The article is here.
The euphemism is striking here. I checked, and of course Charlie May is white. I think the whole article reads like someone consciously trying to say the right things, but they have the same belligerence underneath.
“Physicality” reminds me of the way a bro would talk. “Then things got physical, bro.” So we’re clear, this is what we’re talking about:
I’m autistic, black, and write on the internet about how much I like weed, anarchism, and being vegan. I see that video, and I’m looking at a realistic possibility for myself. Last night I went to the park around 10:30 PM to do some tai chi. Had my vape pen with me, of course. After hitting it and standing like a post, I looked over and noticed a police SUV across the park. It drove by, seeing a black guy in a hoddie at the park being weird. I started the form as I saw the car start heading in my direction, and it slowed down and clearly took a moment to establish that tai chi nigger is not a priority. However, there was nothing actually preventing that cop from having had a bad day and killing or maiming me for fun. My basic mannerisms, outside my control, will agitate the cop mind.
Now, my actual record of police is encounters is that I’m unfailingly polite and cooperative, talk white, and haven’t been overtly threatened with violence. There’s a first time for everything.
This is how my liberal ally Charlie May writes about it:
Most of the speech was primarily focused on his administration’s efforts to combat the violent gang MS-13, but in campaign-like fashion the president also commented on policing in Chicago, health care, immigration and openly embraced physicality towards suspects arrested by law enforcement, according to the Post.
Trump was discussing his plan to enroll an additional 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, and said that it was “essential” for Congress to pass the proper funds. Then he discussed how law enforcement officers should handle suspects in custody.
“And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice,” the president said. “Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?” he added, as he was greeted with applause and laughter.
Etc. Then he quotes the ACLU, knowing damned well that that’s like tagging the idea unacceptable in the conservative mind, which he ambivalently shares. Why does he need to say “violent gang MS-13”? In this context, all it does it make Trump seem more reasonable. It would’ve been just as valid and really more informative if he said “gang profiting from the drug war Trump’s attorney general is trying to bring back.”
Has Donald Trump ever soft-pedaled his condemnation of anything?
“By encouraging police to dole out extra pain at will, the president is urging a kind of lawlessness that already imperils the health and lives of people of color at shameful rates,” said Jeffery Robinson, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union and director of the ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality.
“And if the police happen to make a mistake and arrest an innocent person? Well, the pain and humiliation they endure is just a small price to pay for our return to being tough on crime. Just remember which communities will pay,” he added.
It’s important that he’s writing all this as a white person. That means none of these problems apply to people like him and he’s making that clear.
The U.S. has long struggled with combating excessive, and abusive force from law enforcement. For the third straight year, police are currently on pace to fatally shoot 1,000 people, despite minimal accountability for officers involved in controversial killings. While the president has recently criticized his Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the ongoing Russia investigation, Sessions and the Trump administration have made their policies on handling criminal activity as clear as possible with their efforts to ramp up the war on drugs, and impose harsher prison sentences. All of which has already had a devastating impact on many innocent lives — and disproportionately affected people of color.
This reads like, “Everything’s running smoothly, guys!”
He says the US has “struggled with combating excessive and abusive force from law enforcement.” That’s ridiculous. It’s the same thing as when right-wing people say other obviously ridiculous things to signal group membership. No global warming, we’re trying to stop polite brutality, yeah.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
If we actually did something about police brutality, white people would have the gigantic unsolved problem of what to do with their sadists if not giving them badges and pointing them at Others. They would beat people other than their wives, possibly chickenshits like Charlie May, and that would be scary.
Think about that: liberals can’t really say that Donald Trump is bad like they mean it. Talking about Russia is another way the liberals wink and nudge that they’re OK with things. The Trump administration is eclipsing how blatant everything was in the Bush administration, and the progressives can’t think of anything worse than calling Trump a traitor, as if the American cause is good? That’s just how normal people say they like Donald Trump.
Since getting diagnosed with autism, I feel like I’ve made progress by understanding how much I need to revise my opinion of normal people downwards. It was hard to imagine that their whole way of being is dishonesty, and they only see how it’s hurting them in the shallowest of ways (“OMG fake news!!!”).
Some situations, such as the need for “little white lies,” are easy. A prosocial lie, one told in order to benefit another person and causing no harm, is almost always judged to be preferable to the truth. We tell the guest who spilled red wine on the expensive rug that the stain will surely disappear with a dab of salt or club soda. (I was that guest.) We tell our friends that their new outfits make them look beautiful, even as we cringe internally. Some lies are good: They obviously foster social cohesion, they improve another person’s well-being, and they harm nobody. Children learn early on that good lies are preferable to hurtful truths.
Unless the hurtful truth helps. When a teacher critiques a student’s paper, the teacher assumes that the comments will help the student improve as a writer. Already we are running into problems here with the good lie, as many parenting experts have discovered. Undue praise hinders a child’s development of grit and resilience, so perhaps some prosocial lies are not really so prosocial. And maybe the friend should be told that she looks pallid in canary yellow and should never wear that outfit to a job interview—or anywhere she needs to make a good impression…
The challenge comes with explaining why people resort to lies that fall somewhere in the middle, neither clearly defensible nor clearly indefensible. With some misrepresentations, the owner is known to be self-interested and yet we encourage the lie because avoiding a confrontation serves everybody’s interests. If I say, untruthfully, that I must reject a social invitation due to a prior engagement when in fact I simply do not want to join the person who extended the invitation, I am helping myself and also protecting the other person’s feelings. Some lies can be both pro- and antisocial.
Next consider stealing. If I spy a package on my neighbor’s doorstep and abscond with it, we all agree that I should be charged as a criminal with theft. If I take a box of pens from a store without paying, I commit shoplifting. But suppose I take a box of pens from the office where I work. Do my coworkers consider me to be a thief, or do many of them engage in the same behavior and think of it as unpaid compensation? Certainly the business owner would argue that taking pens constitutes theft, but would it be grounds for dismissal or even a reprimand from a supervisor?
That’s from the blog of an Autism Mom, fretting about how her daughter can’t understand why she’s so fake. She’s soooo clueless about how anything is a pretext for getting fired if someone doesn’t like you. She’s just blithely showing everyone that she feels really secure in life. But she can’t even deal with plans like a grown-up.
None of that stops her from being the self-appointed authority on social relations, always right when autistic people are always wrong. Honesty is wrong when we’re doing it.
Looking back, it’s a bit sad that I was too socially retarded to understand racism as well when my dad was still alive. I used to feel like I hadn’t experienced racism, just because nothing I went through was going to be the same magnitude as Jim Crow. I went to school with the white kids, so I absorbed the false belief in white innocence and just didn’t have life experience and all the concepts I have no.
I used to be outraged when he said things about white people like, “They all bad, ‘cept for [my mom’s name].” Now I understand that that was very wise. My mentalization and racial clue have increased. I’m not sure I always would’ve picked up on the Charlie May article quite so immediately. I read this racist shit every day, and it feels like an open book of people’s insecurities and character flaws.
Ok, normal people have something analogous with in-person interaction. That means that, even though they might not have the reading comprehension to pick the racism out of Charlie May’s article, they’d definitely pick up on it from video of the guy. I didn’t realize that before.
My ex-wife used to hint that she felt bad that I over-estimated her character sometimes.
I think that’s a sad thing about the Empathy Problem, actually. Everyone generalizes from themselves when interpreting the behavior of others, except I’m nicer. Therefore, I’m slow to see when people are fucking me over, and others are quick to make the worst assumptions about me.
A friend sent me this really awesome infographic game thing about the evolution of trust. Worth your time.
“Copykitten” is a good way to be in the prisoner’s dilemma. That is, the strategy of deciding the other side has to screw you twice before you start retaliating tit-for-tat.
It’s obvious that, if you want to perpetuate racism, you need a taboo on empathy. Revisiting a quote from Guntrip:
So cultural attitudes drive them to feel ashamed of weakness and to simulate strength…The reason why there is a taboo on tenderness is that tenderness is regarded as weakness in all but the most private relations of life, and many people regard it as weakness even there and introduce patterns of domination into love-life itself. The real taboo is on weakness; the one great crime is to be weak; the thing which none dare confess is feeling weak; however much the real weakness was brought into being when they were so young that they knew nothing of the import of what was happening to them. You cannot afford to be weak in a competitive world which you feel is mostly hostile to you, and if anyone is so unfortunate as to discover that his infancy has left him with too great a measure of arrested emotional development and a failure of ego-growth in the important early stages, then he soon learns to bend all his energies into hiding or mastering the infant within.
Exactly. The emotional gestures required to end racism are incompatible with most women wanting to have sex with you. Don’t be a pussy.
If you can think about black people and not even cry one time, you aren’t human. That’s great, because humans are little bitches. Women agree because they want their own pet brute the way they want big threatening SUVs to feel safe.
If they are strong, weak men won’t have sex with them. The norm is external strength and internal weakness. It’s nice to have bicycles, but it’s bad to need them, which is what people always say when they gaslight me about confidence. In other words, women don’t want freedom in the same way that Charlie May doesn’t want cops to stop beating on niggers.
We can’t talk about other ways of maybe dealing with their issues because they’re profoundly emotionally crippled.
I think it was 18 months before I actually cried in therapy in front of a therapist, and it was more than a year after that before certain humiliations came out. And I was motivated to do it.
Men are left to set the emotional tone of society, especially violent men. This passage is from The Batterer:
It’s easy, given the atrocities against battered wives, simply to dismiss abusers as less than human or to see all men as inherently violent, as suffering from, as some call it, “testosterone poisoning.” But if we do that, we draw a firm battle line between male and female, viewing all females as the victims of intimate abuse and all males as the perpetrators. And drawing those lines limits our ability to understand.
To perceive the male as both a victim and a perpetrator confuses this compartmentalized view, and yet I believe that this more complex perspective reflects the reality of abusiveness. There is evidence that the abusive men whom you will meet in this book were once victims, too. Perhaps not solely victim of physical or sexual abuse, although that happens all too frequently, but of more subtle emotional droughts and demands that create a personality whose tendencies toward violence are exacerbated by social conditioning. Their victimization does not excuse their behavior, but it does explain it.
Only by fully understanding the origins of abuse will we have a chance to reduce it. It’s a powerful experience for abusive men to come into a treatment group that holds them fully accountable for their actions; that does not, as the court may, diminish their responsibility because they were drinking that night; that demands they stop their destructiveness; that resists judging their actions but allows their inner self-condemnation to surface.
All the case histories in this book have been drawn from my treatment groups. It was in these groups that I heard how powerless these men felt in their lives, especially in their intimate relationships. Most don’t know how to even describe a feeling to themselves, let alone assert it to an intimate other. Some men, it seems, could listen to the blues every day for a decade before they could verbalize their own grief. They could brag of sexual conquest before they could talk of deep loneliness or their addiction to “hits” of intimacy through physical contact with a woman. It is in recognizing this emotional self-alienation that we can understand the darkest side of the male sex role.
This is actually one of the worst parts of being the target of those guys. I have to suffer, deeply, because those guys aren’t expected to deal with their emotions. Nobody has held them accountable before, which is strange because they’ve been around women this entire time. It’s like this.
This stuff is the reason I have so much antipathy for “sex-positivism.” It’s the celebrated refusal to hold anybody accountable for anything.
Women aren’t dealing with their issues, so they’re seeking out men who are utterly unwilling to deal with theirs. This breeds a whole society of emotional retardation, which is the precondition of slavery. Everything is related to everything else.
A lot of the social norms that autistic people are violating have to do with disrupting everyone’s collusion in emotional avoidance. There is nothing actually wrong with valuing the truth for its own sake. Intellectual honesty is a precondition of good science and scholarship in general.
Doesn’t “First, know thyself” go back to Socrates? I was amazed to see this in the Washington Post: Being rich wrecks your soul. We used to know that.
The idea that wealth is morally perilous has an impressive philosophical and religious pedigree. Ancient Stoic philosophers railed against greed and luxury, and Roman historians such as Tacitus lay many of the empire’s struggles at the feet of imperial avarice. Confucius lived an austere life. The Buddha famously left his opulent palace behind. And Jesus didn’t exactly go easy on the rich, either — think camels and needles, for starters.
The point is not necessarily that wealth is intrinsically and everywhere evil, but that it is dangerous — that it should be eyed with caution and suspicion, and definitely not pursued as an end in itself; that great riches pose great risks to their owners; and that societies are right to stigmatize the storing up of untold wealth. That’s why Aristotle, for instance, argued that wealth should be sought only for the sake of living virtuously — to manage a household, say, or to participate in the life of the polis. Here wealth is useful but not inherently good; indeed, Aristotle specifically warned that the accumulation of wealth for its own sake corrupts virtue instead of enabling it. For Hindus, working hard to earn money is a duty (dharma), but only when done through honest means and used for good ends. The function of money is not to satiate greed but to support oneself and one’s family. The Koran, too, warns against hoarding money and enjoins Muslims to disperse it to the needy…
According to many philosophies and faiths, then, wealth should serve only as a steppingstone to some further good and is always fraught with moral danger. We all used to recognize this; it was a commonplace. And this intuition, shared by various cultures across history, stands on firm empirical ground.
Over the past few years, a pile of studies from the behavioral sciences has appeared, and they all say, more or less, “Being rich is really bad for you.” Wealth, it turns out, leads to behavioral and psychological maladies. The rich act and think in misdirected ways.
When it comes to a broad range of vices, the rich outperform everybody else. They are much more likely than the rest of humanity to shoplift and cheat , for example, and they are more apt to be adulterers and to drink a great deal . They are even more likely to take candy that is meant for children. So whatever you think about the moral nastiness of the rich, take that, multiply it by the number of Mercedes and Lexuses that cut you off, and you’re still short of the mark. In fact, those Mercedes and Lexuses are more likely to cut you off than Hondas or Fords: Studies have shown that people who drive expensive cars are more prone to run stop signs and cut off other motorists…
Indeed, luxuries may numb you to other people — that Louis Vuitton bag may be a minor league Ring of Sauron . Some studies go so far as to suggest that simply being around great material wealth makes people less willing to share . That’s right: Vast sums of money poison not only those who possess them but even those who are merely around them. This helps explain why the nasty ethos of Wall Street has percolated down, including to our politics (though we really didn’t need much help there)…
The story of how a stigma fades is always murky, but contributing factors are not hard to identify. For one, think tanks have become increasingly partisan over the past several decades, particularly on the right: Certain conservative institutions, enjoying the backing of billionaires such as the Koch brothers, have thrown a ton of money at pseudo-academics and “thought leaders” to normalize and legitimate obscene piles of lucre. They produced arguments that suggest that high salaries naturally flowed from extreme talent and merit, thus baptizing wealth as simply some excellent people’s wholly legitimate rewards. These arguments were happily regurgitated by conservative media figures and politicians, eventually seeping into the broader public and replacing the folk wisdom of yore. But it is hard to argue that a company’s top earners are literally hundreds of times more talented than the lowest-paid employees.
As stratospheric salaries became increasingly common, and as the stigma of wildly disproportionate pay faded, the moral hazards of wealth were largely forgotten. But it’s time to put the apologists for plutocracy back on the defensive, where they belong — not least for their own sake. After all, the Buddha, Aristotle, Jesus, the Koran, Jimmy Stewart, Pope Francis and now even science all agree: If you are wealthy and are reading this, give away your money as fast as you can.
I support that article appearing in this newspaper. It’s totally disingenuous, published in a venue owned by the world’s richest man, but it’s more important for normal people to be exposed to philosophy right now.
I realized something else: the highest stages of moral development, “post-conventional” in Kohlberg’s jargon, are thinking in terms of a social contract and then thinking in terms of abstract universal principles. “Conventional morality” is based on punishment and reward or social approval. The ability to even think in a morally sophisticated way requires exposure to moral philosophy. Obviously, when you think about it.
It’s incredibly frustrating trying to talk about politics with people who have no concept of the social contract, or why you should do anything besides fit in. True morality has to be post-conventional! Therefore, anyone advocating it will come into conflict with convention. For someone of lesser moral development, that disqualifies the higher moral arguments! That’s how backwards things are.
That kind of dumb is an extremely powerful force, combined with sexually rewarding aggression.
Cockblocking macho dudes is an important and much-neglected part of The Struggle. Charlie May is never going to tell you that. Ten bucks says he jerks off to cop porn. Things had to get a bit physical with the suspect, if you know what I mean.
Women should not have sex with Charlie May for these reasons.