Police could not shoot so many people if they didn’t have guns. As long as police do carry guns there will be a lot of shootings. It is rarely necessary to carry guns.
If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. If you have a gun everything looks like something which calls for it. Those of us who are not carrying guns get by just fine. Police can do the same as anybody else.
There are not many situations which really demand guns. Among other reasons, suspects would be less inclined to reach for a gun if officers weren’t known to be carrying themselves. There is an arms race between suspects and law enforcement. If law enforcement stands down, suspects will too.
If a suspect has a gun, police don’t need to engage immediately. The suspect isn’t going to shoot them just for the hell of it. In the moment the police can put their hands up and hand over their wallets. They can get the suspect later.
There do exist rare situations which call for police with guns. When that happens the unarmed cop should call a specialist, like a SWAT team.
Outside of the US police don’t always wear guns. They get by fine using weapons with lower lethality.
In Manchester, England, where the number of deaths in the last 40 years is two. Sir Peter Fahy, the chief constable of the Greater Manchester Police, believes that the the number is the result of a radically different approach toward guns and mental health than we have in the United States. “The whole way that we train officers is that the absolute last resort is to use your firearm,” he says. “When you get into a situation, you assess the situation, you give yourself other options. And it starts from a position, always, that the best weapon is their mouth.” The vast majority have to use their mouths, or at least not firearms, because only 209 of the 6,700 officers in Manchester’s force are armed.
In a battle between a suspect who does not have a gun and a cop who does have a gun, the cop should never ever use their gun.
You can argue that guns are too common in the US for everybody to be armed but the police. But this is a problem created by 2nd amendment extremism. Guns should not be so common. We should not accept that broken situation. That police carry guns feeds into gun-nutism.
In that sense the reason there are so many police shootings is that gun nuts have put guns in so many hands. The cause of Breonna Taylor’s death and so many others is political obsequiousness towards guns. Which matters more, Black lives or plentiful guns?
The answer to that in American politics is clear: guns. We all know which way the scales will tilt. And this raises the question of whether that is by design. Do we have so many guns floating around out of fear of Black people? Are police carrying guns in the first place because of Blackophobia?
I hate hearing Black people say n****. I hate it every time. It always makes me recoil. It makes me feel alienated and sad.
I was watching a Dave Chappelle show on Netflix. He is really funny. Great comic. But he uses the N-word a lot. And get this — he uses it to talk about white people. Like this: You my <N-word>. I’ve been told, not by Chappelle, that it’s a term of endearment. To me, that’s ridiculous — it’s a threat. Because if I use that term of endearment, a 10-ton weight comes down on my head. I don’t like it. We’re also told this is a word African-Americans use among themselves, and we wouldn’t understand what it means. But many of the people in Chappelle’s audience are white. We’re his N-words. I’m watching it, and reminded every time I hear the world, and he says it a lot, that this is something I’m not allowed to like. The more I listen to him use the N-word, my inner voice, constantly yapping about nothing, repeats what he says, and I’m concerned that will eventually come out of my mouth, without thought because that actually happens in real life. It’s a painful word, not just for African-Americans.
Over my lifetime the word has grown and grown and grown. There seems to be nothing I can do but accept it, but how can I accept it?
I don’t understand why Black people want this to happen. It is inevitable that non-Black people will use it. Like, hello, DJ Khalid.
The Palestian DJ explained that he grew up using the word and doesn’t see how he isn’t entitled to use the racial epithet. He justified his use of the word in songs and everyday conversation, drawing a line between variations on the term but explaining how it could be used as a term of endearment. “For me to say ‘We the best, oo wee nigga, we the best!’ You know what I’m talking about. Niggas that’s thinking that is dumb fucks. Once again, I’d like to shout out the fans who love this music. What makes me mad, when I grew up, niggas was calling me sand nigga. That’s ignorant, because there’s only one way to say it. You can’t say, ‘Yo what up my sand nigga?’
Earlier this week, Dilbert creator and local Twitter crackpot Scott Adams claimed that he’d lost multiple jobs because he was white. I don’t think that’s something that ever actually happened. I want to believe Adams will immediately delete his tweets after realizing they are banana pants with crazy cheese frosting.
I would like a telepresence device which lets people seesaw together over the Internet.
There would be two near-identical devices in different locations. They would be small, roughly the size of a hand. They would be connected to the Internet.
One side of both would be labeled A, the other would be labeled B. The actual labels don’t have to be A and B – they could be the names of two children, or pictures, or sculptures. The important thing is to be consistent on both devices.
One device would know it was A, the other would know it was B. The A device is active on A and passive on B. The B device is active on B and passive on A. On pressing down the active side, the corresponding passive side on the other device would mirror the motion.
The interaction would be strangely trivial and magical at the same time. It could feel sweet or spooky. You don’t even have to know who the other person is! The experience would be like a enchanted toy found in the back of a curio shop in a Twilight Zone episode.
I capitalize “Black” when I refer to Africans or members of the African diaspora because I am not referring to a color but a singular group, which makes it a proper noun:
A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft, as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (city, planet, person, corporation)
I say African-American when I’m talking heritage, Black when I’m talking about identity and culture. Black music. African-American history. Black speech. African-American families. I would avoid describing a person as Black unless they chose that themself. Otherwise I would default to African-American.
What am I?
First, European or Belgian. Second, American. My father, who was born in a British-occupied part of Africa to a Belgian father and ethnically French mother herself born in a British territory in Africa, categorized himself as European. My mother was born in North Carolina to White parents one generation removed from Germany, fled north for good when she hit 18, and thought of herself as American.
Last, and unavoidably, White, with a capital.
I am not the color white. The dominant color of my skin is pink. Most White people are pink. I have very light patches which are white and tan patches which are reddish or light brown.
I belong to an ethnic group defined by the (repugnant) one-drop rule. This group is unique and distinct. That makes it a proper noun: White.
The NYT again:
So far, most news organizations have declined to capitalize white, generally arguing that it is an identifier of skin color, not shared experience, and that white supremacist groups have adopted that convention. But some scholars say that to write “Black” but not “White” is to give white people a pass on seeing themselves as a race and recognizing all the privileges they get from it.
We White people like to think we are the default. We have no race. It is others who have race.
But Whiteness did not exist before the invention of Blackness. We Europeans made race for our benefit, then assigned it to others. For White people to accept responsibility, we have to accept being racialized. The prison we made holds us too.
The color white symbolizes holiness, purity, virtue. I have no more claim to these than anybody else. There is no reason for me to think I was born into them.
White identity is problematic because only full-bore supremacists like the KKK embrace it explicitly. Oops. As it turns out, small-bore supremacists have it too.
In the wake of George Floyd’s killing by now-former Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officer Derek Chauvin, few have been inclined to defend Chauvin or his colleagues who stood by and watched as he suffocated Floyd to death. Few, that is, except Bob Kroll.
In a letter to membership, Kroll — the president of the MPD’s police union — referred to protesters outraged by police brutality as a “terrorist movement” and defended the officers who killed Floyd and were subsequently fired, arguing they were “terminated without due process” and lamenting, “What is not being told is the violent criminal history of George Floyd.” (Floyd had a criminal record, but mostly for nonviolent drug and theft charges.)
Kroll’s statements illustrate a central challenge in American efforts to transform policing: Police unions, the groups that represent police officers, are a powerful force that stands in the way of holding police accountable.
The military is not allowed to take political stands. The police force is, and does, and its politics are backed up by force.
Yesterday I interviewed candidates in Nigeria, Brazil and Canada for a role in a new engineering team I’m putting together from California. The first two hires are in China and Brazil.
This is a remote-only company. The closest we’re likely to have to an office is meetups at a coworking space for the five of us in the bay area.
Our people are people. I’m not outsourcing to faceless sweatshops of underpaid and exploited workers. The contributors are talent wherever they are, in place. They don’t need to move to Silicon Valley.
Time zone proximity is the new localism.
These are the overlaps where my small team can meet:
4 PM California 8 AM China 7 PM Brazil
7 AM California 10 PM China 11 AM Brazil
I’m writing this at 7 AM, up for a meeting with people in India, California and China.
The difficulty of meeting makes it harder for us to get shit done when we really need to be together at the same time, rather than leaving notes to one another.
I tried to put this team together in only the Americas, aiming for locations which share some part of the work day, but the talent didn’t cooperate. The fancy New York designer flamed out. The whip-smart Chinese designer had her act together.
And of course our Indian contributor has a special angle which is far more valuable than a convenient time zone. His talent matters more.
So we meet 1:1, we leave notes via DM, we connect at the beginnings and ends of our work days. We write long messages to read asynchronously rather than having short conversations in real time. We’re working out new methods. We can do this. Nothing but sweat is stopping us from solving the time zone problem.
Mnuchin and the Don are selling to inlanders who think being American makes them better than everybody else, but racist xenophobes can’t touch this. Remote-first teams massively expand the pool of technical talent for companies that can work effectively without being together in the same place or time.
The candidate in Lagos who I talked to yesterday is smart, passionate and a decent communicator, but a little too junior. But the Brazilian who moved to Halifax for a job has 15 years of experience and can work for me without moving again.
Follow the talent. The rest is just project management.
The collective-bargaining process is designed to shield workers from the petty tyrannies of their bosses. But police unions like SPOG deploy the same shield against the public, including workers. From lobbying against basic transparency measures to calling out sick when one of their own is charged with felony murder, unionized cops stoke a debate that might not resolve in their favor. The labor movement isn’t just grappling with the future of police unions. It faces deeper questions about the nature of policing itself. The long history of the fight for safe workplaces and fair wages repeats the same basic conflict. Workers win progress despite bosses — and despite violent state actors, too. The men and women who break up protests might have no place in the labor movement at all.