On Right Wing Conservative Cancel Culture

You said his last line was incoherent BUT he's 100% on the mark. If you Liberal Lunatics really cared about black lives you wouldn't be supporting a terrorist Anti American organization like Black lives matter who could give a Fuck less about Blacks killing Blacks in the ghettos of big cities all they care about is Rioting and looting every time a black criminal gets shot AND you Liberal white guilt Lunatics fall for their bullshit. OH wait what am I thinking you hate America and the police also. Never mind carry on.

No, I already explained why that was a dumb argument. Its incoherent because gang crime is not something we get to vote on. We can vote on changing the police and the law.

Protesting is aimed at changing policy but what policy change is going to stop ghetto violence? Thats a life time project that is largely bigger than politics. Sure, there are some changes we could make that would indirectly impact the problem, but that will be a long battle.

We could have a referendum or a vote and change the law, the police, etc tomorrow.

Okay but we aren't debating where the safest parts of the US are. Gang problems exist. What's the point?

Yes, the fact the government is in control of this is part of the problem. But that just pushes the question back one step, for we vote for these people and policies. Ultimately, the police and the law roughly reflect our values. 

That's what these protests are about: alerting the society to a problem, to pain and suffering, with an eye toward getting sympathy for a structural change.

If the police were McDonald's or Netflix, we wouldn't be having this conversation. People would vote with their feet and choose the platform that speaks to them and their needs.

But we can't do that. This is government we are dealing with.

And protesting is one of the most effective ways of making civil rights progress. For the life of me, I don't know why you aren't on the side of the protestors. You say you don't like big government, you say you support freedom and liberty. 

Yet you seem to set yourself against the people fighting for these things. Why is that? 

I say its political and tribal. You don't associate yourself with this tribe. You probably don't look like them. Or like their style, or culture. 

But that's irrelevant. We need a society that works for everyone, or it will ultimately work for no one. Our rights hang together. So we should care about the lives of the marginalized. If only out of self interest.

"Cancel culture" was remarkably successful for authoritarian influences for centuries. Fucking centuries.

It has been freedom of speech that has overcome it, and risen liberal ideas and principles to the center stage of world dominance.

None of this is new. And now the people who want to kill other ideas claim they're doing it for "righteous" reasons. As all such movements have through history. And none of these movements have ever presaged the good times they promise.

Religions always try to crush their competitors when they get control of the levers of power.

Queshank

It was with us long before we had the late 20th century and it was with us in the glorious 1990s. So we can't say it hasn't presaged good times. 

I'm reluctant to see how heterogeneous cultures can exist under democracy, capitalism & centralized political systems, without some form of cancel culture occurring as a reaction. It might not occur in traditional societies but allow for democracy and capitalism and it won't be long until tradition is threatened.

Cancel culture can be thought of as a natural reaction on the part of an older order feeling the threat of displacement. 

And it can also be turned around by the "canceled" in a future scenario.

Should we lament such a process exists? Perhaps. The utopian-anarchist TL of 2012 would have lamented it and said we can do better without the state dividing us.

The dialectical-democratic TL of 2020 says the state is not some separate entity from society, it both causes and is caused by the totality of the social order; *and* the question of which norms, values and cultures to "allow" is a big part of what politics is, and is probably inseparable from democracy, in the context of a centralized political system.

It is possible that a pluralistic or poly-centric democratic system might be so loose and open to individual choice that cancel culture disappears altogether. I want to live in that world. I do.

But we don't today. We live in a one size fits all political system with a monopoly state. And I am happy to see the dispossessed, the 2nd class citizens, come up and use the tactics of the establishment against itself. 

I think this approach has merit:

nypost.com/2020/07/07/bill-would-require-ny-cops-to-have-insurance-for-liability-suits/

I don't have a real good read on NY politics but my guess is this is a long-shot politically.

Regardless, this is just the kind of thing we need to consider if we want to improve on policing. Incentives matter. Right now we have a "tragedy of the commons" problem with the police where officers do not individually suffer for their bad behavior (the taxpayer is liable) and for that reason they have no incentive to maintain or improve on this shared resource: the provision of security. And the collective suffers as a result.

And imagine that, this bill was introduced by a Democratic Senator from the Bronx. 

Way to jump the gun without reading the article! 

This bill is not about qualified immunity or creating more civil liability for members of LE (which contra to you does need to happen). The changes proposed here do not open the door to litigating every arrest or ticket.

This is about ensuring the officers have skin in the game regarding the 6,472 claims (per year in New York!) being paid out under the rules as they are now. The bill would require officers to carry liability insurance and pay any increase in premiums related to payouts for wrongdoing.

Do you think thats a bad idea? If so, why? What do you have against personal responsibility? 

If the problem with the police is truly a "bad apples situation," as you claim, then this would be a way of punishing the bad apples without harming the good.

Really? That's how you're going to respond? Lead with an insult to my economic understanding? Geez bro! Talk about a low blow. Why not say I have small hands, too?  

Cops will have to earn more? I will pay for it? How does that work, exactly?

Are you talking about more tickets and more asset forfeiture? More policing for profit? Or are you talking about unions lobbying for a raise?

Let's say a raise goes through to cover the extra insurance costs. Fine, that's a raise that would be equal for everyone. The issue is, good cops will pocket the raise and bad cops will have to give it to the insurance company in higher premiums. 

Looks like the incentive tweak remains, contra your argument.

Regarding the deterrent of going to jail vs paying higher insurance premiums, you speak as if I would get rid of the jail deterrent. I wouldn't. I would keep it. This is just an extra financial deterrent which is aimed at weeding out the bad actors before they kill someone, or wind up in jail.

Surely you can understand that, Pete.