I literally overcame self esteem issues by making ironically over-arrogant claims because even if you’re joking about something a lot you start to believe it and that can totally work in a good way if you let it
DARREN WILSON WAS FIRED FROM HIS FIRST POLICE JOB FOR BEING INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING OF A BLACK WOMAN.
He has a record of killing us an they hired him back and put him in a community that’s mainly black?!?!?! I CANNOT. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2732986/Darren-Wilson-s-policing-job-Missouri-police-department-shut-entire-force-replaced-amid-racism-corruption-allegations.html
What happened in Ferguson is a tragedy, and the behavior of the Ferguson P.D. since the shooting has been shameful.
But it doesn’t help anyone when you spread lies. The officer who fired the shots in that case was David Hauck, not Darren Wilson. And none of the shots hit the woman (or even his actual target, which was the tires of the vehicle she was driving). Hauck resigned after the shooting.
It was also Hauck’s second time in hot water in his brief three-year career. He had previously been involved in a federal civil rights lawsuit after throwing a black woman off her porch after she told him that she could not move a van that was parked in front of her house because it doesn’t run. She testified that he also struck her and restrained her, and kicked her 15 year-old daughter. And that wasn’t enough to get Hauck fired from the Jennings Police Department at the time, even after the city paid an undisclosed sum to settle the lawsuit.
Yes, Wilson was fired (as was every other officer of the Jennings Police Department) when the City Council voted, by a 6-1 vote, to disband the department entirely because tensions between the police and the community were so high (not to mention the embezzlement, with a lieutenant accepting federal funds for sobriety checks that were never performed). And it speaks volumes that Wilson learned how to be a cop in such a corrupt and violent department.
But let’s not spread lies and make Michael Brown supporters look bad, please. OP has since edited their post but this version is still being spread around, and it’s not helpful in the slightest.
"Always believe people about abuse" sounds like a good rule but it isn’t.
It is really, really important to remember that abusers often accuse their victims of abuse.
*blows kiss down to the ground (for the skeletons)*
Protests in the St. Louis suburb have continued since Saturday (August 9th). Here’s what we know about the events of the past few days.
And in the nature of keeping everyone in the loop, please reblog this link if you’re going to spread word about it. It’s just a list, impartial, a great way to know everything from start to current events.
Level 1: If only someone would defeat the bad guys, we’d all be living in peace and plenty!
Level 2: Actually, it’s more complicated than that. There are coordination failures and resource constraints. It’s possible for there to be suffering without any one person being a villain. Fighting the people you think are “bad” is just wasteful and pointless. Instead, everybody should collaborate in good faith to make incremental progress on the world’s hard problems.
Level 3: Yeah, but actually things are even worse than you’d expect if the only problems were coordination failures and resource constraints. Some people really do hurt others on purpose. Malevolence exists. Evil exists. And yeah, maybe the best thing you can do for the world is defeat the bad guys, because they’re the bottleneck preventing other kinds of productive activity.
Level 4: It’s probably wisest to dissolve the idea of “evil”, and just think in terms of actions and consequences. And, almost always, the most effective thing isn’t to engage in conflict, but to route around harmful things, or make them obsolete, or transform them into harmless things.
I oscillate a lot between levels 3 and 4. Most people who think they’re sophisticated about politics are at level 2, which I find boring and annoyingly naive.
I tend to oscillate between 2 and 3, I think.
I think on an institutional level the issues are mostly resource constraints and coordination problems and tradeoffs and legitimate confusion on empirical issues, but on an interpersonal level a lot more of the issues are “you legitimately don’t care about people like me and are perfectly happy to hurt us.” At least that’s the way the world looks to me. (Special case: the developing world, in which “people in the developed world don’t care about people in the developing world and are perfectly happy to hurt them” actually does explain a lot.)