Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[jc23]

Anyone else feel this coverage will go away in about a months time as soon as the election stuff/next big story starts? Its just the trend i see with this country, we gave the cornavirus 2 months of our attention and then there seemed to be burnout. I see the same thing when a mass shooting happens.

[musiqsoulchild]

Not sure exactly what you're implying here. Maybe some have given that implication in this thread, I'm not sure. But worth noting that there is a lot of room between criminal looting and "asking nicely". It's good that people are yelling in the streets. They certainly shouldn't feel compelled to send a hallmark card asking for fair treatment to their police chief. They should just stop JUUUUUUST short of physical damage (or threats) to random people and property. That is the proper line, and it's a fine one. Everything to one side is acceptable IMO. Everything to the other isn't.

And of course almost all of them do stop short. The people looting are mostly just nihilist opportunist criminals IMO. Including many white supremacists and anarchists and just thieves. I refuse to dishonor the protesters by considering the looters to be among them per se.

If 1% of protesters cross this "line" then does that give the country the right to say "such animals". And then the President says "looting then shooting". I am sending in the Military.

Are we applying the same stringent expectations and drawing these "lines" of what's ok and what is not on our:

1) Educational systems
2) Public Transport systems
3) Policing systems
4) Juducial systems
5) Political systems
6) Financial systems

EDIT: This isnt meant for League Circles. I am just using this his-mine dialogue to bring out points that need to be addressed systemically first.Anyone can jump in.

imo the vast majority of police are good and the vast majority of protesters are good. The worse of us always get the medias attention and coverage unfortunately.

You are right.

However, we all dont question the system enough.

Is the best way to ask for the Bulls to spend more to remove GarPax...or maybe ownership works hard and lobbies for lesser LT penalties for big market teams?

The point I am trying to make is that in moments like these too often we fix the symptom. For example: Body cameras on ALL cops.

How about actually fixing the problem?

[musiqsoulchild]

Anyone else feel this coverage will go away in about a months time as soon as the election stuff/next big story starts? Its just the trend i see with this country, we gave the cornavirus 2 months of our attention and then there seemed to be burnout. I see the same thing when a mass shooting happens.

Exactly. And that's where the rub is. Nothing actually gets solved.

[League Circles]

Why should people ask for their rights nicely?

Why is that an expectation on black people?

Not sure exactly what you're implying here. Maybe some have given that implication in this thread, I'm not sure. But worth noting that there is a lot of room between criminal looting and "asking nicely". It's good that people are yelling in the streets. They certainly shouldn't feel compelled to send a hallmark card asking for fair treatment to their police chief. They should just stop JUUUUUUST short of physical damage (or threats) to random people and property. That is the proper line, and it's a fine one. Everything to one side is acceptable IMO. Everything to the other isn't.

And of course almost all of them do stop short. The people looting are mostly just nihilist opportunist criminals IMO. Including many white supremacists and anarchists and just thieves. I refuse to dishonor the protesters by considering the looters to be among them per se.

If 1% of protesters cross this "line" then does that give the country the right to say "such animals". And then the President says "looting then shooting". I am sending in the Military.

Are we applying the same stringent expectations and drawing these "lines" of what's ok and what is not on our:

1) Educational systems
2) Public Transport systems
3) Policing systems
4) Juducial systems
5) Political systems
6) Financial systems

EDIT: This isnt meant for League Circles. I am just using this his-mine dialogue to bring out points that need to be addressed systemically first.Anyone can jump in.

Once you cross the line, YOU ARE NO LONGER A PROTESTER, you have CHOSEN to become a criminal and to disassociate yourself from the righteous group.

As for verbiage, doesn't matter too much to me. Trump shouldn't have said that surely (or most things he says), but I won't condemn someone for calling a criminal who attacks innocent people and their property an "animal". It's too strong for my tastes. I always try to stick with the philosophy of "minimal necessary force (or in this case offense)" to achieve what needs to be done.

If we can't deal with individuals and their actions (be it good cops,bad cops, protesters, looters, etc) we might as well give the whole thing up and just accept that we're an inept species. We learned a LONG time ago, hundreds and thousands of years ago to be precise, that individuals are distinct from groups. We need to remind ourselves of that every day. Waaaaaay too many people are stuck in group/identity politics IMO. And I don't mean that in a partisan/political way. It's a cancerous way of thought. It obscures everything.

[dougthonus]

Every person I personally know who is focused more on the looting rather than the underlying institutional issue loves Trump and hates Kaepernick. Nuff said.

I don't find this to be even remotely true. I'm presently much more concerned about looting that police brutality.

Looting literally has caused my personal and family safety to be at risk and has caused large economic damage to people I know whom were already on the brink of financial ruin. I was literally 1 hour away from being inside a store that was attacked with my daughter, so it hits very personally.

I understand, of course, why someone personally impacted by policy brutality would feel very differently. We all care about what impacts us personally over what is theoretically fair.

[musiqsoulchild]

Not sure exactly what you're implying here. Maybe some have given that implication in this thread, I'm not sure. But worth noting that there is a lot of room between criminal looting and "asking nicely". It's good that people are yelling in the streets. They certainly shouldn't feel compelled to send a hallmark card asking for fair treatment to their police chief. They should just stop JUUUUUUST short of physical damage (or threats) to random people and property. That is the proper line, and it's a fine one. Everything to one side is acceptable IMO. Everything to the other isn't.

And of course almost all of them do stop short. The people looting are mostly just nihilist opportunist criminals IMO. Including many white supremacists and anarchists and just thieves. I refuse to dishonor the protesters by considering the looters to be among them per se.

If 1% of protesters cross this "line" then does that give the country the right to say "such animals". And then the President says "looting then shooting". I am sending in the Military.

Are we applying the same stringent expectations and drawing these "lines" of what's ok and what is not on our:

1) Educational systems
2) Public Transport systems
3) Policing systems
4) Juducial systems
5) Political systems
6) Financial systems

EDIT: This isnt meant for League Circles. I am just using this his-mine dialogue to bring out points that need to be addressed systemically first.Anyone can jump in.

Once you cross the line, YOU ARE NO LONGER A PROTESTER, you have CHOSEN to become a criminal and to disassociate yourself from the righteous group.

As for verbiage, doesn't matter too much to me. Trump shouldn't have said that surely (or most things he says), but I won't condemn someone for calling a criminal who attacks innocent people and their property an "animal". It's too strong for my tastes. I always try to stick with the philosophy of "minimal necessary force (or in this case offense)" to achieve what needs to be done.

If we can't deal with individuals and their actions (be it good cops,bad cops, protesters, looters, etc) we might as well give the whole thing up and just accept that we're an inept species. We learned a LONG time ago, hundreds and thousands of years ago to be precise, that individuals are distinct from groups. We need to remind ourselves of that every day. Waaaaaay too many people are stuck in group/identity politics IMO. And I don't mean that in a partisan/political way. It's a cancerous way of thought. It obscures everything.

That's not the point though. The point is about crossing lines.

When does for example a hospital system go from over-exerted to medical malpractice?

When does a financial system go from being capitalist to greedy?

Are our systems being held to the same stringent measures that you are applying to the protesters who cross the line?

You might. But the answer from most people is an overwhelming NO.

People dont think OR dont want to be bothered to think too deep into everyday systemic inequalities that separate us.

Until that kind of apathy is rooted out, we will continue to have these kinds of issues prop up. With more frequency. And more intensity.

[DuckIII]

Every person I personally know who is focused more on the looting rather than the underlying institutional issue loves Trump and hates Kaepernick. Nuff said.

I don't find this to be even remotely true. I'm presently much more concerned about looting that police brutality.

Looting literally has caused my personal and family safety to be at risk and has caused large economic damage to people I know whom were already on the brink of financial ruin. I was literally 1 hour away from being inside a store that was attacked with my daughter, so it hits very personally.

I understand, of course, why someone personally impacted by policy brutality would feel very differently. We all care about what impacts us personally over what is theoretically fair.

That’s why I said the people I personally know. I live in a rural area, nearly an hour from any protest site. I’m sure
People proximate to looting have practical and immediate concerns that trump police brutality in the short term.

No one I personally know has these immediate concerns. So they are talking about it in the sense of ideas. And every single one of them focused on looting and disregarding the social issue is a hard line righty and considered Kaepernick’s peaceful form of civil disobedience to be a complete abomination.

The point being that there is a huge percentage of our nation that decries both violent and peaceful protest. Because they simply don’t want to contemplate the issue period and don’t want it presented to them in any way shape or form. They say nothing about George Floyd in any level, and only start their rage engines once the looting starts. It’s transparent as Saran Wrap.

[Southpaw]

I don't know enough to comment on what's happening over there so all I can say is stay safe Bulls brothers and sisters. 2020 continues to get crazier it seems.

[dougthonus]

The point being that there is a huge percentage of our nation that decries both violent and peaceful protest. Because they simply don’t want to contemplate the issue period and don’t want it presented to them in any way shape or form. They say nothing about George Floyd in any level, and only start their rage engines once the looting starts. It’s transparent as Saran Wrap.

While I think that is true, and I think we're also both biased by our personal living situations, I think there's a huge part of our nation that decries looting and destruction and even if they believe police brutality is a major topic, think destructive, violent protesting is a bigger issue than police brutality and believe looting/violent protesting an act of exponential increase in aggression likely to lead to a further increase of aggression and cause a negative spiral.

Of course, people are always going to side to protect their own interests. Those with more to lose and unlikely to be a victim of brutality are probably more likely to be scared of violent protest than those with nothing to lose and likely to be a victim of police brutality. That's just common sense.

I remember seeing on twitter there was one reporter that was cheering on protesters until they entered his neighborhood and started destroying things. Then he was aghast and upset and thought they all needed to be locked up. It's hard to be unbiased when we're all inherently biased towards ourselves and loved ones and the problems come knocking at your door.

[HINrichPolice]

That's the most common misconception. I do think there will be some inflation, but inflation is normal to a point.

Regarding worries of inflation: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7



Another common misconception.

VAT by itself can be regressive.

VAT + UBI = Progressive

Additionally, VAT an be changed depending on the good. For example, Andrew Yang's VAT plan would be to make it 0% on essential goods and to ratchet it up on luxury goods.

If you're not viewing VAT + UBI as a combo deal, then you're misunderstanding how they work together.

additionally, nobody is suggesting that we just print more money to give to people! any responsible implementation of UBI would of course require it to be paid for with new revenue

Revenue can be hard to come by. That can't just raise tax rates and count on it happening. We already constantly inflate the money supply which discourages savings in a cancerous way IMO, and we already senselessly borrow 1/3 of the federal budget.

One of the biggest myths is that the money for UBI doesn't exist.

You say we can't just raise tax rates and count on it happening. Agreed.

This is why a new type of tax, a tax that has worked in other countries, in other words, a Value Added Tax, is really the key.

There's no reason that Amazon and Netflix and Starbucks and other huge companies should be paying less than you or me in taxes. They pay ZERO. A Value Added Tax would be a huge boon towards fixing this problem.

And to be clear, VAT isn't the only source of money to fund UBI. This graphic should be helpful.

[HINrichPolice]

Agree 100%.

The only problem is if UBI is implemented incorrectly (as I'm sure you know, there isn't a consensus on which model to use), it would just turn into an ever-expanding bureaucracy.

The beauty of it being Universal is that it would cut down on bureaucracy. The U part of UBI is really important as it, to your point, really simplifies the execution of it and ensures people that need it don't fall through the cracks.

UBI already exists. It's called welfare, section 8 housing, food stamps, and EITC. UBI is just another taking those programs on a far wider scale and giving it a different name.

Think harder.

The big difference is means testing.

The point of UBI is that it isn't means tested.

A big issue with means tested programs is that in many cases, they actually incentivize someone to NOT find a higher paying job or find more work. And in many cases, the documentation and proof necessary acts as a obstacle after obstacle to the point where many people that need the support of those programs actually aren't receiving it.

[2018C3]

Wealthy people pay lower taxes on a percentage basis than anyone else.

People say the poor get huge tax breaks, but they miss out on the fact that the property tax (even if not paid directly through home ownership, it still ends up in rent) and sales tax amount to a larger tax burden on them than the wealthy face even if they pay 0% in income tax.

"Wealthy people pay lower taxes on a percentage basis than anyone else." This is true, but what lots of people fail to comprehend is the The top 1%t of taxpayers pay more than than the bottom 90% The bottom 50% of people combined only pay 3.7% of the total money collected.

I'm not close to being rich, but am smart enough to see that the rich pay more than there share. If everything was charged by percentages, a rich guy would be charged $300 or more for a big mac.

The way numbers often get presented can make them seem much better or worse.

[dougthonus]

"Wealthy people pay lower taxes on a percentage basis than anyone else." This is true, but what lots of people fail to comprehend is the The top 1%t of taxpayers pay more than than the bottom 90% The bottom 50% of people combined only pay 3.7% of the total money collected.

Based on any data I've found, this isn't true (or close to being true). Also, all numbers put out that show this only show income tax and ignore sales tax / property tax which are massive tax burdens and generally much more regressive (especially sales tax which is massively regressive) or total tax liability.

I'm not close to being rich, but am smart enough to see that the rich pay more than there share. If everything was charged by percentages, a rich guy would be charged $300 or more for a big mac.

We're not talking about everything, we're talking about taxes.

The way numbers often get presented can make them seem much better or worse.

The wealth gap is increasing at an extraordinary rate no matter what number you use, and this isn't good for society or the majority of the people in the country no matter how you slice it.

[2018C3]

I was talking about income tax, and the numbers are pulled from literally the first website that shows up in a google search.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

[dougthonus]

I was talking about income tax, and the numbers are pulled from literally the first website that shows up in a google search.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

My mistake, I misread what you wrote. I thought you said the top 1% of taxpayers pay 90% of taxes, not more than the bottom 90%.

The stats you quoted don't strike me as particularly interesting though.

What is maybe more interesting from this:
In terms of income (1980 to 2016)
Top 1%: 8.46% to 19.72% in total 133% gain in income share.

In terms of tax share (1980 to 2016)
Top 1%: 19.05% to 37.32%, 95% gain

So the wealthy are paying more taxes now, because they are earning more money, and their tax burden as a percentage of the nation is less relative to those earnings than it was in the past.

I don't know what you'd say the "fair share" is, but relatively, the top 1% are paying a lesser share than they used to relative to their wealth, despite their wealth increasing significantly as a share of the countries wealth.

My view is that as a society, we would be better off with the limiting the wealth accumulated by fewer individuals and spreading it out more and we definitely shouldn't have those wealthy have a decreased share of taxes relative to that wealth, so overall this is a very significant negative trend.

The trend reinforces itself, because it's so easy to make money with capital relative to labor, so when you hit a certain capital threshold, your earnings are likely to continue to increase more and more rather than less and less.

[Dresden]

They say nothing about George Floyd in any level, and only start their rage engines once the looting starts. It’s transparent as Saran Wrap.

For all the outrage that's being generated about the rioting and looting that's going on, Trump's decision to roll back auto fuel standards is for certain going to kill more people, and cost more money in terms of health care costs and lost productivity and diminished quality of life than all the rioting/looting put together. Not to mention the costs associated with global warming, which will be huge. And when Trump announced he was doing that, it was meant with only a smidgeon of the disapproval and outrage we're seeing directed at the protestors.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Think harder.

The big difference is means testing.

The point of UBI is that it isn't means tested.

A big issue with means tested programs is that in many cases, they actually incentivize someone to NOT find a higher paying job or find more work. And in many cases, the documentation and proof necessary acts as a obstacle after obstacle to the point where many people that need the support of those programs actually aren't receiving it.

I don't mind doing that if we get rid of the other forms of welfare. Most people want to use UBI to expand the welfare state though. You can't do that by continuing to run trillion dollar budget deficits. This country has a serious debt problem that is only getting worse. Raising taxes does no good if you're going to increase spending by a higher amount.

And you can raise taxes all you want, but big corporations know how to get around it by using tax shelters and other complex avoidance tools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

For those arguing that the unrest is turning the public off:

Read on Twitter

Again, it’s not about ‘liking’ the riots/protests. Only 17% of the public say protestors’ actions are fully justified. But we’ve seen a shift in recognition of the underlying problem - racial bias - because of the visibility of the protests.

That dynamic is a common one throughout history. MLK had a 25% approval rating at the time of his assassination. Six days of riots in 115 cities later, we get the Civil Rights Act - even though the protests/protestors themselves were hardly popular at the time.

[GetBuLLish]

I also wonder how much good data we have on excessive force. Obviously this case was extreme, caught on tape, and gives a visceral reaction. Is it symptomatic of 1,000s of cases? 10,000s of cases? 100,000s of cases? How big is the problem you are trying to solve? What is the impact if you solve it? How much will it cost to solve it? What is the opportunity cost of solving it vs a different problem?

Those are all important questions. If your goal is to improve quality of life for as many people as possible (or in this case, let's say just black people) then is addressing this issue something that will make a meaningful improvement relative to the alternatives? If this is an "easy win", then yeah, it absolutely makes sense to resolve it. If it isn't an easy win, then I think the impact of solving it is probably much less than other things (but this is basing my opinion on what I suspect the underlying data would say without seeing it, which is a super dangerous way to make any opinion).

This post is precisely correct. Police use of deadly force against unarmed black people is extremely rare from whichever angle you look at it. It represents about 0.1% of the number of black people killed. It represents, at maximum, less than 0.0001% of police interactions with black people. There's also no racial disparity.

So in reality, it's just a really, really rare occurrence. Yet it attracts an almost inconceivable amount of attention (much of which ends up doing great, great harm). And it's almost entirely because the media has convinced so many people that police killings of innocent black people is rampant and that black people in this country should fear for their lives because of it. Just completely irrational and takes away so much energy and attention from way more pressing issues.

Here's a perfect example of media intentionally stoking racial hatred:

Read on Twitter

?s=11

You know what this tweet leaves out? That the person killed his neighbor (a black person) just 15 minutes earlier, had a gun on him and was threatening police with it, and had made a social media post that day about killing people and then getting killed to avoid prison.

But none of that information is presented in NBC's tweet, which is explicitly designed to incite hatred. And by the way, this tweet was posted after the Floyd murder, when people were already upset.

[musiqsoulchild]

Just 4 percent of all Catholic priests had complaints of sexual abuse against them.

Just 4 percent. The shocking thing isnt the number.

Its NEVER about the number. It's about the level of breach of trust.

Its TRIPE to talk about percentages. We need to talk about why this is happening. Period.

Why are minorities more likely to have a set of living conditions and socioeconomic variables which lead them down a road of crime and exposure to the criminal justice system?