Are you in the States?

Nope~

Mm, so there might be a disconnect in describing our justice system.

Hmm? Wait, what did you get from my ramblings? o.O

I'm of the mind of **Innocent until proven Guilty**

I was just trying entertain the opposite and just ramble about how that'd look when extralopated further beyond the "it's just 1 dude vs 10 actual criminals"

Well, Innocent until proven Guilty is one thing in our legal system, in a way.

Our legal system isn't designed to prove 'innocence' though, as the closest thing we get in a court hearing is 'Not Guilty'.

Another feature we have is that we have something of a funnel for the justice system leading to a verdict at the end.

Three are three tiers of criteria we require at different points

~~Reasonable Suspicion~~ Probable Cause > Preponderance of Evidence > Beyond a reasonable doubt

~~'Reasonable suspicion'~~ Probable Cause is the point at which a police officer is permitted to detain and search.

And you'll have to pardon me, the term is Probable Cause.

So, at the point that probable cause is considered, a person may be detained. Witnessing of a traffic violation equates to probable cause for the citation. The standard's a little lower for those sorts of petty msidemeanors.

I suppose if you're taking examples from the media, it's possible to assume matters operate on a 'shoot first, ask questions later' premise, but that's simply not the case.

I guess I'd ask, @Ashers , what exactly was the question you had? It may have gotten lost in the noise a bit... People don't just skip to 'Guilty' because they're apprehended.

err, I misread that, maybe.

heh. People don't usually say ``"It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape"``. I parsed it weird.

If you look at Tim's video there was a few that would condemn an innocent because if they released them then ten rapist would be free as well. So my tangent was me just trying to think of what that kind of justice system would look like if one was built upon such a stance.

And my question about cops was just me framing it within that justice system

@Ashers This mindset is all around you, though. Consider people who would willingly condemn an entire religion based on the actions of some, or condemn an entire race based on criminal statistics. People who condemn the rich based on inequality. The Salem Witch Trials are a good example of it. It's far more visible if you know what you're looking for, and it's invariably authoritarian.

Everyone needs to go check the curriculum, textbooks and course offerings of their local schools now.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/30/professor-worked-common-core-tests-math-needs-downplay-objects-truth-knowledge/

Highlights:
"Gutierrez is an education professor who also teaches in Urbana-Champaign’s “Latino studies” program, of course. Her CV says she helped write federally funded Common Core math tests and has been on a host of taxpayer-funded committees, including several of the National Science Foundation"

"She’s helped decide which education professors to grant tenure at more than a dozen public universities, and been given visiting lecture position at Vanderbilt University, which is reputed to have one of the most pre-eminent teaching degree programs."

"In it, she details how “Alt-Right” institutions such as Fox News and Campus Reform publicized and simplified some of her previous “scholarship” that made, she says, “two key points: (a) mathematics operates as whiteness when we do not acknowledge the contributions of all cultures, and (b) mathematics operates as whiteness when it is used as a standard by which we judge others.” "

"Gutierrez goes on to positively cite instances going back to the 1960s of taxpayer-paid teachers in public institutions using their public positions to deliberately and deceptively disregard the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives and civic institutions. She presents as examples of “revolution” Mexican-American studies teachers continuing to teach these Marxist, anti-American classes in public schools after state legislators banned the course."

**"That’s not even all. Gutierrez then goes on to say that mathematics has already turned in the direction of being willing to subordinate the field to political concerns.

>Many of the mathematicians I know did not shy away from the ‘politics’ [sic] or ask me not to use words like White supremacy when naming the relationship between mathematics and power. I saw a different relationship between mathematicians and mathematics education researchers than what happened over a decade ago to Jo Boaler (Boaler, 2012), whose main opposition came from mathematicians.
"**

"Rochelle Gutierrez and her “allies” get that education is not just political, but existential. The Right needs to get this too. And fast."

@Dusty Morgan The point about banning the course causing it to gain traction is worth a particular read. It's how *not* to go about removing social justice from the curriculum.

Mathematicians are political because they asked me to not call mathematics, a whole field of STEM, white supremacist....
>An actual professor

fucking what

science and medicine is white supremacy.

Decolonize science and math

I've considered use of the Alt-Right epithet to be intentional and calculated, but I think I may have found another explanation as to why it's used

I think it's less emphasis on what Alt-right means, and more emphasis that Alt-Right is the Alternative to what they, themselves believe.

I think it might be some massive conflation of terms by people who really don't care to know, because they're 'Other'.

'they're' being the people they label as Alt-right.

So, since the Alt-Right by their definition is the Alternative to their viewpoint, and the actual Alt-Right are ethnic nationalists, Their defined Alternative are all Nazis.

Actually, it's far simpler. It was becoming a popular term for the anti-establishment right-leaning younger generation. A number of people who we probably wouldn't consider alt-right (like Milo Yiannopolis) openly embraced the term. They didn't want to be associated with the right wing of the 80s (which is the core of the Republican party and what people think of when they say the "right" in the US) but they didn't see themselves as being on the left. While in their little bubble they got to define what it meant among themselves and that worked for them (I doubt Milo considered the ethnic nationalists to be a core group of the alt-right when he was using the term and likely only had small mentions of them at his peak)

After Charlottesville, it became easy to destroy the whole movement by labeling everyone who used the term as a member of the Neo-Nazi's or KKK as they were the most vocal. So they did and everyone joined in. The mainstream right doesn't want to get into that fight. The Milo Alt-right fled the term as they wanted nothing to do with the Nazi's and KKK'ers and saw what was happening and started looking for other terms (which seem to have never caught on). The left wasn't going to let a challenge to Social Justice go unattacked. Plus, the left controls basically all the information organs so they didn't get any meaningful resistance.

In communist-speak it's the capitalist class destroying the organization of the people by tying it to a vocal extreme. A tried and true tactic of both radicals and non-radicals alike.

I should say I was never a part of any of these movements and only heard about this stuff secondhand after Charlottesville. But this seems to be the most favorable reading to the Milo Yiannopolises of the world.

Alright I got a debate question for yall

One of my friends lives in Utah and he recently messaged a political cause he doesnt agree with

Sent them two different messages as you can see here
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/225360563121684480/485520462361657383/Screenshot_20180901-124436_Messenger.jpg

he insists that they're both effective at different things

Is one message more persuasive to you than the other? Why or why not?

If your trying to be persuasive, you want to seem like your on their side. You don't disagree with them as people, you disagree with how they go around doing it.