party and the Constitution Party). To them, we triumphed over our greatest foe (communism), which is merely a continuation of the destiny of America (many "classical liberals" of the Tea Party genuinely talk about the US as if all of history was leading up to it and that America is God's chosen nation). Many of their stances are vocally about fighting "bad" things (tax reform, civil rights, public services), but are usually more about maintaining what they believe to be a perfect country. I'm not saying that their view is right or wrong (although I am personally disgusted by most people in that extreme), but the fact that it exists and is prominent enough to elect officials in more than one state (Vermont and Texas are common platforms for third-party politicians, especially in the legislature) means that worldview is relevant. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- About Fukuyama's quote. I do know that Fukuyama's statements about history did not come true, but his proposals of history changing and evolving within a more or less single socio-economic system is still rather relevant. Early modern mercantilism evolved into modern capitalism (and all its current variants) while anarchism, fascism and communism have been pretty much discarded as viable methodes of organizing a society. Whatever fight for dominance we're witnessing this days, it's done within one single model, only with many variants. --Alumno Alumno (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- How about CIA director Woolsey's claim "We have slain a large dragon, but we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes. And in many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of." as a replacement quote? --Agiletek (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like that's something to add rather than replace, because it is specifically aimed at terrorism, whereas Fukuyama, although talking about the fall of communism specifically, is applicable to a myriad of current issues (not everything springs from the Cold War in the contemporary era). --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Contents
"Beijing has not done anything yet on Hong Kong, so hold your horsie for a sec"[edit]
The removed statement was actually in reference to events on June 12th, July 28th (Where Hong Kong Free Press reports most journalists covering the event have developed serious health issues from misused tear gas used including coughing up blood and second degree burns) and August 11th (a woman lost an eye). Just because nobody has been killed (?) doesn't mean it's not "violently crushing". --Agiletek (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- When it comes to ongoing political situations like this, it is best to wait for things to subside before jumping the gun. Whilst the incident was pretty dickish, it is not that different from the way other police handle protests and/or riots such as the Yellow Vest protests in France or the ones in America. When one hears the term 'violently crushed', it is an automatic escalation of violence from pepper spray and rubber bullets to live rounds and armored vehicles. Ergo, the 2011 Arab Spring in Syria is an appropriate term for the word, 'violently crushed'. If the protests were 'violently crushed', than it means that the PAP had already entered and 'spring cleaned' the entire city in ten minutes, however the Hong Kong Police is telling Beijing to back off as they could handle the current issue right now. That's why I said to hold your horsie and let the smoke clear before we can make any conclusive judgement. Derpysaurus (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
"Hardcore" leftists[edit]
The section on the left wing populism in the USA reads really strangely to someone outside of the US. The US Democrats are right leaning centrists by anyone else's standards, and even Sanders and AOC are barely left wing (both of them could run on the right in Australia, New Zealand or the UK and be right at home.) I know we're not wikipedia, but a bit more neutrality would be nice. Mindwarp (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- From all I can find, those politicans outside of the US are moving to even further extremes, like allowing unlimited "refugees" and allowing them to rape without consequence. Meanwhile all the Alternate for X parties and the like go beyond just the normal "right" of those countries. Flight from the center hardly seems to be a phenomenon exclusive to the US. --Agiletek (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources for Police Racial Bias and Unjustifiability[edit]
Agiletek says that claims of racial bias in the police force are unfounded and their brutality is justified, so here's various articles from various reputable sources (several of which were government or commissioned by a government agency and one of which was from a police department itself) implying quite the opposite. First off, these ones showing there clearly IS racism int he police force and much of their actions are racially motivated, which would by logical extension include their brutality (although quite a few of them just state the Brutality part directly)
"Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of White"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/03/us/minneapolis-police-use-of-force.html
A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1
An August 2019 study published by the National Academy of Sciences based on police-shooting databases found that between 2013 and 2018, black men were about 2.5 times more likely than white men to be killed by police
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/police_mort_open.pdf
An October 2019 report in the Los Angeles Times found that during traffic stops, “24% of black drivers and passengers were searched, compared with 16% of Latinos and 5% of whites.”
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lapd-searches-20190605-story.html
A 2019 study of police stops in Cincinnati found that black motorists were 30 percent more likely to be pulled over than white motorists.
A 2020 report by the Austin Office of Police Oversight, Office of Innovation and Equity Office found that blacks and Latinos were more likely than whites to be stopped, searched and arrested despite similar “hit rates” for illicit drugs among those groups.
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio/document.cfm?id=334984
A 2019 study of the Columbus, Ohio, police department found that while black people make up 28 percent of the city’s population, about half of the use-of-force incidents by city police were against black residents.
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio/document.cfm?id=334984
A 2020 study commissioned by the Charlottesville city council found significant racial disparities in the city and surrounding county’s criminal justice systems
There are many more but I believe this is sufficient to justify this page as it is stating there is police racial bias.
I'll get back in a few hours with what I believe is ample evidence that these beatings may be described as unjustifiable in this page unlike what Agiletek claims (mainly, 400 videos of it so you can see it with your own eyes instead of having to rely on a pundit's opinion). Real life stuff at the moment. TiamatRoar (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- None of these say racial bias. They just say blacks are more likely to have interaction with the police. That’s consistent with the FBI’s crime data. Most of the big “racial” shootings have been completely debunked, even if the media refuses to report on such. “Hands up don’t shoot”? Everyone who claimed that admitted, under oath, they were nowhere near the event and couldn’t possibly have heard it, which even the Washington Post admits. Hakim Littleton? who pulled a gun and shot at a cop. Leonardo Hurtado Ibarra who was shot in the back? Video clearly shows he was pointing a gun at an officer behind him. There’s even been attempts to claim police brutality using a horribly injured black man who actually got that way from jumping off a bridge on his own volition with the only time officers touched him being to give him medical care. It’s really hard to claim “400 videos” when the total number of people shot by police a year is only ~1000, including non-blacks and shootings that were overwhelmingly justified. A breakdown of every person shot in October 2019 shows that of the 78 shootings by police that month, 68 were overwhelmingly justified, 9 weren’t clearly reported enough to tell either way and 1, Atatiana Jefferson, was unjustified. Even in cases where the killings weren’t justified, there’s no basis to claim racial bias instead of just government employees being incompetent as always: Note the officer that killed Jefferson shot without knowing his target and what is beyond it (read: Couldn’t tell she was black) and was immediately charged with murder (destroying any claim they get away with it). Trying to claim that police shootings are all racial ignores that the worst of the worst are cases where white women are shot by Somali cops, white men shot by swat teams with the wrong address, and a white couple being shot by cops operating on warrant obtained with blatantly false testimony. I think I may very well have reviewed 400 police shooting videos total, of any race, just watching them casually. I’ve seen no racial bias. The only problem I’ve seen with any frequency is single officers responding to someone with a knife, that are clear suicide by cop attempts, and being forced to shoot because they couldn’t establish lethal cover to use less lethal, something I can blame the officers for. --Agiletek (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are basing your argument off of individual anecdotes and individual events which fails to catch the overall picture, unlike statistics. Statistics do not lie, assuming the source collecting them is reputable, but they do need to be interpreted. If Black people are disproportionately arrested, stopped, and shot for the same crimes or suspicions as white people, a conclusion must be drawn, and singular anecdotes of "This was justified!" can not explain those statistics. The only alternative explanation to the statistics that there was no racial bias is that one race just happens to actually commit the same crimes in a more egregious fashion than the other to the point where police would shoot, arrest, or brutalize that race more often for the same crimes. I do not believe such a racist argument is acceptable nor logical and thus I believe your argument that the statistics (not specific events or specific anecdotes. Statistics.) do not show racism should be rejected. Also, the 400 videos are for police brutality in general, not shootings specifically, and all were within a two week period when the protests started. The context of the article and the context of the protests is about police brutality in general after all (George Floyd wasn't shot to death), and the article says "Killings" and "Brutality", not "Shootings". I just need to get to my other comp where I had the link to them to post them which will be in an hour or so.TiamatRoar (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, found the link. Guess I didn't need my other computer after all. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1YmZeSxpz52qT-10tkCjWOwOGkQqle7Wd1P7ZM1wMW0E/htmlview?pru=AAABcql6DI8*mIHYeMnoj9XWUp3Svb_KZA Here's over 1,000 (it's constantly updated) videos of unjustifiable police brutality during the recent protests, which I believe is sufficient evidence on a string of "unjustifiable" police brutality. Although some of the incidents may, if you tilt your head a certain way and believe things in a certain manner, be arguable in their justifiability, there are many (MANY) which in my opinion can not be justified to a point where a reasonable person wouldn't call it "unjustifiable". (and the time period covered is about two months instead of two weeks now) TiamatRoar (talk)
- “The only alternative explanation to the statistics that there was no racial bias is that one race just happens to actually commit more crimes than the other to the point where police would shoot that race more often.” is illogical how? It’s far more logical that a demographic that disproportionately lives in major cities, which disproportionately have more crime, commit crimes at a higher rate than a single profession spread across the entire country and pulling from local demographics being disproportionately racist to the point they will murder random people AND that the authorities of these random places are also uber-racists that will all let them get away with. The vast, vast majority of your videos are from Greg Doucette, a notorious failure of a lawyer who is either so incompetent he can’t read a basic will and doesn’t know what an IOLTA is (insisting the money put into it is instead being sent to a political commentator in another state!), or intentionally lies about things that are easily disproved. These videos are cut to remove any context from them (why were they arrested? It's police brutality, just trust us.), and claim the most mundane of restraints as police brutality (tackled and cuffed? How utterly heinous...). The first video not from him is a white man attacking a white man. Congratulations? --Agiletek (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Greg Doucette is just the compiler. When one actually clicks on each link in that google spreadsheet, they can see the original tweet that's the source of the video, which is almost always someone else (as Greg or any human being wouldn't be able to video that many incidents from that many locations by himself), many of which have the context you're claiming isn't there. Cherry picking and pointing out specific flaws in individual samples doesn't prove your point. I believe that the majority of people would get considerably different conclusions after combing through a large sample of videos and links there than you would, but of course if I'm mistaken on that then so be it and may the article be editted accordingly should a majority of people disagree (well, editors or whatever constitutes a arbitrarily-defined jury for this wiki). Although I do recommend skipping any link that says "Not assigned a number" because those are meant to be off topic (I'd rather they not include those at all really but I'm not an editor or contributor to it *shrug*). As for your explanation of the statistics, just because black people live in those areas doesn't mean they're the majority in those areas, so that argument that they'd be disproportionately arrested, shot, and brutalized more than white people in those areas when black people are still a minority there doesn't make much sense. And several of those articles are about how the various races are treated AFTER they're pulled over for a suspected crime, in which case things like "disproportionately have more crime" or "commit crimes at a higher rate" wouldn't be relevant to such comparisons anyways TiamatRoar (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The first video is cut to the actual arrest. Doesn't give any background or even reason it's wrong, and is posted by a man who is either total incompetent or utterly dishonst. Strike One!
- Greg Doucette is just the compiler. When one actually clicks on each link in that google spreadsheet, they can see the original tweet that's the source of the video, which is almost always someone else (as Greg or any human being wouldn't be able to video that many incidents from that many locations by himself), many of which have the context you're claiming isn't there. Cherry picking and pointing out specific flaws in individual samples doesn't prove your point. I believe that the majority of people would get considerably different conclusions after combing through a large sample of videos and links there than you would, but of course if I'm mistaken on that then so be it and may the article be editted accordingly should a majority of people disagree (well, editors or whatever constitutes a arbitrarily-defined jury for this wiki). Although I do recommend skipping any link that says "Not assigned a number" because those are meant to be off topic (I'd rather they not include those at all really but I'm not an editor or contributor to it *shrug*). As for your explanation of the statistics, just because black people live in those areas doesn't mean they're the majority in those areas, so that argument that they'd be disproportionately arrested, shot, and brutalized more than white people in those areas when black people are still a minority there doesn't make much sense. And several of those articles are about how the various races are treated AFTER they're pulled over for a suspected crime, in which case things like "disproportionately have more crime" or "commit crimes at a higher rate" wouldn't be relevant to such comparisons anyways TiamatRoar (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- “The only alternative explanation to the statistics that there was no racial bias is that one race just happens to actually commit more crimes than the other to the point where police would shoot that race more often.” is illogical how? It’s far more logical that a demographic that disproportionately lives in major cities, which disproportionately have more crime, commit crimes at a higher rate than a single profession spread across the entire country and pulling from local demographics being disproportionately racist to the point they will murder random people AND that the authorities of these random places are also uber-racists that will all let them get away with. The vast, vast majority of your videos are from Greg Doucette, a notorious failure of a lawyer who is either so incompetent he can’t read a basic will and doesn’t know what an IOLTA is (insisting the money put into it is instead being sent to a political commentator in another state!), or intentionally lies about things that are easily disproved. These videos are cut to remove any context from them (why were they arrested? It's police brutality, just trust us.), and claim the most mundane of restraints as police brutality (tackled and cuffed? How utterly heinous...). The first video not from him is a white man attacking a white man. Congratulations? --Agiletek (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Second Video shows poor quality footage heavily cut down and without any context. Also posted by failed lawyer Doucette. Strike Two! Third video isn't even in the US. Also posted by failed lawyer with reputation for dishonesty. Strike three! Fourth video shows a man who is, by failed lawyer Douccette's own admission, in the middle of an armed robbery, being aggressive to cops and arrested. Strike Four Fifth video, posted by the same failed attorney, shows white on white violence. Strike five! Sixth video doesn't work. Seventh video doesn't even exist, it's just a link to a news article claiming protest wasn't allowed because any public gathering is banned. Eighth video also doesn't exist 9th video is also not a video and again, has nothing to do with race. Strike six! 10th video exists, just shows cops ordering WHITE people in masks to leave without physical force. Failed lawyer again. Strike seven!
Of the first 10 videos in the list, only three can't be called completely irrelevent because they don't even exist. There's cherry picking and then there's you using the worst source imagineable. How the fucking hell is video of white people being arrested by police supposed to prove that cops are racist against blacks and will murder them for no reason? Your "source" is crap. Period. --Agiletek (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- When you only look at 10 out of a thousand videos and decide the whole sample should be thrown based on some arbitrary nonsense percentage grading system (IE, because 7 out of 10 are "irrelevant" in your eyes), that IS cherry picking. This isn't some sort of school test that's graded on a percentage, you know. Only someone with the mindset of a petulant child would look at it that way. The actual percentage of videos that are relevant in your eyes is meaningless. What's relevant is that there is video proof of unjustified police brutality. To give what should be an obvious example to anyone who isn't mysteriously defending systematic racism and police corruption, if there are 25 cases of police just giving someone the finger and 1 case of a policeman shooting someone in the eye with rubber bullets when the situation didn't call for it, that's still 1 case of a policeman shooting someone in the eye with rubber bullets when the situation didn't call for it. TiamatRoar (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- "in your eyes"? They have nothing to do with any supposed racism against blacks by cops period. The only black man being attacked in any of them was threatening to kill people if they didn't surrender their property! You don't get to claim over 400 videos of evidence of police shooting blacks because they're racist then show videos that have nothing to do with police shootings or blacks as evidence of your claim. Your "evidence" is shit. Period. You've been grifted by an attorney with no clients that can't dicphier a ToS! --Agiletek (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- When you only look at 10 out of a thousand videos and decide the whole sample should be thrown based on some arbitrary nonsense percentage grading system (IE, because 7 out of 10 are "irrelevant" in your eyes), that IS cherry picking. This isn't some sort of school test that's graded on a percentage, you know. Only someone with the mindset of a petulant child would look at it that way. The actual percentage of videos that are relevant in your eyes is meaningless. What's relevant is that there is video proof of unjustified police brutality. To give what should be an obvious example to anyone who isn't mysteriously defending systematic racism and police corruption, if there are 25 cases of police just giving someone the finger and 1 case of a policeman shooting someone in the eye with rubber bullets when the situation didn't call for it, that's still 1 case of a policeman shooting someone in the eye with rubber bullets when the situation didn't call for it. TiamatRoar (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Place 5000 cops in any neighborhood and train them to constantly treat the people there as a problem and a threat while putting only 20 cops in another neighborhood and tell them to look out for people who "look like they don't belong" and you start to see how crime stats skew heavily towards certain demographics. This is based on literal decades of treating certain demographics specifically as people who need to be controlled and constantly watched, having certain government agencies actually sell said communities drugs of all types for years, crack down viciously on non-violent crimes and juries treating some people far more harshly for the same kind of crimes committed by other demographics that ruin local businesses and destroy families, drive down wealth in those communities which affect schooling in those communities and it becomes a vicious cycle of systemic repression. Now throw military grade weapons, vehicles and body armor in the mix while teaching the police to shoot first because they'll almost be guaranteed immunity in any legal problems and all of the above only becomes exacerbated. --2607:FB90:823D:9920:8AD5:A52:B1B2:C5E5 00:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Police officers having body armor causes them to be racist murders? Really? " literal decades of treating certain demographics specifically as people who need to be controlled and constantly watched" [citation needed]. " crack down viciously on non-violent crimes" Yeah, dealing with criminals is kinda the police's job and reason for existance. "juries treating some people far more harshly for the same kind of crimes committed by other demographics" You're killing your own argument that police are racist... --Agiletek (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you give people the material means as well as near-absolute immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity) they are probably going to act more recklessly. Also, over-policing minority neighborhoods is well documented (https://sociology.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1986/f/downloads/Weitzer%20%26%20Brunson%202015%20.pdf). Also, "dealing with criminals" is only one aspect of policing but it's the systemic issues within police departments that result in police brutality, particularly against minorities (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Police-Brutality-in-the-United-States-2064580). Please, do tell me why a person simply waiting for their daughter's preschool to let out needs to be restrained, assaulted and tasered repeatedly for instance (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/the-problem-is-im-black/379357/). Also, courts are another aspect of systemic racism in the US, especially due to courts having to rely on police investigations and often police as witnesses themselves, especially when the police and courts use the courts as a revenue stream (https://woub.org/2020/06/23/systemic-racism-in-criminal-justice-system-explained-by-black-female-judge/). --Konrad13 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lollie wasn't "a person simply waiting for their daughter's preschool to let out", he was "a person who refused to leave private property when asked, then refused when police were brought in.". Amazing how the media can just completely lie to you. --Agiletek (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lollie was sitting on a bench inside a building next to a skybridge that joined onne building to another. He was outside of a bank and the bank called security saying he was loitering, despite the fact the bank did not own the stretch of building in front of it's doors, nor the bench. Security asked him to move along and he repeatedly told them he was waiting for his daughter's preschool to get out. Security then called police despite, again, he was not loitering in the bank. By the time the police arrived, Lollie was already beginning to move towards the preschool, no longer being in front of the bank. Police then assaulted him, tasering him multiple times in front of his own daughter. So what precisely was his crime? Literally nothing! In fact, the police fucked up so bad the city was forced to pay him $100k for how the police dealt with him (chiefly abusing him and depriving him of his civil rights).
- "in front of his own daughter" is completely and blatantly false. Literally completely made up and physically impossible to combine with the other parts (he was going to get his daughter when it happened, yet she was with him when it happened?). You can see the video, there is not a single child present. I looked it up, and the only place that even tries to push that bullshit is buzzfeed, a rag among rags. Of course you think there's some grand racist conspiracy, you read Buzzfeed and take it as true. Fuck, the Buzzfeed article doesn't even substaniate its claim in the article itself, it's literally only in the headline and never mentioned again! Even ignoring any question of if it was proper, there's no evidence it was motivated by race. --Agiletek (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you're unwilling to look it up yourself, here is the video which lasts a little over 4 minutes and 30 seconds and in which you can hear a child scream at around the 54-57 second mark (also, the video is not from Buzzfeed, and not what the other person posted earlier either) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK_aUYJxiv4) and the city agreeing to to settle with him for $100,000 because he had done nothing wrong and was sitting in a public (not private) area (https://www.twincities.com/2016/02/18/st-paul-will-pay-100000-to-chris-lollie-tased-in-skyway-arrest/). In the video the police restrain, taser and arrest him for the audacity of being in a public area and that he failed to identify who he was, neither of which are crimes in the USA, Minnesota or St. Paul and, upon realizing their mistake, it cost the citizens of the city $100,000 because the police felt justified in doing so in blatant disregard of actual law or procedure. There are many other cases of extreme police violence against other minority groups such as the man who was in Walmart and picked up a BB rifle while talking on a cell phone to his girlfriend about a party he was going to go to within a few hours and which police arrived on scene, shot and killed him within 3 seconds of spotting him (while he was facing away from them) and which they then lied on official paperwork that they ordered him multiple times to drop the "weapon" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_John_Crawford_III). You also have cases of police precincts being investigated repeatedly for racial profiling and several members even being members of anti-minority associations (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/016214506000001040, https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/28080-lcb231article2johnsonpdf) --Konrad13 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Read what you're replying to. Buzzfeed's own article has a broken chain of events (while going to pick up his singular daughter, or in front of his plural kids). It's unreliable and the claims of "in front of kids" only occur there and a tiny Slate article that has a disclaimer that, as breaking news, it may be inaccurate. Ultimately entirely irrelevent though because this is all about police shootings.
- If you're unwilling to look it up yourself, here is the video which lasts a little over 4 minutes and 30 seconds and in which you can hear a child scream at around the 54-57 second mark (also, the video is not from Buzzfeed, and not what the other person posted earlier either) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK_aUYJxiv4) and the city agreeing to to settle with him for $100,000 because he had done nothing wrong and was sitting in a public (not private) area (https://www.twincities.com/2016/02/18/st-paul-will-pay-100000-to-chris-lollie-tased-in-skyway-arrest/). In the video the police restrain, taser and arrest him for the audacity of being in a public area and that he failed to identify who he was, neither of which are crimes in the USA, Minnesota or St. Paul and, upon realizing their mistake, it cost the citizens of the city $100,000 because the police felt justified in doing so in blatant disregard of actual law or procedure. There are many other cases of extreme police violence against other minority groups such as the man who was in Walmart and picked up a BB rifle while talking on a cell phone to his girlfriend about a party he was going to go to within a few hours and which police arrived on scene, shot and killed him within 3 seconds of spotting him (while he was facing away from them) and which they then lied on official paperwork that they ordered him multiple times to drop the "weapon" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_John_Crawford_III). You also have cases of police precincts being investigated repeatedly for racial profiling and several members even being members of anti-minority associations (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/016214506000001040, https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/28080-lcb231article2johnsonpdf) --Konrad13 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- "in front of his own daughter" is completely and blatantly false. Literally completely made up and physically impossible to combine with the other parts (he was going to get his daughter when it happened, yet she was with him when it happened?). You can see the video, there is not a single child present. I looked it up, and the only place that even tries to push that bullshit is buzzfeed, a rag among rags. Of course you think there's some grand racist conspiracy, you read Buzzfeed and take it as true. Fuck, the Buzzfeed article doesn't even substaniate its claim in the article itself, it's literally only in the headline and never mentioned again! Even ignoring any question of if it was proper, there's no evidence it was motivated by race. --Agiletek (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lollie was sitting on a bench inside a building next to a skybridge that joined onne building to another. He was outside of a bank and the bank called security saying he was loitering, despite the fact the bank did not own the stretch of building in front of it's doors, nor the bench. Security asked him to move along and he repeatedly told them he was waiting for his daughter's preschool to get out. Security then called police despite, again, he was not loitering in the bank. By the time the police arrived, Lollie was already beginning to move towards the preschool, no longer being in front of the bank. Police then assaulted him, tasering him multiple times in front of his own daughter. So what precisely was his crime? Literally nothing! In fact, the police fucked up so bad the city was forced to pay him $100k for how the police dealt with him (chiefly abusing him and depriving him of his civil rights).
- Lollie wasn't "a person simply waiting for their daughter's preschool to let out", he was "a person who refused to leave private property when asked, then refused when police were brought in.". Amazing how the media can just completely lie to you. --Agiletek (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you give people the material means as well as near-absolute immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity) they are probably going to act more recklessly. Also, over-policing minority neighborhoods is well documented (https://sociology.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1986/f/downloads/Weitzer%20%26%20Brunson%202015%20.pdf). Also, "dealing with criminals" is only one aspect of policing but it's the systemic issues within police departments that result in police brutality, particularly against minorities (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Police-Brutality-in-the-United-States-2064580). Please, do tell me why a person simply waiting for their daughter's preschool to let out needs to be restrained, assaulted and tasered repeatedly for instance (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/the-problem-is-im-black/379357/). Also, courts are another aspect of systemic racism in the US, especially due to courts having to rely on police investigations and often police as witnesses themselves, especially when the police and courts use the courts as a revenue stream (https://woub.org/2020/06/23/systemic-racism-in-criminal-justice-system-explained-by-black-female-judge/). --Konrad13 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Police officers having body armor causes them to be racist murders? Really? " literal decades of treating certain demographics specifically as people who need to be controlled and constantly watched" [citation needed]. " crack down viciously on non-violent crimes" Yeah, dealing with criminals is kinda the police's job and reason for existance. "juries treating some people far more harshly for the same kind of crimes committed by other demographics" You're killing your own argument that police are racist... --Agiletek (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Place 5000 cops in any neighborhood and train them to constantly treat the people there as a problem and a threat while putting only 20 cops in another neighborhood and tell them to look out for people who "look like they don't belong" and you start to see how crime stats skew heavily towards certain demographics. This is based on literal decades of treating certain demographics specifically as people who need to be controlled and constantly watched, having certain government agencies actually sell said communities drugs of all types for years, crack down viciously on non-violent crimes and juries treating some people far more harshly for the same kind of crimes committed by other demographics that ruin local businesses and destroy families, drive down wealth in those communities which affect schooling in those communities and it becomes a vicious cycle of systemic repression. Now throw military grade weapons, vehicles and body armor in the mix while teaching the police to shoot first because they'll almost be guaranteed immunity in any legal problems and all of the above only becomes exacerbated. --2607:FB90:823D:9920:8AD5:A52:B1B2:C5E5 00:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Police "being investigated" means nothing. Prisoners have nothing but time and file complaints as a hobby while criminal lawyers do it as a job. It's well established. If there's no convictions, it's baseless.
I found the video. John Crawford was not shot because he "picked up a BB Gun", he picked it up, brandished it, aimed it around haphazardly for several minutes. Most of this while he wasn't on the phone. He wasn't shot because he was black, he was shot because he was an idiot. --Agiletek (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
THIS IS NOT INTENDED FOR HOT TAKES ON RECENT EVENTS[edit]
This is a setting page guys. Stop it with the hot takes. If an event isn't a year old, don't bother talking about it. Remember Zhou Enlai's hot take (in the 1960's) on the impact of the French Revolution: "It's a little too soon to say." --Piroko (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
News Media bias and sources[edit]
In regards to edits about the mainstream media being biased, I agree. Once when I had a day off work I did a bit of research on the subject. One source I found was this website; https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart They have news outlets ranked by bias into five categories; left-wing, left-leaning, centrist, right-leaning, right-wing. First, I counted the number of outlets in each category on the website. I then grouped the ones which leant to a side with the nearest side. Then I went on Wikipedia for each media outlet listed to look up their mediums of distribution, and put them into 5 categories based on their mediums and biases; newspaper, television, magazine, radio and online content (of course, some are multimedia). This is a guideline, but the results are very telling;
Media Outlets by their Biases;
- Left wing outlets; 16
- Left-leaning outlets; 14
- Centrist outlets; 10
- Right-leaning outlets; 11
- Right wing outlets; 14
For ease of categorization, from now on in my argument, left-leaning and right-leaning will be counted as left wing and right-wing. With that approach we get;
- Left wing outlets; 30
- Centrist outlets; 10
- Right wing outlets; 25
From this sample, the majority of media outlets are left wing. But this can be broken down further into categories based on their medium.
- Television (channels, shows and staff combined); left-wing outlets – 7, centrist outlets – 5, right-wing outlets – 6. Of the three groups, the left wing have the most news outlets on television, closely followed by the right wing, with the caveat that several right wing news outlets on Television are TV extras rather than part of mainstream TV (either being subscription services or only available on cable TV).
- Radio; left-wing – 4, centrist – 1, right-wing – 1. Left wing outlets dominate radio by a disproportionate margin.
- Magazines; left-wing – 9, centrist – 1, right-wing – 7. The left wing has the most magazine brands, followed by the right wing.
- Newspapers; left-wing – 6, centrist – 3, right-wing – 6. Newspapers are divided equally between the left wing and the right wing.
- Online content (podcasts, blogs, anything as long as its distributed via the internet); left-wing – 9, centrist – 5, right-wing – 11. The right wing have the most online platforms, followed by the left wing.
From study of these numbers and the mediums, the following observations have been noted.
- Left wing outlets outnumber the other outlets, whether or not the “leaning” outlets are grouped in with the closest side.
- Centrists have the least amount of news outlets.
- Left wing news media and right wing news media have an equal amount of newspaper outlets.
- Right wing news media has the largest number of online platforms.
- Left wing news media has the most widespread influence in television (and several right-wing TV outlets are constrained by being only available on cable TV or being subscription services), radio and magazines. This puts left wing news outlets at the most widespread overall, dominating three of the five mediums while also having a presence in the other two.
Again here is the website I used as a source for these figures; https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart In conclusion, while all groups have platforms and this more of a guideline based on actual figures, there is a widespread pro-left wing bias in news media as a whole. In light of this, I think that an edit pointing this sort of thing out should be allowed. Flufflion (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do pardon my ignorance, but I must ask this: how can you be certain the site in question is not itself biased? Not to mention that in U.S. politics, what we call "left wing" is actually more like centrist or even center-right by the standards of most European countries. In any case, I think Piroko may be right in that a mass culling is in order. Do not be alarmed by the big red numbers in the recent changes list. --Newerfag (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I insist that this setting page is NOT intended for hot takes on current events. It has been taken far beyond its original purpose and should be locked down. --Piroko (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was always dread what a "modern" page would turn out when the other pages were being made. The others have mostly been "what are some interesting things from this era to pillage for setting", but this one is a mess. I think just saying the problems and benifits of setting a game in the current era, listing games set in the current era, and putting some silly quote about the present at the top (like "The future will be better tomorrow" or "In an era of stress and anxiety, when the present seems unstable and the future unlikely, the natural response is to retreat and withdraw from reality, taking recourse either in fantasies of the future or in modified visions of a half-imagined past.") at the top. --Agiletek (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- What counts as "current events"? What timespan are we talking about? Does four years ago count? Because that's when this sort of political correctness and polarization went into overdrive. Besides, in relation to /tg/ and my point about news media, the concept of news media being used or abused for propaganda is almost as old as news media itself. Plus, the idea of a news media company abusing their platform to push their own agenda lends itself well to quite a few genres (Cyberpunk and Urban Fantasy come to mind - in fact, a story where the villainous corporation is a television channel, mass media conglomerate or telecommunications company sounds very fitting for a cyberpunk book or game). Back on the topic of current events, if this page becomes locked down, how long does anything else think we should wait before we can talk about events from 2016 - 2020? Prioko, you yourself said in the previous section. "If an event isn't a year old, don't bother talking about it." Well this polarization and media stuff goes back to at least 2016, so by your own words that's fair game. Flufflion (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- The problem isn't time, the problem is animus. The only thing that solves animus, is time. How much, I can't say. I am confident that there are people making edits, on this page and the SJW one too, who believe that the election of 2000 is still a recent event and that they still want to re-litigate as if everything bad that happened in the last 20 years stemmed from them being cheated. The time to write history is when the past is dead. If a person can't write from the perspective that what's done is done, then they have no business calling what they write history. And how do you recognize animus? Well, it's the old saying about porn... "You know it when you see it." --Piroko (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- The problem with what you’re saying, Piroko, is that it’s very subjective. What one person considers enough time for animus does not apply for another person. How is it decided whose interpretation gets applied? While I think you mean well, what you're saying sounds like an excuse to not address something because certain people might get offended. Some grievances get brought up long after everyone involved is dead and held over the heads of anyone living with even the most tenuous association (for example; no one alive today has suffered under the Spanish Inquisition or oppressed anyone as a member of it, but the Catholic Church/Christians still get grief for it – last example I saw was in Seth MacFarlane’s Star Trek knock-off The Orville. Granted, that was veiled references in 2017, but that’s still 183 YEARS after the Spanish Inquisition disbanded in 1834). Then on the other hand legitimate issues are downplayed while they’re happening, such as the Myanmar's Rohingya situation and the current plight of China’s Uighur Muslims. The idea of people trying to write history when the past is dead has a point, but that doesn't help against people falsifying current records and trying to re-write existing historical ones. If we're going to talk about current events, then we can't be dicks or cherry-pick, sure, but facts must be acknowledged whatever side they're from. What say you? Flufflion (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Flufflion... You're right, it is subjective. There's only one way out of the pit of relativism and that's moral absolutism by fiat. If I was root, the SJW page would be deleted and locked. Anyone who brings up current events, even to criticize or support ethical or unethical behavior of /tg/ companies, would be banned. The only way I can be fair to both sides is to say BOTH SIDES HAVE NO BUSINESS BRINGING THEIR CULTURE WAR HERE. They can take it somewhere else. --Piroko (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- We're not keepers of history (except, perhaps, that of /tg/, image boards, and tabletop games). Our only interest in this series of articles is info on setting your game in them. --Agiletek (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The problem with what you’re saying, Piroko, is that it’s very subjective. What one person considers enough time for animus does not apply for another person. How is it decided whose interpretation gets applied? While I think you mean well, what you're saying sounds like an excuse to not address something because certain people might get offended. Some grievances get brought up long after everyone involved is dead and held over the heads of anyone living with even the most tenuous association (for example; no one alive today has suffered under the Spanish Inquisition or oppressed anyone as a member of it, but the Catholic Church/Christians still get grief for it – last example I saw was in Seth MacFarlane’s Star Trek knock-off The Orville. Granted, that was veiled references in 2017, but that’s still 183 YEARS after the Spanish Inquisition disbanded in 1834). Then on the other hand legitimate issues are downplayed while they’re happening, such as the Myanmar's Rohingya situation and the current plight of China’s Uighur Muslims. The idea of people trying to write history when the past is dead has a point, but that doesn't help against people falsifying current records and trying to re-write existing historical ones. If we're going to talk about current events, then we can't be dicks or cherry-pick, sure, but facts must be acknowledged whatever side they're from. What say you? Flufflion (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The problem isn't time, the problem is animus. The only thing that solves animus, is time. How much, I can't say. I am confident that there are people making edits, on this page and the SJW one too, who believe that the election of 2000 is still a recent event and that they still want to re-litigate as if everything bad that happened in the last 20 years stemmed from them being cheated. The time to write history is when the past is dead. If a person can't write from the perspective that what's done is done, then they have no business calling what they write history. And how do you recognize animus? Well, it's the old saying about porn... "You know it when you see it." --Piroko (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- What counts as "current events"? What timespan are we talking about? Does four years ago count? Because that's when this sort of political correctness and polarization went into overdrive. Besides, in relation to /tg/ and my point about news media, the concept of news media being used or abused for propaganda is almost as old as news media itself. Plus, the idea of a news media company abusing their platform to push their own agenda lends itself well to quite a few genres (Cyberpunk and Urban Fantasy come to mind - in fact, a story where the villainous corporation is a television channel, mass media conglomerate or telecommunications company sounds very fitting for a cyberpunk book or game). Back on the topic of current events, if this page becomes locked down, how long does anything else think we should wait before we can talk about events from 2016 - 2020? Prioko, you yourself said in the previous section. "If an event isn't a year old, don't bother talking about it." Well this polarization and media stuff goes back to at least 2016, so by your own words that's fair game. Flufflion (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was always dread what a "modern" page would turn out when the other pages were being made. The others have mostly been "what are some interesting things from this era to pillage for setting", but this one is a mess. I think just saying the problems and benifits of setting a game in the current era, listing games set in the current era, and putting some silly quote about the present at the top (like "The future will be better tomorrow" or "In an era of stress and anxiety, when the present seems unstable and the future unlikely, the natural response is to retreat and withdraw from reality, taking recourse either in fantasies of the future or in modified visions of a half-imagined past.") at the top. --Agiletek (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
