Policing

Northern Europe has the lowest amount of police brutality and the highest trust in police, which are obviously related.
Don't leave out East Asia. From my experience, Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong (before our liberal politicians and media incited civil disobedience there) are - by far - better than Northern Europe. Police are never seen in public places which are safe day or night.

In all my life growing up and living in the US, I always viewed cops as a source of security. They are the good guys who show up to deal with the bad guys when we call 911. The presence of a cop car still reassures, even though I had been pulled over more than a couple of times. Who would shoot the sheriff? No one - except in godless America.

Personally, I have mixed emotions about the police in the U.S. They can be the bad guys or the good guys or they can be downright lazy, needing to park themselves at the Krispy Kreme. Even as a child, the sheriff himself didn’t do a damn thing. All that in a Xian county. Xians just turn the other way or say it’s all in God’s plan, even child abuse.

Good points Mriana. A couple of those things were new to me too.

It seems to me that cops are mostly good people. Some, however are like this guy:

And the system protects the cops who are REALLY BAD as well as it protects the “good” cops. Often times, it seems that the “good” cops ALSO protect the BAD ones. Or at least, look the other way.

@Lausten, are you going to give the answers to those 3 questions, or do we have to look them up? : )

I would like Sree and oneguy to spend less than a half hour listening, or even 5 minutes skimming the transcript.

Don’t leave out East Asia. From my experience, Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong (before our liberal politicians and media incited civil disobedience there) are – by far – better than Northern Europe. Police are never seen in public places which are safe day or night.
Singapore is a police state, more or less. Their police are professional but they're allowed to be pretty damn harsh. Singapore has some crazy laws, as well.
Your data does not support your argument oneguy.
What are your main disagreements?

Don’t suppose increasing population densities along with dwindling opportunities, hopeless, and helplessness have much to do with the all around tension.

Does a hate mongering president have anything to do with it?

Brazil is a cesspool of corruption and now of nationalistic rightwing idiot conservatives like their current leader Bolsanaro, the T rump of South America, who is now screwing Brazil like T rump is screwing us with the handling of C-19.
You forgot to mention that is one of the most diverse countries on earth. Maybe it wouldn't be a cesspool if it wasn't.
Northern Europe has socialist leaning governments. Lower institutionalized police brutality, I bet, is less a factor of racial homogeneity and more a factor of populations of people who tend to be humanistic, rather than tribal, and socialistic leaning, rather than nationalistic.
Well, socialism and nationalism can go together quite well. Otto Von Bismarck might have pioneered Northern European socialism.

And socialist government itself is not really a good predictor of less police brutality. After all, look at Latin America’s experiments with socialism. It’s more about the people who comprise the society.

But I know, Oneguy, that you are all about your idea in which you seem to think that it is a law of nature that homogeneous populations are superior to multicultural populations. You should write a book on it. RepugLIARS would love it.
Haha there are already books about it written by experts. That how I found out about all this.
You forgot to mention that (Brazil) is one of the most diverse countries on earth.
"Diversity", of course. You seem to believe it is the root of all evils in societies.
Otto Von Bismarck might have pioneered Northern European socialism.
A born noble from the 17th century who believed in the divine right of monarchs? A strange choice of hero, I think.
And socialist government itself is not really a good predictor of less police brutality. After all, look at Latin America’s experiments with socialism.
A better predictor of police brutality is probably corruption. Latin American countries seem to be champions of corruption, but our T rump seems to be giving them a run for their money.
Haha there are already books about it written by experts.
What is your favorite book about the social evils of Diversity written by an expert?
What are your main disagreements? -- oneguy
Diversity predicts police brutality

Blacks on the wrong side of White authority more often than anybody else

“White liberals might like the idea of black authority” – What is “black authority”?

Oneguy, what is your favorite book about the social evils of Diversity written by an expert?

People actually talking with each, imagine such a thing.

Imagine possibilities.

 

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video/4572329-minneapolis-protesters-bond-with-arresting-officers/

Mike Max, reporting from the site in downtown Minneapolis where 150 peaceful George Floyd protesters were arrested Sunday night, talks about the humanity he witnessed over several hours between demonstrators and law enforcement (8:19). WCCO 4 News - June 1, 2020


 

 

‘White People Need To...Stop, Reflect & Listen’

Susan Lynx spoke with Christiane Cordero at the George Floyd memorial site about change looking forward and the healing process (3:28). WCCO This Morning – June 2, 2020

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video/4573981-white-people-need-to-stop-reflect-listen/


 

 

Good question, CC.

Why are oneguy and sree being engaged on this?

They want you all to get your shorts in a knot. They have no purpose other than to sow anarchy and despair.

Giving them the feeling that they are succeeding is feeding their mental disability.

You don’t have to block them, but you shouldn’t engage them like they have ideas worth hearing.

3point, that is a legitimate question. Personally, I do not think that ignoring LIARS and bigots, works. If the ideas that they hold were not so apparently common in society, then sure, maybe ignoring those beliefs would, MAYBE, help them fade away. But their ideas are being spread. I will confront misinformation and LIES when I can. So that MAYBE someone that reads their garbage ideas will not think that there is some validity to them.

Now, your point is that engaging them, ALSO, gives some aura of validity to those garbage ideas. That is possible. But honestly, idk if their intent is to sow anarchy and despair. To me Oneguy seems to actually believe his own ideas. Sree, is otoh, like the T rump, in that he doesn’t seem to have any core beliefs. He seems to be more into coming up with some oppositional idea on a whim and blurt it out. (troll - like) Perhaps I really should not engage him. IDK. I do enjoy blasting his BS assertions.

But perhaps Oneguy is an agent of the worldwide anarchy movement and he cleverly disguises his true intent, having been stationed at the CFI forums. Who knows these days? I don’t.

Facebook might know, but the Zuckerberg’s not telling. He thinks that LIES, disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories by Fascists and their sympathizers, the RepugLIARS, no matter how potentially damaging, is “protected speech” and more importantly, profitable for Facebook.

TimB: "If the ideas that they hold were not so apparently common in society, then sure, maybe ignoring those beliefs would, MAYBE, help them fade away. But their ideas are being spread."
My opinion is that engagement is the path they use to spread their ignorance [any and all definitions are welcome]. It's the same principle as not naming the perpetrator of a mass shooting to prevent them from gaining the notoriety they crave.

Let the ignorant rant in the streets to the silence of the rest of us, and their message won’t appear to be a valid option. It’s the engagement that makes what they say seem relevant.

Giving a flat-earther equal time on a NOVA or PBS special is only going to help their cause. Ignoring the ignorant is sometimes the best method of reducing the spread of ignorance.

It’s those of us who are rational who think engagement is the solution while ignorant see our engagement as validation of their position.

The ignorant might be fine mothers, fathers, bosses, coaches, etc, but they are still ignorant in some respect. Isolate their ignorance to prevent its spread.

Isolate their ignorance to prevent its spread.
Is that why everyone seems to ignore most of my posts? I try to spread the truth. I don't get a lot of engagement. At least engaging with LIARS and the ignorant, presents an occasion for ME to confront the LIES and the ignorance and to try to spread MY ideas.

The non-ignorant like Lausten, CC, Mriana occasionally engage with some of the (large number of) posts that I initiate. But that’s about it.

And I am under the impression that I am posting a lot of critical information, ideas, and substantive opinions. But maybe I am deluded in this respect. And maybe my peers are just politely ignoring it, in hopes that I will eventually just peter out.

But thanks for your engagement, 3point.

Let the ignorant rant in the streets to the silence of the rest of us, and their message won’t appear to be a valid option. It’s the engagement that makes what they say seem relevant.

Giving a flat-earther equal time on a NOVA or PBS special is only going to help their cause. Ignoring the ignorant is sometimes the best method of reducing the spread of ignorance.


I don’t really know, because I don’t have statistics on views, only posts, but I’d guess this forum is closer to a small park in a small city than it is to NOVA. I try to read a lot here, but it can be too much. And responding to Sree and oneguy, well, that’s run its course for me.

TimB: "Is that why everyone seems to ignore most of my posts?"
Ha! I'll satisfy your innocent dig for a pat on the back by telling you that you're comments are easily some of the smartest writing I've read online.
TimB: "At least engaging with LIARS and the ignorant, presents an occasion for ME to confront the LIES and the ignorance and to try to spread MY ideas."
You're not wrong. Finding places to explain your ideas is sometimes hard. Only talking to those who agree with you can result in not thinking about why you think what you think. You sound a wee bit like Christopher Hitchens starting at about the 3 minute point of this video: "Four Horsemen".
TimB: "The non-ignorant like Lausten, CC, Mriana occasionally engage with some of the (large number of) posts that I initiate. But that’s about it.

And I am under the impression that I am posting a lot of critical information, ideas, and substantive opinions. But maybe I am deluded in this respect. And maybe my peers are just politely ignoring it, in hopes that I will eventually just peter out."


I agree with you all the time, but I tend to comment with my ideas more than just say that I agree with what’s been said. Rest assured, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post by you that I don’t agree with, so (and I really mean this) you’re free to imagine all your posts have an “I agree” from me as the next post.