Commenting Policy

8 comments

• Comment Link Wednesday, 09 March 2011 07:03 posted by Bussard Mattsen

  The argument brings to mind the Stanford prison experiment, but if it is human nature and there is truth to the adage that "power corrupts" and "absolute power corrupts absolutely" then what are we to do? Self-police? Not have police? Rant about it online?
  
  Is a better summary of the message don't completely trust anyone? Or trust people over organizations? But isn’t that just common sense? Are there really any organizations that deserve blanket trust? And in regard to dealing with those in positions of power, does replacing an otherwise sensible amount of vigilance with belligerence really serve anybody?
  
  Are kids who are told not to trust the police any safer? Happier? Are people who reasonably default to trust and are sometimes proven wrong better off than those who default to distrust and as a result can’t benefit (or even acknowledge) the community of well-meaning and honest people around them? Or perhaps even fuel and unknowingly propagate the very environment they are afraid of?
  
  Historically and culturally, we currently enjoy an unprecedented balance of quality of life, safety, and security. Are there many countries in the world or times in history where you would have it better? I somehow doubt it!
• Comment Link Friday, 11 March 2011 03:35 posted by Andrew Baxter

  So many questions! Where to begin?
  
  Your question about what to do is an excellent one. Certainly ranting about it online is no answer, but neither is complacency.
  
  Bussard, there is no doubt that you're right. We here in Canada – and the West in general – are far better off than any other people at any other time in history. Though I'm not entirely sure what that fact actually contributes to this (or any) discussion. It's just far too easy to become complacent and simply shrug our shoulders. "That's life" we say. “Just be glad that we're not Burmese!” (Or a public employee in Wisconsin!)
  
  However, the historical and cultural context that we inhabit is in many ways a veneer under which far more base sets of motivations and calculations are being made. We have the sheen of responsible government, of peace and order, of rights and freedoms that can blind us to the very real struggles that are taking place. Our rights and freedoms are in constant struggle against the forces of oppression, and the Police play a crucial role in this conflict.
  
  I think the larger question in which this particular discussion is taking place is why exactly the Canadian State still, in this historical and cultural context, feels the need to put thousands of heavily armed thugs on the streets of the country’s biggest city. Who and what exactly are they protecting and what threats does the State need to be protected from?
  
  I'll leave it there for the moment, and see where we go.
• Comment Link Sunday, 13 March 2011 20:12 posted by Jennifer Grove

  Ohmygoodness.
  
  Swinging between vigilance and belligerence should indicate to you that the solution can't be found at the level of the problem. Giving in and rationalizing that with:
  
  "Are there many countries in the world or times in history where you would have it better?"
  
  may serve to relieve the tension for you, but it won't for many other people who are ready to find real solutions. Esp. those with PTSD from this event and others like it. That kind of talk only makes it worse and reinforces the impulse to find a more evolved (and not so much) solution. While being cynical about trust (as all of those detainees are now) is an understandable defense mechanism, it it's not what we are striving for as a species.
  
  It is clear that the old ways of doing Law and Order are not serving us as well as we need them to. How can we contract with one another, as a culture and society so that everyone gets what they need and then some? The population's Voice is heard AND there is no property damage and violence. This is how real solutions usually work. Where is the search for that?
  
  ~J
• Comment Link Monday, 14 March 2011 05:28 posted by Bussard Mattsen

  Granted, the G20 summit was an obvious abuse of power that needs to be addressed. The 'Fuck the Police' comments seem to extend beyond that though, which is what piqued my curiosity.
  
  I brought up the fact that we have it better than it’s ever been (in the west) because I think it presents a more interesting question about the nature of discontent with authority in general and whether its origin is internal or external. Meaning, will we reach a point where you would feel the current system doesn’t need challenging, and what would that be? What would it look like? There will always be, presumably, those who abuse power. So how to work with a system that is imperfect by its very nature.
  
  I’m not advocating complacency, or even saying that public challenge and scrutiny doesn’t sometimes serve a greater good. Just curious as to the underlying motivation. It's easy to be a naysayer, but what would the ideal system look like? No police? Do we even know apart from "not quite like this"? Is any abuse of police power acceptable? We need ideals to make things better and to affect change, but we also need some pragmatism to operate at all.
  
  Then there’s the issue of tracing the problem further up the tree to the government that created it, the same government which was in fact, created by us. Perhaps we don’t want to go too far up the tree? Or perhaps we need to speak out by voting with our dollar regarding the organizations who support or facilitate these events, or voting with our... votes.
  
  There’s also the issue of what people in the vicinity of a G20 summit thought was going to happen (or reasonably should have expected would happen). God knows if there’s a G20 summit in my city I’ll be taking a vacation. Not that it’s right that I should have to.
  
  Not to mention the question of what the protesters were there for (to draw international media attention)? And what the police were there for (to protect against the “violent” protesters)? And whether the two groups unknowingly and perhaps unwilling both acted to serve each other’s interests. Police abusing their power gets more media attention, and isn’t that what the protesters wanted (if not at their own personal expense)? And police abusing their power make people angry and want to protest, and of course some might say that would justify even more police next time!
  
  Personally, I’d like to see more protesters trade their Molotov-Cocktails for some social-akido, such as Jason does here: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/03/29/using-westboro-baptist-church-as-a-fundraiser/
• Comment Link Monday, 14 March 2011 17:31 posted by TJ Dawe

  hey - I wrote an article on that exact youtube clip on this site: http://www.beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/58-peaceful-student-vs-wbc
• Comment Link Monday, 14 March 2011 22:51 posted by Jennifer Grove

  Hi, Bussard.
  
  I see that Andrew is self-aware about his feelings.
  
  "I meant it in jest, but my personal antipathy towards the police only grows by the day. I know. The vast majority of officers are well-meaning and honest people looking only to help. And truly, they are confronted daily with all the worst parts of the human condition. I recognise this.
  
  I think what I should have told the child was that while you should certainly trust individual police officers, never, ever trust the institution – you can trust the police but most certainly not the Police."
  
  He is not excluding information indicating that some individual officers are responsible with their power. But you're right to ask about whether or not he is excluding information indicating that for some, if not many, dissent is a hungry ghost that is never satisfied. I don't see him looking at that either.
  
  Both are real. There is still no need to pit them against each other, however, forcing a win/lose outcome. No need to mount up arguments and statistics to prove one over the other. Both problems (police brutality and dissent addiction) must be transcended for a solution to work.
  
  So my inquiry will prove just as challenging for the dissent addict as for the Law and Order addict. After all, if there is a workable agreement for the minority voice to be heard and integrated into solutions in real time, what will become of the impulse to fight about it? Will they just go find something else? Or will they become self aware about their own need to fight about something/anything - which, after all, is what the Police are being judged guilty of?
  
  Not all dissenting voices are conflict addicts. Just like not all proponents of Law and Order are status quo addicts. But all becoming self aware of the Shadow play will go a long way to reducing the likelihood of intractable situations.
  
  See what I mean?
  
  That Jason kid was pretty creative! He perfectly mirrored the antagonism of his opponents without giving them any ammunition. That is very skillful indeed.
  
  TJ,
  Nice article. You're right. Ann Coulter is repeating the same mistake. She's still re-enforcing the "Your god is false!" argument which only makes things worse and is still ethnocentric. Those two create and maintain each other. Such a mess.
  
  Blessings.
  ~J
• Comment Link Wednesday, 16 March 2011 03:14 posted by Jennifer Grove

  Thot I'd plop this link down just for fun. Lyrics are included in the drop-down. Jello figured it out way back that speaking of the Dissenting Voice, "Houston, we may have a problem."
  
  Enjoy!
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MkRuV0aCcI
• Comment Link Thursday, 17 March 2011 04:11 posted by Bussard Mattsen

  Hi Jennifer,
  
  My comments certainly weren't intended to single anyone out and were speaking to the larger issue.
  
  I believe the first step in resolving a problem is to really understand it in context, which is why I mentioned our current quality of life.
  
  About finding a better solution, I'm all for that, and would at the same time postulate that perhaps events and history as they are unfolding now, however unpleasant, and the public reactions and responses to them, may be leading us to the very solutions we seek. Albeit over a longer time span. Perhaps we are seeking a faster solution? Or perhaps the solution is patience and trust that things are unfolding as they should?
  
  These questions remain: what part do we want to play in all of this and why? The underlying belief being that the more crystal clear you can be about your motivates and desired outcome, the more effective you can be in producing it.
  
  I fail to see much benefit in protest signs and I find it hard not to see things like the G20 summit as an unwilling albeit symbiotic relationship of consenting adults furthering each others interests.
  
  I think that major corporations are as much a slave to the masses that line their pockets as the masses are slaves to the corporations who tell them how to live and what to buy. I think as social media, networking, and technology evolve there will be some more subversive options there. If my iphone told me instantly which of two identical stores or products most supported my political views it would be much easier to vote with my dollar.
  
  I like your term "Dissent Addict" and can see the benefit of having people playing that role in society. A natural built-in 'Quality Control' that rattles the cages of the systems and institutions to look for weaknesses and keep them honest.
  
  And for the youtube video about Nazi punks, I think Godwin would be impressed.
  
  Best,
  Bussard