It’s questionable whether the police are the ‘oppressors’. Individual officers don’t have much power and aren’t members of the ruling class.
It’s also rarely the case that when there is a transfer of power, for the police to all be fired, which you’d think would be the case if they were the oppressors who had just been overthrown.
Doxxing police may be an effective strategy, but it’s also true that social media driven mobs end up killing people, sometimes in error.
Standing up against oppression is necessary, but it’s also messy, and nobody really smells of roses.
Let's take a market dynamics perspective. There are N number of financial contracts which 100xN market participants may choose to accept or bid their time on. The cost of vacating such a contract is substantial, as a career based on these contracts rarely transition to the family supporting careers one may need to replace it with, less an ambitious actor finds a suitable passion to replace it (common among LEOs is the practice of Law). So there exists a high cost to the participants to vacate these contracts and place them back on the market for bid.
The goal of fighting oppression this way is to drive the number of willing participants down and keep as many of those contracts open/unfulfilled. Quiting vacates 1.
However, given the high cost of such a decision, the desired benefit tends to be attained, as there is always sufficient numbers of willing participants to bid on those vacancies. Every year people graduate, separate from the military, migrate here.
Fighting labor market dynamics is unscalable. Changing labor markets via political mechanisms on the other hand is.
> Changing labor markets via political mechanisms on the other hand is.
Theoretically, sure. You're going to do this in Belarus, the most openly totalitarian state currently? The problem is that politically changing the dynamics is nigh impossible until the existing power structure is neutralized.
I'll agree that losing a living wage is a large difficulty, but reducing totalitarian oppression to market dynamics is callous, or biased. The larger situation demands action beyond rational choices.
This is vapid both-sides-ism of the worst kind. The election in Belarus is internationally recognized as illegitimate. The "winner" has long been known as "Europe's last dictator".
Don't equivocate between the people protesting for their votes to be counted and the people kidnapping and torturing them in response.
It’s obvious that some people are. It’s not obvious that it’s all that is going on. It’s also not obvious exactly what they are scared of.
For example, by all accounts Lukashenko is backed by Putin. It could be that people are less scared of the police, and more scared of what could happen if they overthrow Lukashenko, and Putin sends in little green men to restore order.
That’s just one example of what people might be considering. I’m guessing there are also a bunch of people who simply don’t have a clear idea of exactly what’s going on.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
peaceably: inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissension; not argumentative or hostile:
assemble: gather together in one place for a common purpose.
> Where do you get the definition of "peaceably" from?
step 1: go to ddg
step 2: type "define peaceably"
step 3: hit "enter"
step 4: read the first or second definition in the results
step 5: ?????
step 6: profit
I don’t think dictionary.com was available to the framers of the US constitution, and I’m guessing that the Supreme Court would draw on some other sources too.
It’s interesting because the dictionary.com definition is very constrained.
Avoiding dissention, and not being ‘argumentative’ seem like a stretch for describing most peaceful protests in the US.
If we're talking about the definition at the time, this is what OED says:
> peaceably, adv.
> 2. Without being subject to disturbance or opposition; in peace, quietly; tranquilly, peacefully.
> 1375: Barbour Bruce v. 231 “It anoyis me.., That the clyffurd sa pesabilly Brukis and haldis the senȝory That suld be mine.”
> 1471: Fortescue Wks. (1869) 527 “Kynge Knoght kepte and occupied the same lande.., and died peasibly seased tharof.”
> 1593: Shakes. 2 Hen. VI, iii. iii. 25 “Disturbe him not, let him passe peaceably.”
> 1727: De Foe Syst. Magic i. iii. (1840) 71 “We come to desire your leave, that we may go peaceably, and do the duty of our worship.”
> 1824: Mackintosh Speech 15 June, “They saw the laws obeyed, justice administered,..and the revenue peaceably collected.”
> peaceably, adv.
> 1. With peaceful or friendly disposition, intention, or behaviour; amicably; so as to make for or maintain peace; without making strife, opposition, or disturbance; without quarrel or dispute.
> c1330: R. Brunne Chron. Wace (Rolls) 7300 “Ȝyf swylk be comen, & peysibly þe hauene han nomen, In pes lat þem take þer rest.”
> 1389: in Eng. Gilds (1870) 52 “Honestliche and peysiblyche to gon to þe forseyd chirch.”
> c1449: Pecock Repr. iii. xiii. (Rolls) 363 “Regniden in successioun euermore oon emperour after an other pesibili to gidere.”
> 1535: Coverdale Zach. viii. 16 “Execute iudgment truly and peaceably.”
> 1599: Shakes. Much Ado v. ii. 72 “Thou and I are too wise to wooe peaceablie.”
> 1599: Nashe Lenten Stuffe Wks. (Grosart) V. 228 “Not any where is..a warlike people peaceablier demeanourd.”
> 1709: Addison Tatler No. 96 2 “Good Subjects, that pay their Taxes, and live peaceably in their Habitations.”
> 1855: Macaulay Hist. Eng. xii. III. 190 “With assurances that the city should be peaceably surrendered.”
>peaceably, adv.
> 3. Comb.
> 1692: Wicked Contriv. Steph. Blackhead in Select. fr. Harl. Misc. (1793) 512 “Some other good and peaceably-minded man.”
> 1781: Cowper Conversation 90 “The clash of arguments and jar of words,..Divert the champions prodigal of breath, And put the peaceably-disposed to death.”
He asked where the gp got the definition, I gave him the steps to find that exact definition. I don't have a horse in this race, I was just providing the source for someone who cared enough to ask but not enough to do even a cursory search.
The parent's rather obvious point is that some police officers are bad, but police in general aren't behaving this way. If you disagree, then fine, but at least disagree with the parent and not some straw man of your own making.
To the comment of "Yes, the person who brings the baton down on your head is an oppressor." - bringing up 'well other police are not bad' is just itself a weird strawman.
It's not a straw man so much as a clarification, because the original assertion is ambiguous about whether we're talking literally about a single person or if "person bringing the baton down on your head" is a metaphor for police in general (especially given the surrounding context of talking about the police in a general, plural sense, and the fact that no one disputes that no one disputes that individual bad police officers should be held responsible).
Pretty much yes. Locals used to reply to bemused foreigners with "It's Belarus, baby" when questioned on police brutality and state-sanctioned killings.
In practice it turns out even worse. The people in command deny giving the orders, and the people hitting you with the stick say that they weren't given the proper support or tools. Everybody in the chain of command claims to be weak or hamstrung, yet you're the one on the ground bleeding.
True. But while I don't disagree that Police is often as culpable as the ruling class, I'm weary of these methods.
You don't doxx police officers and paste their IDs online. The chance you're taking, the certainty indeed, is that someone will follow through (perhaps even an agent provocateur) providing the justification for waves of ruthless revenge.
Nope, you bring your dossiers to a higher court and ask for Justice (EU, ICJ, UN.)
Edit: unless of course the situation has deteriorated so badly that the prospect of civil war with all its casualties and pain is on the table.
Have you noticed how ridiculously long it takes to get anything done by the institutional route, and how this is partly because reactionaries expend effort on undermining those very institutions (the US, for example, has gone from proposing the establishment of something like the ICJ, to refusing to take part in it, to threatening sanctions against it)?
> the US, for example, has gone from proposing the establishment of something like the ICJ, to refusing to take part in it, to threatening sanctions against it
You seem to be confusing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
> Nope, you bring your dossiers to a higher court and ask for Justice (EU, ICJ, UN.)
The EU isn't a court, and European institutions (including European courts like the ECHR) are particularly not "higher courts" over police in the US. The ICJ hears only cases between state parties, not between states and their subjects, and the UN isn't a court at all, and, again, is only a forum for state parties, not for disputes between individuals and states, though sometimes you can get a state party to stand up for subjects of another state; but, that's not really much of a practical option if the offending state is the US, both because of its Security Council role (which Uniting for Peace, in theory, provides a route around through the General Assembly), and because of its hyperpower status (which means that there is, in practice, no way to enforce a decision against it, even if one was reached through UfP.)
Sure - but only if you picture an innocent peaceful protestor being smashed to the ground by a mindless thug of a police officer who loves his job and has no family and nothing to lose.
Clean or not, people need to be held accountable for their actions. I mean if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, right? These are supposed to be public servants (although that's obviously not the case).
So no, I still don't feel bad about it, even if that cop needs the job to feed his family. Maybe they should fight the system that doesn't support their citizens in need (people with health problems, people who don't have money for food, people who don't have homes) instead of being willing participants against those fighting for a better government that actually serves the needs of its people?
I agree with your premise of equality - that you can't have it both ways. My point was if the government uses that power against its people, the people should be able to use that power against their government.
However in this case it's actually different, as police officers are meant to be public servants.
I disagree. People paid by the public must be accountable to the public and all their (paid) actions should not be private. (Exceptions may apply to this general rule, though they are debatable)
What do you suggest to do here? Either you allow the oppressors to beat people and stay anonymous, not get punished or you create a community trying to deanonymize them with all the consequences.
If you can be sure that the protestors are all trying to make a better government for everyone, then I’d agree.
But that’s never the case. There is always a mixture of people with good motivations, people who just want to get into a fight. This is just as true for the protestors as it is for the police.
If it was so clear what was right, then it would be simple to overthrow the government since the vast majority of people would be in agreement.
So you believe the police should police themselves?
Honestly I'd prefer vigilante justice over that.
Dox the cops, 100%. I'd rather a cop be hurt unfairly in the line of duty than a protester fighting for what he believes in. This country was founded on overthrowing tyrrany. If the cops don't accept the risks of the job then they can quit. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, not lower or even equal. The government (and police) should fear the people, not the other way around.
The police need to be held accountable, full stop. The police need to be held to a higher standard than the people, full stop. Even if that means an angry mob it's still preferable to no accountability.
It's clean because the police should be held to higher standards than the public, and they can quit if they don't want that responsibility.
You're right - it's just you baiting people into this false dichotomy to make it seem like people are anti-police. I was just calling your bluff. I'll take an angry mob over lack of police accountability, and the police cannot police themselves so the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers.
I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob.
Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
I’m not baiting people into anything, and you aren’t calling any bluff. You are free to engage in this dialog without using false dichotomies if you choose.
As to making people “seem like they are anti-police”, why would I need to do that? I don’t think people have a problem with being seen as anti-police. Is there something wrong with being anti-police? It seems like an entirely valid position to hold.
Being anti-police as an institution doesn’t automatically mean being in favor of mob violence against individuals. You can be strongly against a structure, without hating the individuals who occupy the role.
It is possible to want to hold the police accountable without believing that the only way to do this is to dehumanize them, or to doxx them.
All you have done here is double down on an extremist position.
“The police” is a very large and diverse group of people. You have said you feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
You have said that you are willing to completely dehumanize all police, and support violence of any kind against all of them and the killing of innocent people in the name of your cause, which is an unspecified ‘accountability’.
You are therefore a politically violent extremist, or at the very least someone who supports politically violent extremism if such a distinction can be made.
Whatever you say dude. You're obviously trying to label everyone that disagrees with you as a violent extremist - you end every one of your comments like that. I don't know why you'd do that and I don't care it's just obvious and that's why everyone is downvoting you.
I’m labelling you a violent extremist, because you said you don’t care if innocent people die as a result of your cause. I’m not sure why you think I’m labeling anyone else.
Can you find one other comment where I have labeled anyone anything? It should be very easy if I end every one of my comments like that.
Nobody else here has said they don’t care about innocent people dying. That is only you.
Yep - I stand by all that because I choose the public over the police. I don't care what happens to the police doesn't mean I want anything bad to happen, it means I don't care. If I say I don't care about you it doesn't mean I wish you harm it means I'm indifferent.
Nope, it does happen exactly like you described. The repression of Genova G8 by the Italian riot police and the Carabinieri was an example of "lovin' it".
Some of the participants in the brutalities called it a "mexican slaughterhouse" and several trials came to the conclusion that massive human rights violations have occurred.
Unfortunately the commanding officers have been promoted for not maintaining order and not exercising the authority over their men that their role demanded. They too loved it though and throughout.
At least for the case of Belarus discussed here I see no other possibility, because the oppressors hide their faces and do not present any identification.
#1 is a link to another place where you don’t answer the same question.
#2 if you can identity the police using ML, then you can use those identities for any legitimate purpose that a badge number would be used for, such as collecting evidence against them, and clearly doxxing is not the only thing you can do.
I have seen video of similar (arguably worse) behavior from police in the US.
I’ve also personally witnessed a policeman on horseback in the UK striking a peaceful and stationary protester in the head with a baton resulting in profuse bleeding.
If it’s true in Belarus, then it’s also true in the UK, and US.
But, what isn’t clear is that a Telegram group doxxing officers is a clean way to deal with it.
How do we know which officers were doxxed and for what reason? How do we know what will happen to them? Would you feel comfortable if the officer in your video was killed?
When? Your approach is to limit political autonomy to zero and offer an institutional solution that will probably not be available. What if the compilation or possession of such a dossier is treated as evidence of conspiracy to commit sedition?
Doxxing might well be used as evidence of a conspiracy to commit sedition, but by distributing the information widely it's strategically superior to holding it in isolation. It's easy to act with impunity against a lone individual, but if some unknown number of people are possession of the same information the marginal benefit of arrest is vastly reduced.
“Your approach is to limit political autonomy to zero and offer an institutional solution that will probably not be available.”
That is a straw man argument, undeniably so. It in no way represents my position.
I agree with you distributing information widely is superior to holding it in isolation, and I agree with you about reducing the benefit of arrest. Nobody said anything about just one person holding all the dossiers.
There are many ways to accomplish this which are not doxxing if the goal is real accountability.
Then there's the possibility that all the honest officers who don't want to follow those orders quit or strike or otherwise refuse to report to work to do these things.
When the oppressor only has the truly pathological cases to support them, it's a lot easier to know who to fight.
I know, the 'good' officers can be leveraged, hostaged, or any number of other coercive ways to make them do what the oppressor wants.
And I don't generally agree with the 'stay in the system and help fix it from within'. When you're having to take crappy orders from above, your only recourse is mutiny or other disobedience and it's a lot harder to manage in an already corrupt chain.
> Then there's the possibility that all the honest officers who don't want to follow those orders quit or strike or otherwise refuse to report to work to do these things.
No it's not, not generally. When the police goes away, in a lot of places, society falls apart because the vicious prey on the rest without hesitation. Especially the good cops don't want that, because they're in it to serve and protect. "I'll just not go, lol" equals "some drug lord will take over the city and rape and pillage with impunity". They don't want that, and the super majority of citizens also doesn't want that.
It’s also rarely the case that when there is a transfer of power, for the police to all be fired, which you’d think would be the case if they were the oppressors who had just been overthrown.
Doxxing police may be an effective strategy, but it’s also true that social media driven mobs end up killing people, sometimes in error.
Standing up against oppression is necessary, but it’s also messy, and nobody really smells of roses.