When you complain that people want all of their families to stand up for the rights, consider this photo below the fold: people brought their children to the lynching of Lige Daniels in 1920. What principle were they fighting for?
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Parents have every right to bring their children to protests. The lessons that can be learned in protesting can have an impact on children. The expectation is to march for rights and to be allowed to peacefully protest. The right to assemble peaceably, even angrily is a right all Americans have and that includes black people. They should not be confronted with a militarized police force waiting, tongues wagging, for the first person to throw a water bottle at them to justify unleashing their sound cannons, attack dogs, and tear gas.
I also think it’s an important historical moment. Kids should be brought to participate — this is how you learn civic responsibility.
The moment captured in the photo above, though…that’s how kids learn contempt and hatred.
I’m damn tired of those criticizing parents acting like those children don’t have any thoughts or feelings about what happened to Mike Brown, or what is happening right now in their own town.
Also, what in the fuckety fuck is wrong with those people who seek only to victim blame, that they see children protesting and don’t have their heart broken by the thought that some of those children won’t reach adulthood?
To be fair, what about those parents who bring their children to anti-abortion rallies or politicians who use them as props?
I was perched on my dad’s shoulder during the student unrest at Columbia and rode that perch in the anti-vietnam war protests. I didn’t do anything but enjoy the view but I’m glad dad took me along.
It’s such a perfect expression of the sheer obliviousness and privilege of the people making that complaint. This is an impossible situation for the people living there. They can’t stick their noses out their own front doors without being in the area of the protests. They can’t avoid the tear gas because it gets in their open windows. They can’t afford hotels, they may not have nearby relatives to leave the kids with, or any way to get them there. They can’t afford babysitters, especially since school being out means their budgets are already strained from having to provide care and food for kids who would otherwise be in school. Cops start lobbing tear gas hours before the curfews are supposed to be up, they demand people disperse from areas where there is obviously no escape route and then gas them when they fail to teleport back home. And on and on.
Also: the photos white people took at lynchings are among the squickiest things in existence, IMO. Look at them all standing there in their sunday best smiling; proud of what they’ve done. Ew.
People bringing their kids to the nighttime demonstrations are prioritizing their right to express themselves over their children’s safety. Those kids 100% should be safe at a rally or protest…but the conditions in Ferguson are such that it seems to be unsafe for the adults…let alone children.
Which is, part of the conversation we need to have now – vis a vis militarization of the police force, the use and abuse of lethal force by police and disproportionate application of that force along racial lines. Also, a
conversation about how the public should behave while being detained/arrested.
A First-Amendment protest should be a safe place for children to be. If someone is making the protest unsafe for children, the police should stop that person and take them away so that the protest is a safe place for children and for every citizen to exercise their First-Amendment rights. The police would surely intervene to keep a polling place a safe place for children to be and for their parents to vote, wouldn’t they? Active exercise of citizenship should be safe for children to watch and to participate in.
If a protest is not safe for children, we need to ask where the police are. Where were the police? Where were they? Where?
Way to take one for the team, bostonhook. There always has to be at least one person per comment thread who exemplifies the problem being highlighted in the main post.
bostonhook:
PEOPLE LIVE THERE. IT IS THEIR HOME. HOUSES, RIGHT THERE, WHERE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING. TEARGAS BEING SHOT IN NEIGHBOURHOODS, SO THICK IT GETS INTO HOUSES – THERE IS NO SAFETY FOR THE PEOPLE OF FERGUSON.
How about you shut your asshole self up now?
To those that are butthurt about bringing children to the protests in Ferguson:
You bring children to your Tea Party rallies. Sometimes the protesters are even armed. That’s all that has to be said, really.
Existing while Black is dangerous. Why don’t we criticize the parents for exposing their children to danger by having had them in the first place? (Let’s call this the “Rah, Rah, Genocide!” option.)
Or, you know, we could refuse to second guess the parents and support them when they agitate for a safer world for those very children.
A First-Amendment protest should be a safe place for children to be. If someone is making the protest unsafe for children, the police should stop that person and take them away so that the protest is a safe place for children and for every citizen to exercise their First-Amendment rights.
Yeah, I’m waiting for Netanyahu to claim that bringing children to a protest is using them as human shields. Oh, wait…
A 16-Year-Old Kid In Ferguson Says More With A Marker And A Piece Of Paper Than All The Media Did
Why is it worse to take children to the riot than to wait for them to be killed in their own homes?
Even if it was wrong to bring children to a protest for some bizarre reason, where should they be taking them during this time? The park? Leave them alone at home in what is clearly an unsafe environment? Let me guess, they should just stay home with the kids and not try to defend their rights as human beings and United States citizens, right? It’s clear that’s what these people are really getting at.
Inaji, you can probably admit that there is a difference between bringing kids to a protest, and being subjected to tear gas because you live in the area affected…
I’m not saying the parents with kids at the protests are wrong…I’m saying IF they bring them to the protests, knowing what can happen…they are making a decision for their kids that places them in some danger.
I’m not making a moral or ethical judgement against these kids parents, so maybe lay off on the ad hominem attack on me.
Inaji @ 12. What the hell? So how are the cops going to justify that, if they ever get asked? Are the Christians going to care?
As regards kids, remember that the armed assholes who showed up for Cliven Bundy actually set their womenfolk out in front so that they would get shot first if the Feds cut loose. Yep, deliberately put the ladies on the line. Not to prevent the Feds from shooting, but so that the Feds would get bad publicity for killing women. The crazies didn’t think they, themselves, should get bad publicity for that. No, they bragged, they thought they were clever.
As has been said, the kids lived there in Ferguson. Tear gas was going into their houses.
Also, did any kids get hurt? Aside from Mike Brown? If you don’t have a picture of an injured child, fuck off.
But before you go, enlighten us as to who behaved badly when being arrested, and critique their performance for us. Then go up to Ferguson and show us how it should be done, and then explain how it mattered. (By the way, the time that I was detained I was about ten miles north of Ferguson, and I behaved well enough to not get arrested, so I’m gonna appoint myself judge, ‘mkay? (I was in cuffs and I was guilty, and I got let go, so you really need to bring it.))
Your previous paragraph implied disapproval. We can read. So maybe you need to lay off your attitude.
Exactly, @A. Noyd #15.
These same parents have ALREADY seen their children injured, and have been giving them age and stage appropriate talks on “how to avoid being shot by white people” since they were 4, more likely than not.* Let’s not minimize the dangers an risks these children already face, by pretending there is ANY action their parents can take, that will guarantee their safety. Except *possibly*, protesting enough to effect some systemic change.
* Analogous to parents giving their girls “how not to get raped” talks. Equally effective, I am sure, but what else would a loving parent do, besides try as best they can to help their children learn how to be safe(r), in a world that means them harm? By which I do not mean to derail conversation, only to underline that the process of teaching those the kyriarchy commodities how to try to navigate that, can only ever be minimally effective. And even THAT only with good luck/
So the police has no responsibility to NOT fire tear gas when children are out in their neighborhoods in their city? This whole thing is beginning to sound like these parents and children are Taliban fighters infiltrating someone else’s city.
FUCK any person who fires rubber bullets, deploys tear gas, or swings a baton when there’s even a miniscule chance a child will be the victim of such an attack.
shorter bostonhook: “but I didn’t mean anything by it…”
Also: Inaji didn’t say you’re wrong because you’re an asshole. She said you’re wrong and an asshole. My advice to you would be to lay off using the term “ad hominem” til you figure out what the fuck it means.
Menyambal #21 – the church story is just breaking. Via Twitter, (thanks to Inaji in the God bless thread) Jake Tapper of CNN is at the church now, taking the accounts of the witnesses there.
Eek, apologies for the typos.
One other thought: before anyone tries to claim that the photo in the OP was a “one-off” or in any way rare, it was not. I invite you to peruse Without Sanctuary (HEAVY trigger warning for the link. h/t to Chauncey DeVega @ We Are Respectable Negroes where I first cam across this work. )
Argh – my mistake, the cite was from Inaji in the Good Morning America thread. Sorry.
Argumentum ad hominem is not a synonym for insult. Consider just how fucking ignorant you are, then try shutting up and learning. There are threads stuffed full of information here alone, try reading.
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/08/13/even-atheists-have-sacred-cows/comment-page-3/ (Three Pages!)
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/08/17/time-to-arrest-the-police/comment-page-1/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/08/19/good-morning-america/comment-page-2/ (Two Pages!)
@ 20. Bostonhook, then what are you saying, and why are you saying it here? Really, what set you off? Was there something that I missed? Why are you even going on about this?
*ahem* I think that women who dye their hair shouldn’t do that. I’m not judging, I just think that it confuses their chidren and exposes them to harsh chemicals.
Pteryxx:
ElonJames is there, too.
What are parents supposed to do with their kids while they protest? Much like not allowing standing protest prevents people unable to walk very fought, treating not allowing children at protests prevents parents and other caretakers of children from taking part in protests.
The problem is not that people bring their children to protests. The problem is that citizens cannot protest in peace without being brutalized by the same police sworn to protect and serve them.
^THIS
Putting your kid in a car to drive them to school places them in orders of magnitude more danger.
What’s your fucking point.
Paging Jeff S from yesterday! Jeff S to blue courtesy thread! Paging Jeff S from yesterday!
If you’re still reading, Jeff S, remember: You are the agent in your learning. The information is vast, and this thread is as good a place to start as any.
Still learning,
Robert
bostonhook at #20:
So does taking children to swimming pools.
Do you regularly visit parenting forums to offer caution to parents interested in teaching their children to swim?
Still learning,
Robert
So the parents made some decision that bostonhook thinks is wrong. They are there, they decided, but they are still wrong, just because, just sayin’. I’m just saying that feels racist.
Are there actual photos of little kids in the rougher parts of the protests? Or is bostonhook just making it up. I know the police attacked by surprise several times, so there might be. I haven’t heard of any injuries to children. (Except the account of another town, another time, where the cops threw a flashbang grenade into a baby’s crib. They were in the wrong house on a drug raid, and never did take responsibility. )
Ah, SallyStrange got there before I did at #34.
[C3PO] “Curse my metal body, I wasn’t fast enough!” [/C3PO]
*clenched tentacle salute and waves to SallyStrange*
Still learning,
Robert
Bringing your kids to a peaceful protest is completely separate from bringing your kids to protests with repeated clashes with police using excessive force, and rioting.
Menyambal #37 – some kids were tear-gassed on Saturday evening the 16th when police started surprise-gassing well before curfew. HuffPo (sorry, first link I found)
Too many people posting in this thread appear to have too many certainties. In my opinion, this a situation where simple answers have a very good chance of being wrong. For example:
Yes. So? Let’s say I encourage my children to draw pictures of Mohammed and to post them in their Facebook pages, knowing full well that some of their classmates come from a fundamentalist Muslim background. I’d be exposing them to retaliation, even violent retaliation in order to protect what I, as a moral agent, regard as universal rights. I’d be depriving them of their right not to have full moral agency yet, and imposing mine on theirs.
There are different kinds of children: those old enough to make up their own minds-who do not need to be taken anywhere-and those not old enough to make up their own minds, and they should not be taken anywhere precisely because we are forcing them (because even persuasion is force when the disparities are so huge) to adopt our point of view. Imposing our will on children is only admissible in order to protect them from harm.
Do any of those parents accurately inform their children of the reason for protesting and the risk involved? “Listen, we are now going to march to protest about a horrible injustice. Would you like to come? Oh, by the way, you might get a rubber bullet in your eye. Do you still want to come?”
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-cop-points-gun-journalists-im-fing-kill-you/
Not exactly encouraging.
Desert son, your analogy with taking kids to the swimming pool does not work. Is there really a risk involved? I’d say no more than is involved in letting them take a bus to school. The real question is whether exposing children to risk is likely to result in such a high pay-off that the risk is worth it. Also bear in mind that some risks are so high that no amount of pay-off could make them worth it. What exactly are the intended effects of taking children to a protest? I don’t think they have been precisely stated by any of those who favour the move. Similarly lacking are evaluation criteria: how is the benefit derived from going to a march to be evaluated, so that we can decide that it is worth the risk?
I truly hope some of the commenters here are speaking from inexperience.
I actually don’t think that is a bad thing to ask. Especially if it is an older child.
Well, you know black people. They’re all like profoundly ignorant and not very smart. So probably not. They’re probably like, “Hey kids, there’s a protest with candy and fairies and unicorns farting rainbows! Come on, it’ll be fun!”
Oh, is that not what you were implying? Your bad, then.
piero,
You Mohammed analogy fails. The police are launching tear gas into people’s yards. They are launching into streets that people have to cross to get to stores, and the library, and to football practice. You are basically saying they shouldn’t live there, because it is unsafe for their children.
piero @ 41
Is there some reason we should assume they don’t? Other than because they’re not white, I mean…
May I just point out the obvious?* Mike Brown was not even a birthday past childhood himself. Police brutality against black children is the cause they are protesting. Why ought the very people most affected not be participating in the protests? For the sake of their safety? It’s not they who are compromising their safety, nor their parents. It is the police who can tear gas them or shoot them with impunity in their own homes and neighbourhoods.
*Forgive if someone upthread has already mentioned. Am pressed for time and can’t read the comments before posting.
I grew up on protests and rallies.
All the fucked up things I blame them for, that’s not one of them.
OK, then, bostonhook and piero, let’s have from each of you 3 properly explained and well researched plans for what these parents should do with their children. Take into account that some at least of the police are just plain trigger happy and the various “law enforcement” bodies seem to be working at cross purposes. Also that this has been going on for many days and the normal tasks like shopping and going to work have to continue.
Three plans from each of you and let none of them be based on the idea that parents must give up their First Amendment rights for the 20 or so years it might take to bring up a family.
Their children are caught up in this violence whether piero likes it or not. So do you tell your children be afraid and hide or do you let them come along so they can learn how to stand up for themselves and as a parent you can choose when it is time to leave for their safety. It is no different than the children in Iraq going to school even though there are soldiers outside. If you teach your children to live in fear they will most likely never reach a point where they can stand on their own two feet as an adult. And since we are talking about people who have sworn an oath to protect and serve their community. It is important to for children to understand that they can voice their dislike towards this abuse of power, and there is no better teacher than experience. They get to see that other people are just as upset as they are, and that it’s OK. These children will learn a valuable lesson one that will serve them well in life.
But blaming the victim is wrong, and that is what these people are doing. piero do you really think these children get to sleep at night dreaming of happy things when this is, what is going on around them. They will be just as restless and incapable of relaxing as the adults. And the fact that the parents aren’t lying to them and saying it will be better tomorrow just go to bed, shows that they respect their children enough to let them be a part of the community.
piero at #42:
Thanks for your reply.
I don’t have an answer to this. I’ve been thinking about it, but I don’t have one. I do have a question to the part immediately after.
I don’t understand. Are you saying that “no more than is involved in letting them take a bus to school” is not “really a risk involved?”
That’s a good question. I suppose one of the rewards that children might gain from the risk is learning that concerted public action, even at risk, is sometimes the only thing people may feel they have left when a centuries-old culture of oppression stops by to remind them that their lives are worth less than the lives of others. They might also learn that such concerted public action, even at risk, may effect change. They might also learn that such an event, even at risk, demonstrates that there is a community that cares about them, while also learning that there are also communities that fire tear gas at, arrest people from, and shoot and kill people from, the community that cares about them.
Thoughts?
Still learning,
Robert
Menyambal @10:
(the following observation isn’t directed at you)
If a protest is not safe for the children, it’s not safe for the adults. I get the concern over children, but adults don’t deserve that treatment either. No matter when a protest is held-night or day-all the participants should feel safe to be there, rather than feel terrified by the very people who should be sworn to protect them.
****
ironchew:
Butthurt is a homophobic term that I’d prefer you not use. Please find another insult.
(Can’t believe I’m doing this twice in one week).
Please read and comprehend the following:
****
Saad @19:
Don’t leave the child at the park. A parent could get arrested.
@24:
I agree with that.
I’d add the following “FUCK any law enforcement official who brutalizes anyone engaged in peaceful protest”.
****
bostonhook:
Your “argument” wasn’t dismissed because of “your asshole self”. “Your asshole self” is an insult, but an insult =/= ad hominem. I wish people would understand the term.
Stop blaming the parents for the actions of the police. The police are the people choosing the throw tear gas into crowds of people. TEAR GAS, which has been condemned in wartime, yet is used against a civilian population. Instead of blaming the parents for bringing their children to a protest, blame the police for using tear gas. Stop victim blaming.
Without the police, these would be peaceful protests. The answer is not for parents to try to find a way to leave their kids at home (an option not available to many). The answer is for the cops to stop using such tactics.
****
Desert Son:
I picture you as more of an R2 droid…
****
piero:
Oh, *you* certainly appear to be, if your analogy to fundamentalist Muslim children is any indication.
All these people blaming the parents for kids being subjected to police brutality–
Why aren’t you blaming the police? They are the ones acting in such a way as to bring harm to the children *and* the parents.
Are the police mindless agents with no ability to make choices about their actions?
Are they unable to stop and say “maybe I shouldn’t throw this tear gas into a crowd”?
Are they forces of nature with no control over their actions, and we humans are merely swept along in the wake of their destruction?
piero:
I don’t understand who is deprived in this situation. The children who drew Mo are exercising their agency. They have the right to draw pictures if they choose. The children who retaliate are exercising their agency by choosing to attack. Both parties are exercising their agency. No one is imposing anything on others. Not unless you think that Muslims have a right to not be offended by images of Mo.
If that’s the case, I don’t know what to say to that. If people are expected to abide by the rules of a particular religion, whether they are members of that religion or not- that is oppressive.
If non Muslim children want to draw Mo, that is their right.
If Muslim children do not want to draw Mo, that’s their right. But they cannot expect others to adhere to their religious beliefs.
I find it bizarre that you think Muslim children have a right to protect some sort of universal right you think they have (apparently the right to impose on others to not draw Mo, for fear of them getting offended), but the children who drew Mo don’t have a universal right to be free from being physically assaulted. You seem to think Muslim children not only have a right to expect others to adhere to their religious beliefs (no draw Mo), but that they have a right to retaliate against people who do not share those religious beliefs. WTF?!
Tony! at #53:
Thank you for that post. That’s exactly at the heart of this. The police have agency. They can can make choices.
rq said it beautifully in another thread:
Also: *beep* *bloop* *whistle* *crescendo tone* :)
Still learning,
Robert
@bostonhook You’re completely ignoring the fact that Mike Brown, a child of Ferguson, was gunned down in the street while *walking*. Not protesting. The risk of being abused or killed by cops is an everyday threat for all those children. They may be in even more danger apart from the protests just going about their own business, than in the midst of them where the media and twitter are watching.
Pterryx, thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen that some children had been tear-gassed. Such a screwwed up mess.
But, as expected, it was a case of a family out in the earlier part, trusting the police. I don’t see blaming the parent.
And, at this point, I would take my kid down there, get him a whiff of tear gas, and tell him to never, ever trust the police. And to not listen to people who just waffle on about something vaguely wrong, but not exactly what, that really feels racist.
Alverant @5
To be fair, children brought to anti-abortion protests are not protesting in their own neighborhoods for their own rights. To be fair, these children are having to learn at a young age what challenges they will face because of their neighborhood and skin color, so many of them are participants and not just props.
Speaking as a parent, piero, for just that one word, I’d like to kindly invite you to fuck yourself right off the internet for a year.
Speaking as a white person, piero, for just that one word I’d like to kindly invite you to fuck yourself right off the internet until racism no longer exists.
Sally Strange:
Seven of Mine:
Excellent arguments! Were it not for the fact that my comments apply to every parent in similar circumstances in any part of the world. If you must know, I come from Chile: I lived through Pinochet’s dictatorship and saw hundreds of young lives wasted because parents (some very white, with blue eyes and blond hair and German surnames) thought being a “martyr of the revolution” was a “good thing”. The fact that Pinochet’s final demise was due to the US State Dept. unwillingness to keep him in power after he had done their dirty work is a sad epilogue to a story of useless sacrifice. So don’t bullshit me with your fake indignation, and don’t you dare call me a racist again, you pair of sorry wankers.
Implying that I am a racist does not contribute in any way to
It’s such a cowardly tactic! I’m sure some of the people complaining really mean it, but it’s just too coincidental that not bringing their children will remove the ability of the entire community (including children) to engage in a community act of complaint.
Many of them know deep down that they are in fact sensitive to children being treated badly and don’t want to think that these children are already suffering from what the people are complaining about in the protest. They don’t want to be confronted with the fact that the authorities are so indiscriminate in their dangerous behavior that children can’t be a part of a community act of protest. They may even want to take away the relevant emotional value that the presence of children adds to the community act of protest as a means of weakening the ability of minority communities to create empathy for the hidden world they face on a daily basis.
Some of them want to emotionally disarm the protestors.
It’s cowardly on many levels because abortion protesters get to bring children. I’m sure that Tea Party types would have no problem bringing children to their protests and have you seen their rhetoric about how much danger they think they are in? Would someone say that atheists should not involve children in their protests if they thought any religious folks would get out of control? It cuts a whole world of relevant connections out of a persons social existence if they don’t get to include their children in a social act independently of the accuracy or appropriateness of the social message.
If children are in danger take it out on the people who are willing to risk a child in a social conflict.
“Funny” how this is so similar to how many are trying to paint Palestinian child deaths in a deceptive light. There is a deeper pattern here and it’s ugly.
Jackie @32:
Well, duh. Get the nanny to take them to their polo lesson or something.
(I guess I should provide a sarcasm alert, since this thread seems to have its share of people who would say such a thing sincerely.)
piero @60,
Fuck off, racist.
Now what?
@screechymonkey:
1) you have a track record here. The sarcasm tag isn’t needed in the way it would be with someone new to pharyngula.
2) piero said:
So I’m very afraid that piero is still welcoming assessments of piero’s racism from you, me, and everyone else besides Sally Strange and Seven of Mine. Keep at it, though. Piero may soon give you a meaningless, consequence free ultimatum!
Sorry, continued from previous post.
Implying that I am a racist does not in any way contribute to this discussion, which concerns the responsibility of parents in protecting children from needless risk.
Crip Dyke:
You seem to be a not-too-fluent user of English. I hope it’s not your first language. It is obvious (except to those like you who work very hard at feigning indignation and make fools of themselves in the process) that using “we” in such a sentence is an impersonal construction: “we can easily see that…” does not mean “you, and you, and you, and me”; it means “It can be easily seen that…” Gosh, being called a racist is one thing, but having to teach English for free is really a bit too much, really.
Desert Son:
Thank you for your courteous and on-topic answer. What I meant was that living is risky; there are very few ways to stay alive and an indefinite amount of ways to get killed. We accept some risks as inevitable, because currently we can do nothing to prevent them or because preventing them would require so much resources that we would probably generate new and greater risks (say, by not having money to fund hospitals). The risk of death or serious injury in going to the swimming pool is comparable to the risk that the school bus should be involved in an accident. Besides, the risks posed by the swimming pool and the school bus are, to some extent, controllable: the bus seems fairly new, the driver has a good record, the pool has safety measures in place, etc. So we can decide whether the risk of allowing our children to carry out those activities is in fact small. When participating in a march, you cannot control almost anything, from the mental state of every single police officer to the possibility of a retaliatory attack on them which may catch you and your children in a crossfire.
Yes. So? Let’s say I encourage my children to draw pictures of Mohammed and to post them in their Facebook pages, knowing full well that some of their classmates come from a fundamentalist Muslim background
It’s a lot of work coming up with thought experiments that increase the parents’ responsibility, but it can be done. The question is why are you doing that instead of asking what the fuck the police are doing violently interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances?
piero,
Are you sure you are directing this comment at the correct person? Perhaps you are having trouble comprehending yourself?
Well, please, take yourself and your precious time and leave.
piero #60,
Are you saying that the Ferguson protest is useless? Are you saying that the adult protesters are risking their life for nothing and are also potentially wasting their children’s lives?
@marcus ranum
I once thought as you did. Turns out the right to petition was intended as, and has been interpreted to be, something much narrower. The right to free speech has been interpreted in the context of the right to petition as necessarily encompassing speech critical of government – whether or not specific changes are advocated. But of itself, a rally or protest is not a “petition”.
On the other hand, the right to sue your own government is part of the right to petition rather than the right to free speech.
screechymonkey:
How old are you, schreechy? Maybe this will fly over your head, but one salutary effect of forbidding wankers from calling me a racist is that they’ll invariably start calling me racist. It’ appears to be hard-wired, for it never fails. Thus, they are kept busy for a while in some innocuous activity and the rest of the posters can have a try at making some sense.
@ piero 65
I’m curious. Where did someone imply you are a racist?
So, piero…based on your response to screechymonkey @ 70….
Do people accuse you of being racist often? Because you seem to have given this an awful lot of thought.
@Brony, 71:
SallyStrange did in 44:
Seven of Mine did, in 46:
and I did in 59:
I didn’t directly see anyone implying racism otherwise, but I could be wrong.
of course, this doesn’t include those, like screechymonkey who didn’t bother to imply and just flat out labeled piero racist.
This is getting interesting. OK, to yazikus, screechymonkey and the fucktoy:
I believe some people should not be allowed to have children. Your parents, for instance. Discuss.
Welp. Didn’t take long to get this one to abandon all pretense of being here in good faith, did it?
…and Seven of Mine, delightfully, in the incomparably witty #72:
Oops, my bad.
Apparently the argumentum ad populum doesn’t imply veracity, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing, “Look over there ===> !”
Robert
Who dares summon me from my lair?!
I’ll contribute what I believe is a great article from the Huffington Post on the subject of bringing children to these protests.
Link to article
Plenty of moving images of children participating in the protests, and discussion of the benefits of involving them.
However, here are some quotes from the article which I wholeheartedly agree with:
On the subject of if its a good idea to bring children:(Emphasis mine)
Another quote: (Emphasis mine)
I’ve never argued that parents should never involve their children in protests at all, but rather to use some judgement in evaluating the risks on a case by case basis. I would enthusiastically take my children to peaceful daytime protests that I would judge to be safe. To me, having my small children out at night in an area that has been the site of violence/police brutality/tear gas for each of the previous 5 nights, would go against my judgement.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that parents are wrong to bring their children to protests. All that some of us are suggesting is that there are protest times/areas that, when prior events are considered, can be reasonably expected to be dangerous, and in these cases, you must weigh the importance of involving the child with the significant risk that the child could be injured or even severely frightened.
@ Crip Dyke
No that is what the people said that he thinks is an implication. It’s the statements of his that seem to be consistent with racist behaviors and beliefs that I want to see. It’s the only way to tell the difference.
Thanks though. I’ll see what they were responding to and see what I think.
piero @41
Aside from the already-mentioned idiocy of this comment…
“Facebook requires everyone to be at least 13 years old before they can create an account (in some jurisdictions, this age limit may be higher). Creating an account with false info is a violation of our terms. This includes accounts registered on the behalf of someone under 13.”
“Whoops.”
I implied this blame-the-parents thing was racist, then I said it was racist. I can’t see any other reason for even bring it up, other to condemn people as unfit, and the waffley just-saying aspect sounds to me like not wanting to be seen to be racist. I really don’t see what else can be going on.
So if we agree that the parents were wrong to take their children to the protests, what is the plan? How about we send the police over to shoot the kids? Seriously, what is the point of your plaint, you senseless racist wanker?
Uh oh. Someone is mad they were called a racist. I forgot that’s a sign of the apocalypse…that’s how bad it is.
You can stomp your feet all you want piero. You don’t have to like it and obviously you don’t. But people don’t have to stop calling you that if they so choose. Nothing you can do about that asshole.
If the police know people from the community in which the protest is taking place will be bringing their children to the protest, why do they use tear gas and bring dangerous weapons? Why don’t they use their *ahem* extensive training in de-escalation techniques to make the experience educational for all involved?
I believe some people should not be allowed to post here. Piero, for instance. No discussion necessary, he’s gone.
There it is everyone. We’ve got a live one!
Another person who places such value on being courteous. How long before the tone trolling starts? Place yer bets now people!
So much for that.
Considering the children you talk about are black, yes racism can and does come into play. To pretend otherwise is a common racist tactic.
I didn’t even have a chance to say, “Alert sent!”
Snif.
Oh, I thought, “Thank you for your courteous and on-topic answer,” was tone trolling. But that’s just me.
Sorry PZ, didn’t see your banhammer before I made my post #86.
piero at #65:
Yes, I comprehended that. When I read your original phrasing, to wit:
it felt as if your implication was that the risk was either negligible or non-existent. However much control you may imagine we have for some variables of either bus-riding or swimming, both activities remain risky beyond what I would define as negligible or non-existent, but perhaps you and I differ on values for those. Hence my confusion, since risk was central to what you had raised, and to what I was trying to address about bostonhook’s original entries in the discussion.
I asked if you thought the possible rewards I named had merit relative to the risk. You provided no answer to that, but you did say the following:
Do you assess the efforts against Pinochet’s tyranny by Chileans as useless? Koshka at #68 asks essentially the same question. Perhaps the list of rewards I provided as possible things children might gain from attending protests would not be the kinds of things that you would consider valuable, since many of the people opposed to Pinochet in Chile demonstrated as well, were executed, and you appear to have summed up such events as “useless sacrifice.”
Which prompts me to turn once more to contributions Tony! and others have made in this discussion about agency. Clearly Pinochet could have made choices not to consolidate his power through tyranny, repression, and murder. He might have lost power, but he could have made that choice. Similarly, opponents in Chile could have chosen not to speak out, or demonstrate, or produce media and art explaining their position, and so on.
I guess I’m puzzled: Was there no agency among anyone in Chile, tyrants or citizens alike? If there was no agency, then perhaps their efforts were useless. But if they had agency, how were their efforts useless? Simply because Pinochet’s ultimate fate was a trial in Britain and death of old age? Do others not now have the opportunity to learn from those events and actions and choices, to make efforts to prevent Pinochet’s tyranny again, perhaps efforts against that kind of thing in a place like, say, Ferguson, Missouri?
As a final note for this particular reply, you will definitely find content here at Pharyngula (I don’t know if you are new to this site or not). You will not necessarily find courtesy (if you are new, you can find more about commenting protocols here). If the latter is critical to your appreciation of the former, this may not be the site for you.
Still learning,
Robert
*sigh* Slowest. Thread participant. Ever.
PZ and others:
I apologize for my follow up at #89. I am just now seeing the ban.
Still learning,
Robert
Desert Son
It’s okay, I’ve classified you under turtles. :) Nice follow-up, though – maybe piero will at least read it.
Well what SallyStrange, Seven of Mine, and Crip Dyke was referring to does seem pretty racist to me. Even with more context.
It’s prejudicial, they are judging the protestors as being irresponsible parents without looking like they have heard their personal reasons for wanting to bring their children. It’s entirely possible that the things they are upset about are so bad on their entire families already that the protest is just not really more dangerous in comparison to the effects of societal and institutional racism. I mean an eight year old has to wait eight years to until life gets unbearably shitty right?
It’s probably discriminatory because I have a hard time why Piero has not investigated why these parents would be willing to bring their children to the protests. He clearly thinks that he should be able to tell us what a concerned parent looks like, but since he is not offering us the statements of Ferguson parents and lining them up with his concerned parent rules it appears that he is treating them differently then himself by not displaying interest in their concerned parent rules. Piero’s rule are just automatically more relevant than the ones he is trying to discuss.
As for combining them into racism, well he is focused on Ferguson and at some point that duck can’t quack any louder.
I know piero is banned and all, but I’d like to point out that I’m really pissed that he referred to Crip Dyke as “the fucktoy” @74.
I’m relatively new here, but I keep laughing at that name whenever it comes up. I’m sure there’s a story behind it, but that string of words together is just hilarious.
PFUDOR!
Jeff S at #77:
Thanks for your comment.
I think the central issue that keeps coming back up relative to all this is still highlighted by Tony! and others in this (and other) thread(s).
Agency.
While the sections of your post encouraging parents to think about risks to their children is fine, there’s another problem in all this, which is the context at hand is not just a protest, it is a siege. I do not feel extreme in categorizing what is happening in Ferguson recently that way.
People are shouting from the rooftops because the shit—for lack of a better term, and frankly, I think it’s a pretty good term—is going down around their actual rooftops. The tear gas fumes on their lawns, seeping into windows, HVAC systems, automobiles. When they try to walk to work, or to a neighbor, or to a friend, or to a store, or anywhere, they are coralled, intimidated, arrested, gassed, menaced, and one of them, a young man of just 18 years of age, was gunned down.
The parents have agency to choose to allow children to attend protests, true, but what becomes of that agency when the violence moves into their neighborhood? People bound to their homes by poverty, inaccessibility to other facilities, disability, fear, and a militarized police force shooting tear gas, rubber bullets, and degrading obscenities at them in their own neighborhoods . . . what recourse do they have? People who just want to live at that home right there, that one, that very one, where can they go? How can they make their children safe?
And if the answer is “People should stay in, stay away, not protest, not rally, not speak out,” then nothing changes, ever, because that message tells the police, and the world, and—I submit—the children, that it is o.k. to think of a community as worth less than some other community.
There is something valuable that children can learn from the protests. They can learn that they are loved by people who want to be treated with decency and dignity, and they can learn that wanting to be treated with decency and dignity is neither criminal nor worthless.
And, ultimately, agency: The police could put the tear gas away and take up brooms, as rq so expertly observed. They could show up tomorrow to distribute bottled water, help people get where they need to go, help clean up.
Part of a systematic problem is when a systematic component of service is re-purposed for combat, when combat should be the last thing it ever does.
And last, but not least, one step we can all take to fostering better treatment with decency and dignity is to trust—to genuinely trust—that parents in Ferguson, Missouri are perfectly capable of making outstanding parenting decisions in context, reflecting genuine love, intelligence, and responsibility.
I wager they do so every day they are parents. Let’s you and I trust them to do so once again, tonight, and tomorrow night, and the night after.
Nights they are under siege.
Still learning,
Robert
Saad:
I recommend you visit the Lounge. It’s the social thread here at Pharyngula where we talk about anything and everything. Nothing is off topic. PZ just asks us to discuss things kindly (which isn’t a problem). We have people from around the world at all different times participating in various discussions. We’re a warm and friendly crowd and always welcome newbies (I’ll preempt rq here and mention you should be ready with the answers to 1-do you like cheese 2-do you like peas and 3- do you like horses; it’s a fun, completely whimsical “initiation” that we give everyone…there’s no right or wrong answer and you’re not even required to answer).
old enough to know that when someone places an obvious chip on their shoulder, they really are begging for it to be knocked off.
That really was not ALL you or Piero were saying. If that really had been ALL then I doubt there would have been as much issue taken with your statements.
No, you WERE also saying that if parents don’t “weigh the importance of involving the child” in exactly the same was as you would, and the child ends up being “injured or even severely frightened” as a direct result of POLICE actions, then the parents are bad and should feel bad about their parenting.
The problem here is that it is police who are putting children at risk. And, regardless of the presence or absence of rioters/looters/agents provocateur, POLICE should NEVER be a source of danger to small children. The problem is that the POLICE are putting the ENTIRE COMMUNITY at risk of injury and severe fright, INCLUDING CHILDREN, and people like you come along and go “tsk tsk” at the parents, as if they’re a bunch of fucking idiots who don’t perform sophisticated risk-benefit analyses regarding whether to allow their children to walk to the corner store and back on a daily basis. The parents are not the problem. The police are the problem.
You might think this was what you were saying, but it wasn’t. go back and carefully look at your posts yesterday.
Interesting. I slipped from neutral “they” into “he” when I posted that analysis of Piero’s words. I need to note that.
Desert Son wrote:
There’s something else. I imagine many parents have weighed the decision about whether or not they should bring their children to a protest and decided that it’s just as dangerous to leave them at home as it is to take them with them.
It’s easy for people to sit on the sidelines and second guess parents, and I think many times it would be a better idea not to play armchair parent. People like piero and Jeff S aren’t in the thick of it, making decisions involving these children everyday and weighing the benefits and risks of every action they take. I trust these parents to make the decisions for the children that they feel are best. The question I’d ask some people is why don’t you trust these parents to parent?
Tony! @97
Alrighty, will give it a visit next time things are slow at work :)
All good points, except those are not peaceful protests. Reports coming from protesters are reporting firebombs and shooting coming from the protesters and impacting both police and protesters. As with all things there are limits. You have a right to peacefully protest, but you do not have the right to riot.
Another aspect comes from people coming from outside the community. Some are focused upon peaceful protest as what they see as police overreaction, some are evidently so outraged they throw fire bombs and shoot, some on the fringes of the internet are reporting they are hoping to antagonize the police to force further overreaction and a few are hoping to trigger a wider race riot and a nationwide race war. If the protesters were more organized they might police their own ranks and help keep the protest peaceful but they are not that organized.
Which is why once such situations are under way there is little control from any side. The police cannot, by law and convention, simply walk away. The protesters cannot back off without major concessions even as it is increasingly clear that the core of their argument, that Brown was innocent and gunned down without cause, is deeply flawed. This triggering event is surrounded by quite legitimate and compelling complaints of oppression and racism but they may have hitched their cause to a central false assertion.
People who have experienced riots often talk about them as if they were forces of nature. The event has a life of its own and feeds off emotion and attract people who wish to experience and exploit the waves of emotion and anonymity of the crowd. Riots are always on the verge of violence and destruction and the targets often have little or nothing to do with the overall theme.
The choice of sending out your kids into such an atmosphere is yours but kids are obviously more vulnerable to trampling, gunfire and the gas, actually a micronized powder, which can concentrate at lower levels and quickly aggravates childhood asthma. I would keep kids inside.
The photo of a lynching would be applicable if there was clouds of CS, fire bombs going off and random gunfire present. The problem is not exposure to violence but the risk of physical harm.
Jeff S:
One problem with this is that it is incredibly condescending to parents. You act as if parents aren’t already evaluating the risks. Why do you do this? Is it because YOU think children shouldn’t go to protests of a particular nature? That’s fine if that’s how you want to raise your children, but don’t presume that other parents don’t make risk assessments or aren’t responsible enough to decide when and where to take their children just bc you don’t agree with their decision. You’re insinuating that your decisions are superior to the parents in the community of Ferguson, and you’re not even there.
I also hope at some point, you’ll realize that the onus is on the police to stop brutalizing the community of Ferguson. If they stop being assholes, children will be safe at protests. Parents ought to be able to expect protests to be a safe place for themselves and their children. If it isn’t safe, let’s criticize the people making it unsafe-the police.
Do you have a citation for that? Because I’ve seen no such ‘reports’.
oh? which ones?
name one point you think was a good one,
you smell disingenuous, as usual.
To me it seems that to take that to its logical conclusion, you couldn’t criticise any action a parent takes. Everyone is going to have an opinion on this. Are they not supposed to share it, should the issue not be discussed? These aren’t rhetorical questions.
Because why state the obvious? I consider that’s a given. To talk about that would be to change the argument.
rq at #91:
Thank you! :) Brief reply (with turtles) posted in Lounge!
Still learning,
Robert
lorn:
The risk of physical harm…which is caused by the exposure to violence…which is caused by the police. Surely you can work that out on your own.
The community of Ferguson has been made unsafe due to the actions of the police. There’s nowhere for any of those people to go. The violence from the police is on their fucking doorsteps.
Oh, and fuck you for this:
You keep asserting this as if it is true and you’ve provided not one shred of evidence in support of it. All you’ve provided is the shit you’ve imagined in your head, all which conveniently line up with what the police have claimed.
Nothing you’ve put forth from your wildest fantasies justifies the killing of Michael Brown. Not your “he charged him”, not your “he was a big guy and the cop felt threatened”. Nothing. You are trying your hardest to justify a law enforcement officer killing another human being. An unarmed (yes, unarmed, even the Chief of Police stated that, so ditch your uncertainty about that) young man was gunned down by a police officer. *THAT*, all your protestations to the contrary, is a fact. One which has been known almost since the beginning of this shitstorm.
Oh, and fuck you also for tagging on that “innocent” part. Like so many people supporting the police and Officer Wilson, you’re trying to smear the character of Mike Brown in your attempt to justify his murder. You’re supporting an authoritarian police state where the lives of black people are treated as worthless. You’re disgusting.
Fuck, I’d hate to see the ways you’d contort yourself to justify the murders of Renisha McBride or Trayvon Martin.
I see a great deal of white privilege in the debate about bringing children to a “violent” protest. The fact that the entire protest hinges on a kid in their community being gunned down execution-style in the street mean they already aren’t SAFE, thus THE PROTEST!
Then there’s the idea that you can simply avoid the protest (not to mention needing to buy groceries, go to work, and do any of the other hundreds of things that involve going outside in the middle of a police-based siege of your community!)
But most of all there’s the privilege that YOU wouldn’t have to protest if it was inconvenient, because YOU are privileged, and YOU aren’t directly affected, and YOU can just go home to your safe little suburb in your safe little house, and not think about it, because YOU aren’t the one who has to worry about YOUR KID getting gunned down in the street for no reason!
@lorn
Any why are the protests not peaceful? You note “forces of nature” below. The psychological impact of societal and institutional racism, combined with authorities being willing to kill unarmed 18-yearolds, and the cops showing up like it’s a literal war is a force of nature you should be able to accurately account for if you want to be able to speak here. Police Riot.
You should be criticizing the people coming into the community with bad intent then. After all they seem to be making you think that all black folks in Ferguson should act in the same way because of them yet you are being critical of parents who want to make sure their children don’t die at 18.
Nope. The police can in fact be told to go away by the rest of us when they stop acting like police. The are not acting like police, they are acting like an invading force towards an embattled people. They are getting to remove their identification without social consequence which is bullshit. They getting to create an atmosphere where they can suppress documentation of context so responsibility and cause can be obfuscated. Quite literally, fuck the police. After all they are not willing to stick it to each other when moral and ethical so it has to be us.
What false central assertion?
And they get to demand that we look at the evidence that their lives are so shitty that they believe that their children are already at enough risk that this is worth it. The social contract is a biological and psychological reality.
They clearly already live under physical harm if they have to deal with cops killing unarmed 18-yearolds. You need to consider the realms of psychological harm to be able to speak as you are. It’s easy to dismiss what you seem unwilling to demonstrate. But that seems a common problem among people that don’t seem to know much about the psychological effects of social and institutional bigotry.
Oh, long time lurker, first time poster, so hi!
Marc Abian:
I never said no one could criticize parents. I said:
Moreover, my main point is that the people criticizing parents in this thread are assuming parents haven’t made these risk assessments. They’re coming in here with their “superior parenting advice” and treating these parents like they haven’t already thought of the pros and cons of their actions. They aren’t living in Ferguson dealing with the shit these parents have to every single day. They don’t know all the stuff parents have to weigh when they make decisions. They’re making these armchair decisions based on a limited knowledge of the necessary facts. They’re so ignorant of what these people are going through, yet they feel they know enough to say “don’t take your kids to a protest”. It’s arrogant and condescending.
1- It may be obvious to you, but some people are defending the actions of the police. They very clearly are not blaming them for the violence in Ferguson.
My whole point is instead of blaming the parents for making the best decisions that they’re capable of (and they have greater knowledge of all the facts relevant to those decisions), people should blame law enforcement. In other words, they *need* to change the argument, bc the one they have is piss poor and victim blaming.
@ Marc Abian
One can, if they can display that they have some ability to accurately convey what parents in Ferguson are actually saying about their families and what they experience. I have yet to see that out of anyone criticizing the parents instead of the ones causing risk to children.
From what argument?
@lorn
The only pictures I’ve seen of hurt children are children who were teargassed. By police. Not protesters. The ones putting children at risk in Ferguson are the police.
http://www.biography.com/news/black-history-birmingham-childrens-crusade-1963-video
Are we still seriously replying to Lorn? Because I’m damn near in the “just make toilet noises at them till they go away” territory. Every last post seems to be “silly black people need to just go home and let this all blow over” and doing his best McCarthy impression with evidence of a reason to murder an 18 year old black man.
rabitwombat @113:
Welcome.
My comments @97 to Saad apply to you as well. Feel free to drop into the Lounge any time you like.
@111:
Yep.
This is part of what I’m talking about when I argue that these folks should stop criticizing the parents taking their children to the protest. The parents know their situation better than the armchair parents. They know what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. They know how dangerous their community is. I imagine for many of them, it’s no more dangerous to not bring their child to a protest than it is TO bring their child. But they’re in a better position to decide that over someone on the internet that has no clue what they’re living through.
@Tony! Thank you for the welcome!
I have taken my son to many protests. Obviously I hope he won’t get hurt. But when I take him to a protest it is because something is unspeakably WRONG, and he needs to learn how to recognize and respond to that, before the whole world falls into tyranny. Is he going to be safe if we allow tyranny to perfect its grip on the people? Will anyone? No.
As a parent, I am proudest of the moments I taught him to care enough about his fellow humans to take action against oppression.
lorn #104
Wait, last I read from you, you were just presenting “possible scenarios” about what happened and how all those gunshot wounds were from the cop justifiably defending himself. At that stage, they were just scenarios you were presenting.
So, now all of a sudden they’ve become facts? What happened to all the important bit in the middle? As my 10th grade geometry teacher used to annoyingly interrupt: “Show your work.”
Taking their kids to a protest?
You mean, like, just stepping out their own front fucking door?
Also: fun fact!
Did you know that police use magical unicorn-kiss bullets that magically drop to the ground if they are fired in a residential district and fail to hit the bad guy?
And physical harm is the only kind of harm?
And teaching children to murder doesn’t put them at later risk if they overestimate their ability to murder? if they overestimate their ability to do so with legal impunity? no matter what their estimate if they happen to make prison enemies?
That paragraph is truly sickening, lorn.
The problem with your statement is the “but” and everything after it. White people have been telling Black people in the US exactly what is best for Black children for hundreds of years. It is just within the realm of the conceivable that the opinion of some random internet commenter might be taken as an unhelpful continuation of the insistence of other people that they know more about what is best for Black children than Black parents do.
No. Not even close. Riots are by definition acts of collective violence and destruction. Riots are not “on the verge of violence”. They are violence. This argumentary conceit that there is such a thing as a non-violent riot can serve no purpose other than to conflate non-violent protest with riot.
I call bullshit.
Oh great cannibal crackers. Tautology much?
Is it possible to have a peaceful protest a block away from a riot? If it’s impossible, why? Collective responsibility? Since fucking when? Against whom else do you apply this noble tenet of responsibility for others’ actions? The wives of serial killers? The people next door who never called the cops when they saw BTK getting into his car at midnight because he was such a quiet guy? Surely you at least have to give life-without-parole to the people who lived a block away, right?
If it is possible, then on what basis do you deny the existence of peaceful protests?
Either way, I call bullshit again.
They are that organized. We have video of protestors policing their own ranks and trying to keep things peaceful. Those actions have, in fact, helped.
If you want to say that they failed to prevent all violence in a 12 city block radius, go ahead. But to say that they are not sufficiently organized to “police their own ranks and help keep the protest peaceful” is an outright lie. Do you even read the reports of what has been happening in Ferguson?
I can’t call bullshit anymore, I’m getting hoarse. So: horseshit.
That isn’t the core of the fucking argument, nor is an accurate wording of the related argument, “Brown was not guilty of anything that carried the death penalty and, even were he to be so, should have all the rights of legal defense and appeal available to, say, the fucking Bundy ranchers…if we arrested them at all.” Nor is that the only complaint. The vast difference in treatment of the Bundy ranchers – training loaded firearms at law enforcement and directly threatening to shoot if the officers made any attempt to peacefully enforce a court order – and Black men and boys who are entirely unarmed, displays a racist tendency built into the mechanisms of law enforcement that puts Black men and boys, not to mention certain others, like First Nations men & boys, at an intolerably high risk of being killed when a white person would face misdemeanor arrest.
People are protesting that shit. Protesting it hard. People aren’t protesting to make get people to believe Mike Brown never smoked pot. People are protesting that Mike Brown is FUCKING DEAD and to get people to NOT KILL ANY MORE MIKE BROWNS.
you don’t know half as much law any Mike Brown with a google search bar and as for conventions?
Well, there are conventions and there are conventions.
It’s exactly the difference between the situations that is at issue.
So fuck your legal ignorance while pretending to educate about the law. Fuck your situational ignorance while pretending to educate about the actions on the ground in Ferguson. Fuck your contemptible arrogance.
Most of all, fuck your assertion that bringing one’s child from one’s tear-gas laden home to the tear-gas laden street 30 feet away to politely insist that the police not tear gas one’s home and family and, “please, while you police are at it, could you not impose the death penalty unnecessarily on black children?” is a more horrible sin than bringing your children out for a day of fun lynching niggers.
Lorn, you are a shitweasel. I am only going to address one thing, before I go scrape you off my shoes. We are having a discussion about parents taking their children along with them to a protest. You change that to, “. . . sending out your kids . . .”. Shitweasel.
MSNBC’s Al Sharpton had a nice clip about schoolteachers setting up in the local library to take care of kids and provide some educational activities.
Taking your child to a protest is in itself a part of the protest, including the risk to them. It is up to the parents to decide.
Iorn at #104:
1) What is the “central false assertion?” What evidence do you have for this “central false assertion?”
2) What fucking difference does it make what they “hitched their cause to” if the ultimate underlying issue is a racist police force situated in a racist society that is once again exhibiting crushing repression?
In the end, does it somehow make what is happening to them magically less racist and lessoppressive if the protesters find out that Brown had committed a crime, or that juniper berries cure cancer, or that the nighttime is the right time to be with the one you love?
And, further, even if Brown had committed some crime, what justification was there for two to the head and four to the arms?
Genuine question. I am deeply interested to know—once you’ve addressed the marked lack of supporting evidence throughout the rest of your post—that even if Brown had done something illegal, what is the justification for six bullets (that hit. I haven’t read information about how many were fired in total) when Brown was unarmed?
If by law, then it sounds like we have a lot of work to do in our society to develop better laws that allow police to confront threats, and also allow police to walk away when doing so is a better way to handle a situation that, heretofore, some portion of the population seems to think needs militarization. We should probably work on the training side of things, too, so that police are better equipped to recognize when a situation calls for handcuffs, and when a situation calls for, “Hello. It looks like there’s something wrong here. What can I do to help you work this out in the best way possible for everyone? What do you need from me?”
If by convention, then that’s the stupidest thing I’ve read this week, and it’s only Wednesday. All kinds of shit throughout history has been by convention until someone stopped accepting “But that’s how we’ve always done it!” as a legitimate approach to problem solving.
Still learning,
Robert
You don’t sound like a person who has been to either a riot or a protest. I have never been to a riot, but I have been to peaceful protests that turned violent, due to the actions of cops and cops alone.
I was part of a crowd in Portland OR, in 2002, protesting the presence of Dubya Bush there to promote his deceptively named “environmental” initiatives that were designed to defang air pollution and logging regulations. The crowd was peaceful, until the cops started tear gassing and pepper spraying people. I was pepper sprayed. So were some children in the crowd:
And that’s why I have no patience for your thoughtless, authoritarian-follower acceptance of the dictum that the parents are wrong to bring children to protests. More often than not, the violence comes from the cops. To allow the cops to determine the means and terms of political protest is to accept that we live in a police state. If children are not safe at political protests, because of the indiscriminate violence perpetrated by police, then neither are adults, and everyone’s first amendment rights are being violated.
Fact: Police alleged that some protesters were using molotov cocktails.
Fact: No actual proof of that claim ever emerged.
Not fact: Protesters were firebombing.
Rather telling that lorn, who was so Skeptical about the issues in Ferguson, suddenly is confidently regurgitating speculation from an obviously biased party as Fact. Even greater than the actual facts we have independently verified from reporters, eyewitnesses, expert analysis of autopsies, etc.
Your game is obvious lorn. Just fuck off already. Get your bigoted, dishonest, handwringing ass out of here.
Fuck! WordPress ate a major comment.
Well, for the moment:
@Tony!:
<lorn>
Oh, right. Look, we’ve all seen lightsabers. We know they come in different colors. Tuning one to an ultraviolet wavelength? Trivial.
Cloaking devices? We’ve all see those, too. Despite the insistence that no ship as small as a Corellian freighter can have a cloaking device, Mike Brown didn’t exactly need to protect his lightsaber from imperial sensors, did he?
A 3″ globe on the end of the saber-projector ought to be enough to shield it from our eyes.
Presto! Not only armed, but more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Unless you’ve seen star wars.
So stop with this unfounded claim Mike Brown was unarmed! until you disprove the existence of a shielded, ultraviolet lightsaber, you haven’t disproved the null hypothesis of a white cop facing a black teen: He was a murderous, dangerous villain.
</lorn>
That shit was painful just to write. hope it wasn’t too much for anyone.
Just saw NBC news discussing the events in Ferguson. They said the protest was smaller and ended sooner. They used that as their only evidence that things are getting “better” . Fuck the media. Fuck. Them.
My brain is simply too weary to work back how that ended up being the end of an obviously much longer train of thought.
*raises hand*
“may I be excused?”
Aside from lorn’s penchant for making shit up and inability to provide evidence for their assertions, I can’t seem to recall if they are actually interacting with people, or just taking a massive dump into each of the threads they’ve commented in…
just wanted to take time out to say I love this nym.
this.
I’m sure of it.
Tony@131:
My recollection of every time he posts is mostly like a fecal jetpack propelling him from shitpost to shitpost dropping massive crap-laden authoritarian drivel everywhere. Just my recollection, though.
@antepro
(Sorry, not sure yet how to quote,) but fuck the media. A kid is gunned down in the street, and they quibble about looting and rioting and “strong-armed robbery” and a bunch of other nonsense, because let’s NOT talk about how there are almost zero laws you can break that can legally be answered by summary execution in the street! And Michael Brown, who is DEAD, and therefore can’t have his day in court to be found guilty of ANYTHING, didn’t break any of those very few laws. (If he had actually managed to shoot the officer with the gun he DIDN’T HAVE, maybe there would be justification, but no.)
@Tony! –
No, I can’t think of a time when lorn significantly interacted with another commenter, comment, or argument.
One notes, for instance, that lorn is still pretending to know something about the law:
Yeah, except DeShaney v Winnebago County says that they can.
Bundy Ranch says that they do.
***I*** need to be way careful about what I say about the law. I’ve been wrong on here once and had to concede another time that I wasn’t being nearly specific enough to avoid misleading people. And I’m not going into any details, like, at all. If you find self-assessed-as-clever argument getting corrected by me on the law, you really ought to hang your head in shame cuz I’m no expert with the law, so if I can see through your bullshit, “clever” doesn’t exactly describe your argument.
And yet… lorn can’t seem to learn from experience. Why is that, do you think?
@Ichthyic
Thank you! :)
rabidwombat:
Nail on the head, and put succinctly too.
(I think you’ll do well around here if you stick around!)
The way that some of the people defending the police argue, the picture they paint of what police can do and should do, leads me to believe that police are always justified to shoot. Which makes me wonder if your average joe is therefore always justified to shoot back, or even first….
FYI rabidwombat, #135
Monitor note:
To use html tags:
<blockquote>”quoted words”</blockquote>
yields:
CripDyke:
Working hypothesis: They aren’t actually reading anything before or after they take their shit in the thread, and they have no shame anyway so its not like it would matter much if they did read it.
btw, Welcome, and when you tire of gnawing on the grisle of life that plays out in these threads, you can relax in the Lounge (good place to meet the regulars), or scream in the Thunderdome (no holds barred; anything goes).
@rabidwombat:
are you paying attention to the difference between opening tags, which have no forward slash (“/”) and closing tags which do have a “/”?
e.g.
<blockquote> <==This is an opening tag, used at the beginning
</blockquote> <==This is a closing tag, used at the end
@rabidwombat
Tags gotta be closed! :3
(replace ‘[‘ and ‘]’ with ”)
[blockquote]
[/blockquote]
You forgot the / before the blockquote to close your tags, rabidwombat!
rabidwombat:
The worst part is the ridiculous number of people who are also just mindlessly give them that trust! We’ve seen plenty from that element. And we see it in the legal system too. Cops protect their own, but other people who aren’t cops pitch in as well. They really are above the law, just not officially.
Sometime I find it valuable to assume that people who don’t seem able to show that they understand what I am saying (even just to disagree with it), or can’t accurately describe how I am using my words can’t deal with the terrible implications of accepting what I am saying, even on a hypothetical level. They just can’t go there. This is a sympathetic tentative assumption because some of that emotion will be very understandable and should be treated as empathetically as possible (or as empathetically as they deserve, this is controversial for good reason).
I always hold that as a hypothesis and let them show me if I am right or not by minimizing assumptions. But if the right sort of data starts showing up some conclusions are hard to avoid. It’s best to just ask more questions but a lot of people do end up “hanging themselves”, so to speak.
FYI, all the people involved in the story I related regarding Portland 2002 were white. And there was quite the outcry locally, in Portland, about the incident. But it never made national news. If only we’d had Twitter.
did it work? YAAYYYY!!
Fuck racist pigs.
So sick of this shit. “Oh but you can’t say that, there are good ones.” WHERE? Fucking privileged asshats.
Unless they are out there protecting the protesters from their own,
Unless they agree the killer cop should be charged with murder,
Unless they acknowledge and work towards fixing their racist, sexist, authoritarian system,
Unless they police their own and protect the people, instead of the other way around,
they aren’t “one of the good ones”, they are part of the fucking problem.
(I’d mention the sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and ablism problems but we’d be here forever and they’re all excluded with the short this as it is.)
I’ve never met a single cop that wasn’t an asshat, and I’ve had plenty of dealing with them as a domestic violence and rape victim, poor and at one point homeless person and with disabled, homeless mother. My daughter is mixed and I’m fucking terrified of the way cops will treat her. Being non-white is enough to get shot, FFS. And I’m expected to teach her to respect their authoritah, be quiet, and don’t do anything to rock the boat. Fuck all that nonsense. Nothing good with come of it and nothing with change.
If I could be on the front lines at Ferguson, I would be and my daughter would be too. Because she wants to be there already. She wants to help and feels awful for not being able to do anything. She’s already terrified of cops and it has nothing to do with brainwashing her. She sees for herself that it’s wrong. She doesn’t get why her skin is such a big deal but she’s dealt with some consequences of being non-white already. Children are not oblivious or stupid. Taking her to a protest would be teaching valuable lessons: exercising her rights, being apart of positive change, and seeing the fucked up system for herself. Burying your head in the sand and keeping your children ignorant is the territory of white privilege, minorities can’t afford such cushy bubbles because merely existing gets them killed. There’s no way I’m sending my child out there thinking cops are good guys, or that the system is just.
I mean there are so many little things white people just don’t get. I’ve had white social workers at shelters get mad at me and other parents for not perpetrating the santa claus lie. Why should we? We may get a few free presents but it’s not like the children get what they want, which leads inevitably to questions like “Why aren’t I good enough to get presents like the other children?” No fucking way am I going to let that shit slide. Being poor is not a character flaw or moral failing.
Fucking white people stealing what they want, causing the problems, and then blaming the victims, as always.
And the blind trust in the media too. I was reading comments on the St. Louis Post Dispatch (trigger for anyone who can’t stomach incessant, blatant racism btw,) and posters were insisting POC needed to “take responsibility” for all the “black criminals” they saw in the news. SERIOUSLY??!!!
How about YOU take responsibility for never attempting to research how the media potrays POC, and crime, and politics. How about that? Don’t you think you should have maybe made some effort to do that, instead of gobbling up all the shit they feed you, because it makes you feel sooooo comfortable?
anteprepro:
Stand Your Ground vs law enforcement?
JAL
I also hate this argument. Sure, there are cops out there who don’t shoot or beat people for no reason. There are a few who don’t go out of their way to stop and search POC. But they still protect the ones who do. Cops always cover for each other. So by what definition can they be good? As we all know, “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.” So sick of this.
I hope things can change in your daughter’s time, but until that happens, I hope she avoids them and their abuse.
rabidwombat
Isn’t it funny (in the not funny way) how people always talk about how “there’s something wrong with the black community” and “the black community needs to take responsibility” even when they are the victims of the story? On the other hand, I’ve never heard “the white community” blamed for all of the mass shootings perpetrated almost exclusively by white people. Nope, they’re all just flukes. *RAGE*
Tony! #152
Not since The Juggernaut versus The Blob have I felt such an overwhelming sensation of anticipation.
Stand Your Ground Vs. Law Enforcement: “If it’s good enough for the Bundy Ranch, it’s good enough for me!”
That’s what I plan to start asking them every time I see this pernicious, racist meme. “So, you white men keep committing mass murders. In fact, you’re pretty much the ONLY ones committing mass murders! Maybe if you white men would start behaving correctly, we wouldn’t all have to be constantly afraid you might mass murder us. You have no one but yourselves to blame for our perception you are all mass murderers.”
Tony
And I never said that you said it. But that still seems to be the logical conclusion of what you posted. Don’t second guess, you don’t know as much as these parents, you think they haven’t weighed the pros and cons… Ultimately if we take that line we can’t criticise any parent’s decision from afar.
I only replied on this because you responded, I think we agree really.
I meant on Pharyngula. The only one defending police here is Lorn, and he doesn’t really count.
Brony
The argument is about should kids go to the protest. To talk about how the police are the root of the problem is a different discussion.
SallyStrange
I don’t follow the argument. Because the violence comes from cops it therefore isn’t somewhat wrong to put children in danger by bringing them near those cops? I think it makes more sense to say, the cops are being violent, keep the kids away.
I agree everyone’s first amendment rights are being violated, but adults are better able to cope with that.
I’ve met good cops, and I’ve met terrible cops. In the end, the good cops are irrelevant to the larger question. Are the police, with all the power, and the weaponry, and frequently unquestioning community support they’re given, being held to the right standards? Is their overwhelming power being checked and appropriately monitored? Obviously the answer is no.
I’ve always said there are 2 kinds of people attracted to positions of power. (That can be anything from a police officer, to a social worker, to an orderly in a home for the elderly.) There are people who do it to do good, and there are people who do it to prey on the weak, the most disenfranchised members of our society. We have to have strong checks and oversight of people in positions of power to stop the predators. There’s no other way to protect those who are vulnerable from abuse.
Mark Abian:
Oh no, people won’t be able to play Armchair Parenting Expert for other people’s kids, while knowing fuck all about living situation or the children’s needs or behaviors? Heaven forbid!
(The only three cases where I think it is obviously acceptable to judge another person’s parenting is when it is a clear-cut matter of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or child neglect. Everything else is likely dipping into the realm of the Monday Morning Quarterback and the Backseat Driver. Everything is so easy if you aren’t the one doing it. Everything is obvious in hindsight.)
Marc Abian:
It isn’t a different discussion. The children of Ferguson, and their parents, are under police siege. This has been the case for well over a week. Exactly how do you expect people to avoid leaving their house for that length of time? Exactly how do you expect them to just keep their children home, when their homes aren’t safe from teargas either? Exactly how do you think they can somehow magically avoid a situation that is happening in their backyards to protect their children?
Do you not understand that protecting their children is the entire reason for the protest?
Are you telling me that should you bring kids to a protest, and how should the police respond to a protest are the same question?
Because they are clearly not.
I don’t expect that at all. I think there is a good argument to be made for keeping the kids away from the protest at night. The protest isn’t happening everywhere in Ferguson, and most people manage to stay home during the night without a violent protest to avoid.
Protecting everyone, not just children. I hope you think that too, and that the word entire was a mistake.
anteprepro
So therefore you agree with me that we can second guess parenting decisions. Just haggling over what. Good.
And this is part of the reason why we can. The other part is lots of people are morons, and even those who aren’t can act like it.
and if teargas gets fired during the day?
I swear, people like you will just never understand what victim blaming actually is.
On the subject of getting rid of abusive cops:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ferguson-police-officer-i-will-kill-you-video
It’s super duper extra wrong to spend days on end haranguing parents for bringing children to protests when the cops are the ones who are really in the wrong.
It’s a judgment call. You can try to protect your children from the world, or you can take the risk of letting them participate. It’s not like the police state and its attendant violent repression are going to go away if we all stay home. It’s not like long-term safety is guaranteed if you can just get the little suckers up to age 18 before you let them stand up for their ever-eroding constitutional rights.
Weird isn’t it how things like rape and police brutality just sort of happen, like tornadoes and it’s up to the people they are likely to happen to, women and black people, to do their best to avoid them by staying quietly in their homes.
Huh, I wonder what the connection could be?
I wonder if it has plaything to do with how LGBTQ people should know to expect abuse if they dare to be obviously not straight and cis in public?
…but tell an asshole atheist to keep mum about his atheism if he doesn’t want to be harassed by fundies (including the cops) and watch him sputter with indignation.
Mark Abian:
You are such a fucking bullshitter. You can “second guess” fucking outright child abuse, sure. That is pretty damn far distance from wagging fingers at people for leaving their goddamn houses because police in their town are being fucked up totalitarian assholes.
“Anything”, not ‘plaything”…I don’t even….
Also, it should be pointed out: most people are not aware, or at least are somewhat in denial, about the fact that we live in a police state (a white supremacist police state) (and all the other bigotries), and they are simply not expecting that the police are going to put them or their kids in danger if they’re not breaking the law.
They aren’t going to protests with the expectation that police are going to use the presence of rioters/looters/agents provocateur as an excuse to attack everyone in the crowd.
Meanwhile, people like Marc, Jeff, and Piero, are standing on the sidelines, wagging their fingers, like, “You should have known better.” Just like the cop who pepper sprayed those children.
If the cops are breaking the law to inspire fear in the populace, I disagree that much is gained by allowing the fascists to set the terms of our civic participation.
http://americanstatehypocrisy.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/480-martin-luther-king-children-are-not-born-to-burn.jpg
I’m just gonna leave this here.
http://www.cccaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/childrens-crusade.jpg
…and this
http://voiceofdetroit.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BPP-child.jpg
…and this
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0d/6c/b0/0d6cb0d4b3a8575caa9ff5ff9946c878.jpg
and this.
Marc Abian
Setting aside the fact that, in the case of Ferguson, the children aren’t necessarily being brought to the protest, since it is taking place at their homes, the actions of the police are not irrelevant here. One question relevant to this discussion is, if a child gets hurt at a protest (specifically, at the protests in Ferguson), who is to blame? Many people out there want to blame the parents of the children, but the people who should carry the blame are the ones who are perpetrating the violence. Those would be the police. Granted, I’m not there at the protests, but the only hurting children I’ve seen are children who have been tear gassed by the police. How is police brutality not part of this discussion?
The demonisation of protestors and protests as inherently violent places and people (moreso if they’re brown) seems to have had its intended effect of muddying the distinction between good parenting and bad parenting. Taking your child to a protest is no better or worse than strapping them into the back-facing child safety seat in the back of an SUV. You might argue that protesting is an unnecessary facet of modern life and any engagement in the potentially violent expression of free speech is irresponsible, but you’d be dead fucking wrong about that necessity.
Have you ever bothered to look at a map? The protests are mainly happening on W. Florissant Drive. Go look at it on Google maps. What you’ll see is that most of the street is lined with houses the entire way through the town. In the places where there are businesses, houses are less than half a block away. How exactly are the people who live in those houses supposed to avoid it?
I think this argument has an aim. See, once we realize that taking a child to a protest is bad parenting, we realize that black people are bad parents, then realize that Mike Brown was a bad person, and the whole Ferguson mess is indeed the black people’s fault, and yay, prejudism.
Sorry, trolls, but my worldview won’t unravel like that.
Taking a child to a protest is part of the protest. This protest started because a child was killed. It is about black children growing up.
The assumption that black people endanger their children is what this protest is against.
So, a hearty fuck-you to the racist trolls.
http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/bham8.jpg
…and this
Shit man, rationalize how great a parent someone is if that’s what makes you feel special. Just don’t pretend you have the childs best interests at heart since you expect the outcome to be violence a majority of the time, you are part of the problem in that you do not fucking react when the instigators, in an adversarial role as “law enforcers”, exert force in the face of these tensions. Whose interests are they protecting by setting themselves up as human barricades? They’re only at that point representative of the divide between the common and the privileged, and they are of course going to clash when the privilege in one causes among them guilt, thus defensiveness; and in the other a feeling of helplessness and betrayal by their fellow man who no longer are identifiable as being a part of the same struggle. So let me know why the states and cities set these adversarial encounters up and then point to the violence erupting as if either side weren’t psychologically manipulated by the people who stand to lose or gain from a united front. This dividing tactic is well researched and practiced over the years and inhibits solidarity while allowing outsiders an opportunity to decry the violence of whichever side they find themselves in opposition to. Missing the forest for the trees on that one.
I posted this in another thread and what do you know it still fits:
Also, great to see yet another Glorious Warrior has barged into a thread about Ferguson in order to quibble about irrelevant tangents, in defense of their Holy Police Overlords.
Here’s a protip for all the handwringers: If you aren’t actually a racist or an knee-jerk authoritarian who just loves the police force just so damn hard, yet you are still insisting on spending time and energy obsessing over a minute detail that seems to detract from our criticism of the events of Ferguson, but is also such a minor issue that it doesn’t actually effect anything, true or false, then I suggest you ask yourself why you are bothering. Because the effect is obfuscation. The effect is distraction. The effect is annoying and derailing and looking like someone who is deliberately digging up whatever desperate excuse they can to defend the events in Ferguson. Why are you bothering? What are you doing? What is your actual goal? Is it worth it?
Odds are, if you are honest and actually a half-way decent human being, you will realize that it isn’t actually worth it. Quibbling over bullshit tangents and hyper-parsing text is not an endeavor that is so inherently meaningful that is worth bringing up in the context of an in depth and passionate discussion about race and police brutality. It is not at all tactful to make that your sole focus in the context of such discussion. In the context of such discussion, such obsession with minutiae over the huge fucking issues on the plate sends an incredibly bad message about your priorities, and it suggests either tone deafness or active agenda, attempting to the undermine those dealing with those issues.
Something to keep in mind, for the rare souls who aren’t actually trolls but still decide to barge in here to play a game of Professional Logician anyway.
One last post from the updates thread, y’all. Link
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QhhaLImx3Qo/TCynwK1TicI/AAAAAAAAAjg/24Y3UOzU-jA/s1600/chores_blog.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OvD7y01oznw/TBQiBr3FBWI/AAAAAAAAFQs/qOt3xUsZRM8/s1600/IndiaChildLabourProtest_enhance.jpg
http://chip.choate.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/HPRSS/department/Thematic%20World%20History/Fall%20Wikis/Regulation08/39b03431deea7063b1d3590916928f9d.gif
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b1/ab/23/b1ab23954c5628da1a6a224effd56461.jpg
and these.
I can keep posting these, but I hope I have made my point.
If it’s the parents fault if the police tear gas their kids, whose fault is it if the police tear gas the parents?
When does it become the cop’s fault they decided to take aim at an unarmed person?
http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/afl-cio-trade-union-protest-A.jpeg
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1865063/thumbs/o-BRAZIL-WORLD-CUP-POOR-900.jpg
Jackie, you don’t know the answer? It is NEVER the cop’s fault. I’m pretty sure we had a whole thread about that one: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/08/20/why-cops-have-a-bad-reputation/
throwaway – what do you propose would be the most effective route for them to draw attention to the routine, systematized injustice being perpetuated on them by the law enforcement and government in their area?
I’m pretty goddamned sure that violence is the statistically most likely outcome when their children encounter police at anytime in their lives, no matter what they’re doing. So really, attending a protest isn’t any more dangerous than any other activity they ever engage in.
I also want to know where this magical place is where parents can keep their children safe from violent, racist cops?
Remember the boy who was standing on a beach holding a puppy when the cops knocked him down because they didn’t like the way he looked at them? Should black kids avoid playing on the beach too?
http://www.care2.com/causes/cops-choke-black-boy-holding-puppy-for-giving-them-dehumanizing-stares.html
So the distractions continue, huh?
like a shell game.
It’s hard to decide if it’s “can’t go there” or “won’t go there” sometimes. Fortunately the distractions only come in so many shapes.
If you don’t bring your children to protest today then it may be your child’s death that people protest in the future. And there is no law against protesting. It’s a civil right.
No. It’s a civil duty for an informed population to voice discomfort against governmental incompetence, excess, corruption and faults. It is a way of keeping the system honest.
Had the Ferguson police handled the situation by not trying to close ranks, the protests may not have even gotten off the ground.
judging by the level of dialogue that has now begun nationally, in a way, maybe it’s a good thing they reacted like they did.
people are getting a good view of exactly how escalation works, how the police forces have become so heavily militarized, how segregated most of our cities still are….
I still want to see that entire st Louis PD replaced though.
anteprepro
Partly because I think this discussion about bringing children has some merit in deciding the best way to protest. It’s like discussing protest strategy. And it’s not like it has caused anyone here to lose sight of the fact the police are to blame.
But I’m doing it because I’m becoming disillusioned with Pharyngula. The place has become so limited in the discussion, so partisan. And the rush to attribute to people positions that they have never held, arguments they’ve never made. Some of it is completely ridiculous.
Look at this bullshit from Memyambal
For fuck’s sake.
There was another thread a while back where I was clearly a troll because I pointed out that a certain post was very unlikely to be a sockpuppet/troll post. That one was settled decisively by the person actually showing up in Pharyngula.
A few days ago on the Ferguson thread Caine posted about how the video of Michael Brown was really from June. I linked an article which says it wasn’t, and she asks me what the fuck my point is, as if I wasn’t responding to a point that she brought up a few posts ago. It’s crazy.
Even look at this from you.
Holy Police overlords! That’s so far away from my position.
Some else said it’s impossible to keep the kids out of the protest because it the houses are next to it. Are we honestly saying that being in the house is the same as being outside the house where the protest is going on?
There’s this from Jackie
Who the fuck is saying it’s the parents fault? Not fucking me.
And it’s not just me. I’ve seen it happen to several others in other threads on other topics.
I’m talking about the merits of bringing kids to a protest because that’s what this thread is about. Tony is allowed to say that second guessing the parents is wrong, fine, but to actually discuss the logic of his post is suddenly distracting, with the goal being trying to blame police brutality on black people. Nice try, racist! Marc Abian, isn’t that almost an anagram for white power? No. Well, that’s even worse, a racist and he’s illiterate.
I don’t like what’s happening here with this discussion, and several others. That’s why I’m trying to maintain it, if you get my meaning.
So, the remaining charge
Now this I am guilty of. But 1. I was responding to other people on this topic and 2. The fuck use is it? Blaming the police here is a given. Everyone is on the same page (apart form Lorn who is a dehumanising victim-blaming shithead). Apart from informational update on what’s happening, posting here doesn’t seem to have any worth. I agree it’s cathartic, and that’s helpful. I think people like the community, or the discussion on an intellectual level. That’s great. But I’m talking about the influence this discussion is having on the world. If I felt I could change things by posting fuck the police over and over here I’d do it, and you wouldn’t hear shit about children.
When the tear gas comes in through the windows yes, which means the point went *whoosh* over your head. As many of the arguments you complain about do.
anteprepro
Normally I’d leave this, because you don’t like me talking about anything which isn’t the police, but I’m not a bullshitter.
Your position is that you shouldn’t second guess parents, with some exceptions. Unless those exceptions are categorical differences (I think you could argue that the presumption that the parent has the child’s best interest at heart is violated in the sexual abuse case, but not necessarily in the others), then surely we can second guess parents everywhere. Of course Tony and you are right that we don’t know as much as the parents in any situation so run a risk of being wrong, but that applies to your exceptions.
toska
It is. I misspoke when I used the word discussion. Whether to bring kids and how the police are acting are both part of the overall discussion, but separate questions. I was only discussing the former as the latter is obvious. Perhaps I read the headline in the OP a bit narrowly and took my cue a little bit too much from that.
Exactly, because the tear gas is the only danger…
And I would assume that being outside in a cloud of it is worse than being inside and some coming in the window too, but I don’t know that for sure.
No, it isn’t.
See where it says “godless liberal”?
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass, Marc.
Marc Abian
Perhaps you should try the experiment and report back. A poorly sealed house without air conditioning perhaps, in a warm and humid climate, trying to breathe in the torpid air, hoping for some cooling breeze on the back porch. Then go inside and try to sleep through all the sirens and flash bangs without peeking outside.
Jackie
Wow, what a convincing assertion.
I understand the second part, you would like me to leave, but what does the first part have to do with anything? Please don’t deflect here, I’m really curious.
Lofty
No, that’s impractical, redundant and possibly dangerous. You’d never get it past health and safety. But perhaps you really think scientists should face all sort of risks, that health and safety legislation is meaningless red tape. And it’s not too big a jump to suggest you’d also favour repealing environmental legislation too. But of course, that would disproportionally affect the poor, and who cares about them right? Typical libertarian.
Marc Abian @ # 196
Marc Abian @ #202
This joke is free.
You do realise that was my joke, right?
The thread was about how obsessing about how much to shame parents for bringing their kids to a protest against police brutality on account of the police might brutalize them really distracts from the much more important conversation revolving around, you know, police brutality.
Here at Pharyngula? Yes. Elsewhere? No. Which was the point.
You missed the point.
It was said earlier, but i’m saying it again:
This is just one more racist complaint white people make about black people.
They’re music is wrong. Their fashion? Wrong. Their family structures? Wrong. Their dialects? Wrong. Their names? Wrong. The way they protest police brutality? That’s wrong too.
That’s all this is. It’s straight up racism with a touch of classism.
Fuck racist judgmental white people judging this situation from a safe, privileged distance and fuck the police for making the protest necessary in the first place, then making it dangerous to protest.
Jesus, I cannot type this week. I don’t know if it’s the rage or what, but my posts are a mess. Sorry.
@ Marc Ambian
The problem here is that you keep talking over and over about “bringing kids to a protest,” even though people have tried repeatedly to point out to you, the parents aren’t bring their kids to a protest, so much as having a violent police siege and protest descend on their entire town. I’m sure it’s nice to fantasize that you would somehow find the way to avoid all of that happening outside your front door with your kids, but that’s exactly the kind of armchair speculation that you’re being criticized for.
In addition, as has already ALSO been repeatedly pointed out to you, even people in their houses are suffering from the teargas. You are aware that statistically, there pretty much have to be some number of people there with respiratory disorders, such as asthma and COPD, right? You are aware that teargas causes severe respiratory distress, even in perfectly healthy people right? You are aware then, surely, that both children and adults exposed to any amount of teargas who have respiratory disorders could literally experience a fatal attack, right? And that could happen whether they’re INSIDE or OUTSIDE.
Yeah, so maybe these cops need to stop shooting teargas canisters all over the damn place before they kill someone. Oh, my bad, before they kill someone ELSE. And maybe that is what we should be talking about instead of imagining how much better raised our imaginary children would be then the ones in Ferguson.
Show me some sign you recognize any of that, and maybe I’ll stop thinking you’re nothing but a cop apologist concern-troll.
Jackie at #207:
If it’s any consolation, they don’t read as a mess to me. Signal is coming through loud and clear, with thanks for the broadcast.
*stands with*
Still learning,
Robert
Marc Abian at #198:
I disagree. How the police are acting has every bearing on the relationship of children and proximity, especially since how the police are acting impacts not some isolated and iviolate “protest zone” (which would be comic if wasn’t so tragically ridiculous), but rather where the citizens of Ferguson—including the children of Ferguson—live.
And as SallyStrange pointed out at #205, the fact that the latter is NOT obvious in the broader socio-cultural setting of the United States makes masturbation about the former markedly less-than-contributory to solving the problems that are endangering Ferguson, adult and child alike.
Perhaps that’s something to think about.
Still learning,
Robert
Thanks Robert.
Adding that black people have higher rates of respiratory illness already.
Looking for the picture of a policeman lecturing people while his dog barks and lunges. In the background is a toddler sleeping in a stroller.
Marc, how is what I said bullshit? That chain of expanding blame is entirely possible, and entirely like other ways that other folks blame black people. Is it bullshit because it isn’t your goal? Well, I didn’t intend it to be just for you, but you sure are welcome to it. And had you made your goal clear, considering? And if your goal is the rehabilitation of Pharyngula, is this the thread?
Ask PZ to put up a tone and civility thread, or go to Thunderdome. Or go have a baby and keep it in a nice, safe bubble.
Sally Strange
I agree with that, and it’s nicely expressed. But I think the whether children should be brought is a part of that topic. I wasn’t shaming anyone. There isn’t a question about police brutality here, so I don’t feel I’m taking much from that discussion.
I understand the point. I’m talking about the merits of bringing children to a protest when you know the police are acting the way they are, and the chance that some citizens will respond. I’m discussing it here on Pharyngula, where blaming police is a given. Over on other sites where it’s not a given and people try to make the shopkeeper the focus of the discussion, I won’t be discussing it.
What have we done here to solve it?
rabidwombat
Of course not. No one is talking about bringing kids to a protest.
1st comment
2nd comment
You go on to say
That doesn’t need to be pointed out to me. I know it, and I’m against it. It doesn’t change what I’m saying.
My position is the same as bostonhook #20
Desert son
I agree with that 100%. I meant questions like should we condemn the police, what’s to be done about the police, what should the police be doing, are separate questions from should we bring the kids.
Marc, it’s pointless.
Some would have us believe that he/she would take his/her children to the epicenter of the Ferguson protest at night, walk right up to the officers pointing their AR15s at them, through a cloud of teargas and rubber bullets and bottles flying everywhere and be completely safe from any criticism.
“Who could criticise me? This is my neighbourhood, I’m just taking my kids for a walk, and I should be able to do this without worrying about police injuring my children! Sure, its been dangerous on the streets for 7 nights in a row, but tonight it’s going to be fine. My children fully understand the risks of this behaviour and have decided to go out into the protest area at night on their own accord. They are 6 and 8 years old after all and fully comprehend the situation at hand.”
“Besides, teargas can seep into a house or even be fired into a backyard, so my kids aren’t 100% safe at home! If my children are at any level of risk at home, I might as well take them outside and right to the center of the conflict so they can see the dangerous police overreaction up close!”
“Anyone who thinks this is irresponsible behaviour is CLEARLY is a racist police apologist. Anyone criticizing me must have a sinister hidden agenda like distracting from the real issue, making all black parents look bad in order to confirm their own prejudices, or blaming the entire situation on black people.”
Sure Marc:
Ignore not only the INTENT of that sentence, but the entire SECOND HALF of the sentence. Seriously buddy, you are fucking winning the internet today.
Don’t know about anyone else, but I’m no longer feeling any obligation to watch my tone with you. Since this place doesn’t seem to be your type of place, maybe you should take your concern-troll bullshit about the children we know you don’t give two shits about somewhere else.
Jeff S:
Oh you’re a definitely a racist apologist. Sorry we noticed through your screams for someone to please, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! What might help….Acting lessons maybe?
Marc Abian at #213:
Well, there are numerous threads on Pharyngula thus far boosting the signal about what’s going on, so one thing we’re doing is getting information out. There have been numerous posts and links about ways people can contribute to social justice efforts, relief and aid for the afflicted area, and socio-political action to try and improve conditions there and elsewhere nationwide, so that’s another thing we’re doing. There have been discussions about critical issues of racism, abuse, education, community cohesion, activism, social justice, human dignity, journalism and transparency, privilege blindness, and accountability, so that’s another thing we’re doing. And there have been calls in this very thread for not sidetracking and obfuscating the critical issues with theoretical parsing about categories when, in fact, all the categories are inextricably linked.
No, they’re not separate, which was the point I was trying to make, and unless I misunderstand, is one of the points SallyStrange and others have been trying to make. The children are a part of the community. The police are visiting violence and repression and injustice upon the community, and by extension, the children. Is it safe to bring the children? The children are already there and there is little evidence they have recourse not to be, never mind the racism in assuming we know better than the parents—and the children—under siege what is happening. Yet the police do have recourse. They could stop the fucking violence! Issues of police action and responsibility and what to do are inextricably linked to “bringing the kids.”
Still learning,
Robert
I’d just like to say a hearty FUCK OFF to everyone sitting comfortably in their living rooms, secure in the knowledge that their lives are worth at least as much as a pack of cigars or a couple of energy drinks, superciliously criticizing total strangers for how they cope with an impossible situation that has arisen as a product of centuries of oppression.
ETA:
Oh I see you did bother with the 2nd half of my sentence in a completely different area, AND you said you made the strong statement that you don’t agree with the cops teargasing people, so I guess you must not be a concern troll! After all, it’s not your fault you have to spend way more time chastising parents in Ferguson than talking about the cops. Why if it weren’t for the internet, those foolish people would probably be shooting teargas straight into their kids eyeballs like it was Visine or something, amirite?!!!
rabidwombat
It’s so incredibly maddening to be called a racist apologist, when I’m making zero apologies or justifications for any of the racially motivated wrongs that are occurring in Ferguson. It’s really the only reason why I’m still posting here; defending the notion that criticism of questionable parenting decisions is not tantamount to racism, or evidence of holding any sort of pro-police position.
My entire point is that criticism of those daring to criticise a small subset of parents for taking their children to predictably dangerous protests is not valid. Assuming that someone who makes such a criticism has some sort of racist agenda is poor reasoning, and offensive. That is not to say that there aren’t people out there making racially motivated statements, and have latched onto any opportunity to criticize the people of Ferguson. I’m sure a quick search of Twitter could find people of this ilk. To assume anyone who offers any level of criticism on this issue is like this, is intellectually lazy and wrong.
Jeff S
Yeah, but not nearly as maddening as POC having to hear that kind of crap every. single. day. Check your privilege Jeff S.
Here let me help: http://oliviaacole.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/the-10-kinds-of-trolls-you-will-encounter-online-and-offline-when-talking-about-michael-brown/
Can you pick put which kind of troll you are?
rabidwombat
By that definition, I’m a concern troll.
Labelling a differing view as a troll, is a good way to avoid thinking. I see the appeal.
Jeff S:
Ding ding! You are correct Jeff S! You ARE a concern troll, but I can tell you want to quibble about the definition the WOC who wrote the article uses. So tell me Jeff S, are there ANY decisions POC can make, or actions they can take, or opinions they can form that DON’T require your masterful approval? Because if you want to quibble about the definition of concern troll, from an article by a WOC, specifically talking about how to appropriately avoid being a racists asshat while talking about Michael Brown, I’m kinda thinking the answer is no.
Jeff S
Nobody has accused you of actively harboring racist beliefs. What we mean when we say “racist apologist” is that you’re engaging in behavior that either perpetuates racist attitudes or springs from a position of privilege afforded to you by virtue of being white, or both.
Being white means you will never find yourself in a situation remotely similar to what these people are dealing with, which
means you need to fuck right the fuck off judging their decisions from a distance. You don’t know what it’s like to be them and can never know and therefor are talking directly out of your fucking ass when you pretend that you know what you would do in the same situation and that it would be a better decision than someone in Ferguson made.
Also, whether you are personally guilty of this or not, a lot of people will jump to the conclusion that black people are behaving recklessly and you insisting on carping on this point to the exclusion of all else perpetuates that attitude even if that’s not your actual thought process.
So, you can be offended by being called a racist apologist all you like. Too fucking bad.
Jeff S at #214:
The entirety of your post ignores agency of the police, which is a consistent ignorance you have demonstrated in your posts throughout this and other threads. You continue to place the burden of responsibility and agency on the people under siege, instead of on those committing the siege. You insist on ignoring the extent to which trust of the power structure invested in the police has been betrayed by the very abuses of that power on display every minute of every hour of every one of the last 12 days, never mind the multiple other occasions it has happened over the last four centuries as an endemic and systemic feature of a socio-political environment in which we all participate and to which we all contribute.
The information has been shown time and time again, in this thread, and in others here on Pharyngula, and yet you return once more to laying the blame of risk at the feet of parents buried in a broader culture of overt and covert antagonism.
I wish you well in your privileged life. It has a very high probability of not even being remotely impacted negatively to the degree that Black adults, teens, and children know every day and whom are constantly reminded is supposedly their fault.
I have tried to engage you in a profitable discussion about these issues, and tried to encourage you to seek out additional information from others who have forgotten more about these issues than I will ever know, others who are far more capable and perspicacious than I will ever be. I regret that my own contribution to this effort has amounted to so little. Having now engaged with you on this topic at several points, my frustration has reached its limit. Having also surpassed the markers outlined in Item 2 of Section V in the Commenting Rules, I forgo further interaction with you on this matter with a saddened, though no-less-hearty, “fuck you.”
I am grateful to those who continue to engage.
Still learning,
Robert
Jeff S, what Seven of Mine said, but also this:
Read what you wrote, fool. No, read it again. Now read it again. In your little privilege bubble, you apparently think everyone in Ferguson is running up to cops, waving their babies around like complete idiots. In your little fantasy scenario, they’re all just out there deliberately trying to get their kids killed because gosh they’re a bunch of idiots, who are also bad parents, and who also don’t give a shit if their kids end up dead.
And then you want to sit here and whine about how people are hurting your fee fees over the completely DEROGATORY SHIT you are spewing out of your mouth hole. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
@Desert Son
Yeah I’m out too. I can only read these kinds of vile arguments for so long before I have to go look at kittens or something.
rabidwombat
Are you being serious?
Honestly, the sort of things you assume I believe are shocking. This is problem with short cutting reason, applying labels to people and then assuming they hold the beliefs of that label.
Do you believe that the child psychologists that I quoted earlier in this thread (from a HuffPo article) that suggest parents use their judgement and keep children away from protests that are likely to become dangerous are “Concern Trolling” and are therefore Racist?
I do take issue with the definition of the concern troll, only so much as it assumes that everyone offering a statement criticizing parents taking children to a dangerous situation is therefore racist. That is not to say that concern-trolls don’t exist, of course they do and many are racially motivated. The key thing is not ALL are, and the number who are not racist varies greatly with the fairness of the “concern” criticism. Criticising Michael Brown for stealing cigars, is a clear indicator of racism. However, criticising parents of ALL RACES for taking their child into a known dangerous area, is a view that a non-racist can have. Maybe I’m too protective, maybe I’m a coward, maybe I shouldn’t criticise someone’s in a stressful and desperate situation, maybe the instances of children being put in harms way have been overstated in this case. What is NOT the case, is that I’m a racist apologist. If you think I’m wrong, tell me that, don’t label me and dismiss my views because of who you ASSUME I am.
Honestly, this sort of thinking is just far too common here. Frankly, its a bit scary.
Then stop being one.
Poor Jeff S. This is so hard on him.
>.<
Do you even hear how entitled you are?
Jeff S
You are ignoring all of the comments that have given you detailed explanations of the many and varied ways in which you are wrong, some of them delivered with far more patience than you deserve. You’re fixating on trivialities and disputing definitions of terms of which you don’t have even a superficial understanding. The problem here is not that anyone is failing to engage with you; it’s that you’re so fucking convinced you’re right, that our attempts to engage are bouncing off you like fucking ping pong balls off a wall.
Jeff S, if we were all to agree with you, what would happen next? Seriously, are you wanting us to fire off a strongly-worded letter to someone? What is your goal?
You really are coming off as a concern troll, a racist and someone who just has to be right. And right now, after a week of seeing people like that invade an
American and teargas American citizens, we don’t need to deal with you.
You can ignore my questions above, and just go away.
Jeff S, word of advice from an old fart.
Stop your preaching the gospel of Jeff S, and shut the fuck up and listen to what is being said, and more importantly, why it is being said. Which means you have to examine your male privilege, white privilege, non-poor privilege, etc. Only then, can you make cogent remarks.
You can’t do any worse than you have done to date.
Jeff S
Here, I’ll even try again. Apologetics is the defense of a position. That’s literally what it means. And it’s exactly what you’re doing. You walked in here, having already formed a conclusion and now you’re defending it despite it having been refuted numerous different ways. You’re looking only at the information that supports your conclusion and steadfastly ignoring or rationalizing everything else. That’s apologetics by definition.
Further, the position you have taken has racist implications as I and others have explained to you multiple times. Hence racist apologist.
Well the important thing is clearly to feel superior to whatever the parents choose, right? Like they can’t make that decision for themselves or their kids for whatever reason, as long as Jeff doesn’t agree with their decision, they’re bad.
Reminds me of ye olde abortione threads when it’s grudgingly conceded that sure, some women may have good reasons for aborting but those reasons first have to be approved by whichever random internet commenter is judging them today to be deemed acceptable and sufficient to allow an abortion.
Parents make choices that put their children at risk every fucking day. It is literally not even possible to walk in the sunshine with your kids without there being a risk of something going wrong (or them getting skin cancer). So what the fuck is your point? To pass some kind of moral judgement? Or are you “just saying”? What?
YOU think that parents ought to not take their kids to the protests. Some parents think differently. When YOU have your own child, YOU can do whatever the fuck you think is best for YOUR child, the way other parents are probably doing whatever the fuck they think is best for THEIR children.
It’s really not hard.
Marc Abian:
There’s a difference though.
In the example anteprepro used, involving child abuse, we can and should criticize the parents because their actions are directly causing harm to their children. Child abuse is unacceptable, so knowing anything further about the conditions at home or understanding the thinking of the parents does not change that fact.
In the case of parents bringing their children to protests, the parents are not causing any harm to children (the police have been the cause). They’re bringing their children to protests for reasons that we may not be aware of (can’t find a babysitter, can’t leave the child at home, want to teach their children about their constitutional rights, and I’m sure there are other reasons). Those parents have every reason to expect to not be attacked by the police. They should be able to protest peacefully and not be brutalized by the police, whether its day or night. There are people in this thread that have second guessed the parents’ actions bc of harm that has befallen their children. They’re playing Armchair Parent without knowing the reasons why parents are bringing their children to the protests. All I’ve suggested is I don’t think it’s a good idea to play Armchair Parent in some situations (I haven’t made a blanket statement about this) because you don’t know what risk assessments parents have made with regard to their children. Making a blanket statement that says “parents shouldn’t bring their children to protests at night” without knowing the factors parents have to weigh in making that decision paints the parents in a bad light. It’s arrogantly stating that these people know how to parent better than the actual parents. That’s my problem.
Agreed, Tony.
When everywhere is dangerous then the instinct of a parent might well be to keep the children as close to you as possible, at least within sight.
If facts are of any interest here, the times we have seen most children about on W Florissant have been during the day – the schools are closed, remember – and on that evening when the official announcement was that the curfew would begin at midnight so everyone went for some fresh air, some exercise, to buy goods from the stores, talk to neighbours. All normal activities even among the middle classes except that, without warning, some of the police began to mask up at 9 p.m. and behave as though the locals should not be there at all.
Jeff S, if you’re going to become the world authority on child-rearing in the suburbs of St Louis MO then you’ll need to find a way to fit this sort of detail into your thinking. I presume you’ve never been in a situation like that in Ferguson. How do you know how you would behave?
If you do know, please tell us. Then we can bring up all over again the facts and considerations you’ve been skimming over thus far.
Big surprise, Jeff S is another one who displays absolutely no sign of having actually looked at what parents in Ferguson have said about why they bring their children to protests. Why should I take their “analysis” of parents and what they should do seriously when they apparently have no desire to investigate the single most relevant source of data?
Apparently it’s just easier to come here and ignore the experiences of people with similar lives, and people who have taken the time to listen to those people’s experiences. You have no creditability with respect to criticizing those parents, and you display no ability to let your ignorant perspective be modified by people with personal experience. You are being repelled and rejected because you show no sign of being willing to actually understand.
From your first post,
You do nothing to actually describe them. You spare all your efforts towards only that perspective that you already have. If you can not describe the people you are criticizing in a way that lets others see that you understand them (you can still disagree, but you have to show you understand) they will quite properly assume you don’t actually give a shit about them. They are sociopolitical tools to you by the actions you take.
When you finally “described what the parent in Ferguson think” this is what you wrote,
This is your “feelings about” internal model of the parents in Ferguson. If you can’t take real quotes from these fellow citizens and human beings and describe how you feel about those, you will come off as prejudical because you are leaving people good reason to think you are not actually listening the the voices most relevant to your “argument”. You literally display no ability to actually describe what the parents in Ferguson actually feel and experience.
Because you expect us to all pay close attention to what you think and feel about these parents, and you display little ability to pay attention to what the parents in Ferguson actually feel and think, that is literal double standard witch is a form of discrimination.
Guess where this goes from here? You are walking and quacking to a particular pattern that people should not have to ignore it because you are sensitive to a word.
Look Jeff S, I will explain this in the only way I know how. YOU have not done your Racism 101 homework. That is not my responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of anyone else. It is YOUR responsibility to make the effort to do that Racism 101 homework all by yourself, instead of expecting all of us to hold the entirety of our discourse down to your ignorant level, because you haven’t felt like you needed to bother to catch up.
That feeling that you don’t need to bother to do your Racism 101 homework? That’s called white privilege. And if you don’t like people getting harsh with you about not doing your homework? Well think how the rest of us feel that you couldn’t even be bothered to fucking make the effort.
Now, GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK JEFF S
For those of you who want to read a story about media distortion in the Michael Brown case, heavy on the satire, here’s some Wonkette!
http://wonkette.com/557858/bill-oreilly-interrupts-vacation-to-win-wingnut-bingo-michael-brown-edition
Jeff S:
I agree with rabidwombat. I think it would be a good thing for you to read up on Racism 101. Check the Social Justice links in the sidebar for a good start.
I am infuriated that anyone would say that the responsible response to police brutalizing black people is for black people to cower in their homes and hope the problem goes away. You want to keep those kids safe, Jeff S? Then get your ass to Ferguson and protest. Sign petitions. Write letters. Show solidarity instead of condescension.
I think the reason this pointless pseudo-debate about whether it’s okay to bring children to protests grates so much is that it’s clearly an exercise in victim-blaming.
1. Families go to protest to voice discontent with the way police treat families, in response to the pain and suffering visited on a neighbor’s family.
2. Police treat protesters badly. A child gets a face full of tear gas, is injured and emotionally distressed.
3. Onlookers with no knowledge of the situation nor what it’s like to parent Black children in the USA go, “Tsk, tsk, parents! It’s YOUR fault that your child was hurt and distressed, despite the fact that it was the police who inflicted violence on your child, and broke the law in the process.”
That is clearly victim-blaming. The whole community are being victimized by the police. To put fault with the parents of the families that are part of this whole clusterfuck is to add insult to racist injury.
There really isn’t any discussion. Police shouldn’t harm children. No matter what the extenuating circumstances. “Yes, but–”
No.
Stop with the “yes, but–” because it’s a distraction and we don’t need any distractions. People don’t want to hear that the police are a bunch of repressive fascists who can and do murder people with impunity. As well as tear-gassing little kids. Focusing in on whether the parents of the little kids could have ensured their kids’ safety by not bringing them to a protest is a distraction from the fact that the police are at fault. If they can’t disperse a crowd without teargassing little kids, then maybe they shouldn’t fucking disperse the crowd. If there are troublemakers in the crowd, then maybe, instead of teargassing EVERYONE, they should de-escalate the situation, try to seize the individuals in the crowd, etc. There are so many options for peaceful resolution of these tense situations, and the police have mostly been the ones escalating things, then using the response to their escalation as an excuse for the escalation.
The police are really, really awful. The parents of children who have been hurt by the police are not.
Similar to the conversations about victim-blaming in rape culture.
“Haven’t you ever considered that perhaps going to a frat party and getting wasted isn’t the safest thing to do?”
Yes actually, over and over and over again. Even since I turned 13 people have been telling me things like that.
“Haven’t you ever considered that the police sometimes hurt little kids even though it’s against the law?”
Yes actually, black people go over this again and again and again with their children, starting when they are very young.
I heard an interview on Democracy Now! today where a mother of a 16-year-old talked specifically about why she wanted her son to join the protests. Maybe Jeff S or whoever should check it out.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwilr/PDFs/45-4/4-%20Daly.pdf
Interesting, international viewpoint.
Yeah, it’s interesting how little “tsk-tsking” there is directed towards parents of children who participate in protests in that article, I suppose.
Care to draw any conclusions? Anything you specifically found interesting?
bostonhook are you under the impression that document supports the viewpoint you expressed? I didn’t read every word of it but the general idea seems to have been that children are far more aware of social and moral issues and more capable of reasoning about them than we have historically given them credit for and that they have every bit as much right to protest as any adult. Where it discusses the dangers posed to kids, it does so in terms of how authorities should approach their protection differently. It also gives pretty short shrift to the idea that children need to be protected from grown-up political concerns.
*looks for good flounce*
8 posts later….
*fizzle*
damn, man, if you’re gonna get me all would up like that, at least PRETEND to flounce.
…I mean, really, I’ve flounced from here at least half a dozen times over the last seven years. some of those were quite good, if I do say so myself.
Actually, it makes me reevaluate my earlier position.
Sorry, Carlie, for the lack of clarity, thus the misinterpretation, of my intent.
I posted angry.
Protesting, continuing to protest, continuing to abide by the (fair) laws. I myself see the police issued out as protectors of the status quo, not the people, and this was supposed to be one of my points. Sorry for the muddle.
Again, sorry for the confusion. In my (nested) quote, I of course am addressing a “they” who presume to hold a child’s interests at heart by decrying the immorality of bringing them to protest. It was the anonymous ‘you’, not a general ‘you’ to those here. My bad.
What I mean to say is that expecting violence as an outcome of protests makes it seem acceptable and really just trivializes and normalizes the violence that erupts, usually when one side is tired of the prods and insults of the other.
JeffS:
Yeah, it is theirs, and NO they SHOULDN’T EXPECT TO GET FUCKING INJURED BY POLICE YOU FUCKWIT! THIS IS THE GODDAMN PROBLEM YOU IGNORANT FUCK!
People like you were the one’s ‘tsking’ over Dr. King’s speeches and believed that the LA riots would be fine ‘if those colored folk just quieted down and let it go’.
Fuck off and leave. Come back when you get a clue and some fucking empathy, shitnozzle.
bostonhook:
I’m glad you’re open to reevaluating your opinions in the face of evidence. That’s a good thing.
rabidwombat @240
Excellent link. Thank you for that. :)
+++
For what it’s worth, I have three kids. I would take them to a protest. I’ve been to a couple of nice ones (yeah, I got lucky), and I see no problem in bringing children to a crowd event. I would, of course, keep an eye out for their safety, make sure they kept close, etc., but I believe it would be important for them to see what is happening, to hear what people are saying, and let them ask questions.
We’d stay as far as possible from any cops, though.