![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Things we didn't need on top of a pandemic and a recession
About 3 PM yesterday, we lost the Internet connection between the outside world and our router (and therefore all the wireless devices in the house). Also the telephone landline. After trying several things myself, I called Verizon and scheduled a visit by a technician, who arrived around noon today. Pointing to a wire hanging in mid-air, he asked "Any reason that was cut?" I wasn't aware that it had been cut, and indeed I wasn't sure that it had been connected any time in recent years, but he strung a new wire from the telephone pole, over our garage, over our back yard, to the back of the house, and we seem to have a net connection again. So that's apparently fixed. In the meantime, I've been trying to get some work done by using my phone as a wireless hotspot, which works as long as I don't need a lot of bandwidth (e.g. a videoconference).
In response to rioting and looting in Manhattan, a curfew was imposed on all of New York City last night, starting at 11 PM. Tonight, and for the rest of the week, the curfew is to start at 8 PM (which means we need to give the dogs their "bedtime" walk before then).
So, about the rioting and looting... we don't know who's starting the violence, attacking police cars and police stations, breaking into department stores and stealing stuff. Some of the looting is probably people who would be stealing stuff anyway, and a big protest march provides an opportunity to do so more efficiently. Some of both the violence and the looting is probably agents provocateurs trying to make the BLM protestors look bad. Some of it is probably people who have been beaten up and terrorized by cops all their lives, and relish the opportunity to take revenge. And some of it is probably people who just like violence and breaking things.
A few years ago there was a lot of talk about how #NotAllMen abuse or (knowingly) oppress women. Which is true; indeed, I'd guess the overwhelming majority of men don't abuse or (knowingly) oppress women. But enough do that #YesAllWomen have to be afraid of them, and have to treat each man they meet as a potential abuser or killer.
Likewise, #NotAllCops use excessive force, and #NotAllCops treat a civilian's dark skin as an imminent threat that justifies the use of force. Indeed, I'd guess the overwhelming majority of police officers are pretty good about this. But enough do use excessive force, particularly against people of color, that #YesAllBlacks (including college professors, doctors, members of Congress, small children, etc.) have to be afraid of them, and have to treat each police officer they meet as a potential abuser or killer -- certainly not the protector they're supposed to be.
For that matter, #NotAllProtesters resort to violence or looting; from everything I've heard, the vast majority of people at these protests have been peaceful and well-behaved. But enough of them are resorting to violence and looting that #YesAllCops have to treat them all as potential threats.
The difference is that when women try to decide how to deal with a possibly-deadly man, or blacks try to decide how to deal with a possibly-deadly police officer, they're mostly acting on their own behalf, to protect their own lives, and the simplest and most effective strategy is often avoidance. What the man or the police officer "deserves" is far less important than whether you get out alive. Physically attacking the man or the police officer is a Really Bad Idea, getting you either killed or locked up.
On the other hand, when the police try to decide how to deal with a crowd of protesters of whom 1% may be dangerous, they represent the State; they're supposed to act on the basis of individual guilt or innocence, making those decisions in sorta the same way a court would but a thousand times faster. Avoiding the protesters, or just avoiding the violent ones, isn't an option (although de-escalation is). Physically attacking them, on the other hand, is a viable option, particularly since (in the U.S.) almost every police officer is carrying a lethal weapon, and they know that if there's even a shred of justification for their use of force, they won't get locked up for it. The only down side of attacking protesters is that some innocent ones might get hurt or killed. And the down side of not attacking protesters is that you or your co-workers might get hurt or killed -- a less abstract, more visceral danger.
People are really bad at dealing with small probabilities, treating them as either zero or much larger than they are. In this case, the probability of any given protester being a threat to your life is very small, but if you overestimate it (easy under the influence of adrenaline), you can (entirely rationally) reach the decision to attack a protester who was actually not a threat. If the protester responds with anything other than immediate, total surrender (and possibly even then), you've confirmed your prior belief that the protester was dangerous and justified your action.
Then there's the Arsonist In Chief. Donald Trump, as I've written before, sees everything in the world as zero-sum (in case you needed proof that he's not a real businessman). The only way to end a conflict is with a clear winner and a clear loser -- and if you want to prevent the conflict happening again, it's not enough to beat the enemy, you have to crush, humiliate, and destroy the enemy. De-escalation is counterproductive, in that it doesn't produce a clear winner and loser. Escalation and confrontation are productive, in that they speed up the process of crushing, humiliating, and destroying the enemy. The more opposition he creates, the more glorious his triumph over it.
President Trump has announced his intention to use the U.S. military to put down protests if states and localities can't do it themselves fast enough, and crushingly enough, for his liking. It's an action of dubious legality, but President Trump loves actions of dubious legality: indeed, he prefers exercising powers it's not clear that he has, because they provide the opportunity to beat the people who say he doesn't have them, and because if he wins he's set a precedent and gained a power, and if not he hasn't lost anything. What are they going to do, impeach him again? We saw how that worked out. By contrast, exercising a power he indisputably has, without breaking any precedents or conventions or offending anybody, is boring and doesn't make the papers.
Donald Trump's approach to deal-making has always been to show overwhelming force before starting negotiations, so the other side is intimidated and can be bullied into accepting a humiliating, good-for-him, bad-for-them deal. Threatening to call out the U.S. military, or actually calling out the U.S. military as he did in Lafayette Park last night, isn't a "necessary evil" from his perspective; it's actively a good thing to do, in that it reminds everybody he's the big dog.
This has become a random assemblage of thoughts, not a coherent essay. Sorry. Time to go play some music.
In response to rioting and looting in Manhattan, a curfew was imposed on all of New York City last night, starting at 11 PM. Tonight, and for the rest of the week, the curfew is to start at 8 PM (which means we need to give the dogs their "bedtime" walk before then).
So, about the rioting and looting... we don't know who's starting the violence, attacking police cars and police stations, breaking into department stores and stealing stuff. Some of the looting is probably people who would be stealing stuff anyway, and a big protest march provides an opportunity to do so more efficiently. Some of both the violence and the looting is probably agents provocateurs trying to make the BLM protestors look bad. Some of it is probably people who have been beaten up and terrorized by cops all their lives, and relish the opportunity to take revenge. And some of it is probably people who just like violence and breaking things.
A few years ago there was a lot of talk about how #NotAllMen abuse or (knowingly) oppress women. Which is true; indeed, I'd guess the overwhelming majority of men don't abuse or (knowingly) oppress women. But enough do that #YesAllWomen have to be afraid of them, and have to treat each man they meet as a potential abuser or killer.
Likewise, #NotAllCops use excessive force, and #NotAllCops treat a civilian's dark skin as an imminent threat that justifies the use of force. Indeed, I'd guess the overwhelming majority of police officers are pretty good about this. But enough do use excessive force, particularly against people of color, that #YesAllBlacks (including college professors, doctors, members of Congress, small children, etc.) have to be afraid of them, and have to treat each police officer they meet as a potential abuser or killer -- certainly not the protector they're supposed to be.
For that matter, #NotAllProtesters resort to violence or looting; from everything I've heard, the vast majority of people at these protests have been peaceful and well-behaved. But enough of them are resorting to violence and looting that #YesAllCops have to treat them all as potential threats.
The difference is that when women try to decide how to deal with a possibly-deadly man, or blacks try to decide how to deal with a possibly-deadly police officer, they're mostly acting on their own behalf, to protect their own lives, and the simplest and most effective strategy is often avoidance. What the man or the police officer "deserves" is far less important than whether you get out alive. Physically attacking the man or the police officer is a Really Bad Idea, getting you either killed or locked up.
On the other hand, when the police try to decide how to deal with a crowd of protesters of whom 1% may be dangerous, they represent the State; they're supposed to act on the basis of individual guilt or innocence, making those decisions in sorta the same way a court would but a thousand times faster. Avoiding the protesters, or just avoiding the violent ones, isn't an option (although de-escalation is). Physically attacking them, on the other hand, is a viable option, particularly since (in the U.S.) almost every police officer is carrying a lethal weapon, and they know that if there's even a shred of justification for their use of force, they won't get locked up for it. The only down side of attacking protesters is that some innocent ones might get hurt or killed. And the down side of not attacking protesters is that you or your co-workers might get hurt or killed -- a less abstract, more visceral danger.
People are really bad at dealing with small probabilities, treating them as either zero or much larger than they are. In this case, the probability of any given protester being a threat to your life is very small, but if you overestimate it (easy under the influence of adrenaline), you can (entirely rationally) reach the decision to attack a protester who was actually not a threat. If the protester responds with anything other than immediate, total surrender (and possibly even then), you've confirmed your prior belief that the protester was dangerous and justified your action.
Then there's the Arsonist In Chief. Donald Trump, as I've written before, sees everything in the world as zero-sum (in case you needed proof that he's not a real businessman). The only way to end a conflict is with a clear winner and a clear loser -- and if you want to prevent the conflict happening again, it's not enough to beat the enemy, you have to crush, humiliate, and destroy the enemy. De-escalation is counterproductive, in that it doesn't produce a clear winner and loser. Escalation and confrontation are productive, in that they speed up the process of crushing, humiliating, and destroying the enemy. The more opposition he creates, the more glorious his triumph over it.
President Trump has announced his intention to use the U.S. military to put down protests if states and localities can't do it themselves fast enough, and crushingly enough, for his liking. It's an action of dubious legality, but President Trump loves actions of dubious legality: indeed, he prefers exercising powers it's not clear that he has, because they provide the opportunity to beat the people who say he doesn't have them, and because if he wins he's set a precedent and gained a power, and if not he hasn't lost anything. What are they going to do, impeach him again? We saw how that worked out. By contrast, exercising a power he indisputably has, without breaking any precedents or conventions or offending anybody, is boring and doesn't make the papers.
Donald Trump's approach to deal-making has always been to show overwhelming force before starting negotiations, so the other side is intimidated and can be bullied into accepting a humiliating, good-for-him, bad-for-them deal. Threatening to call out the U.S. military, or actually calling out the U.S. military as he did in Lafayette Park last night, isn't a "necessary evil" from his perspective; it's actively a good thing to do, in that it reminds everybody he's the big dog.
This has become a random assemblage of thoughts, not a coherent essay. Sorry. Time to go play some music.