Police brutality or S. Green bias?

[Fran11]

This happened in my country (Argentina). I want to get opinions from people who are not from here because they'll be less biased. And to make a meta point about Green excesses.

According to S. Green folks this is police brutality and repression.

Looking at the video all I see is people insulting police and trying to break a police cord that was just standing with shields protecting the legislative building. What should the police have done? Let them break in?

What do you guys think?

Do Green people tend to have these unrealistic and childish interpretations about the use of force all over the world?

They are always naively against the use of police force in order to prevent Red barbarism.

Sometimes it seems they don't even understand that goverment is not possible without the monopoly of force.

I think many seemingly Green people are really at the Comformist Stage, although superficially they may seem more advanced. Because they just absorbe some advanced ideas from culture but their understanding is very simplistic and they get dogmatic.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fran11

[Preety_India]

Stage Green isn't stupid. A true stage green is against injustice. 

Cherry picking some weird ones who go after everyone is the same as cherry picking some obnoxious illogical feminist and then using it to smear all feminists and feminism 

Demonization of Stage Green is stupid because they are about progressive. 

If you are talking about people like Antifa who just need an excuse for violence, then these are not representations of Stage Green. Just because someone uses a progressive term to define themselves, they don't automatically represent that. This is like if a rapist said that he stands for women's rights. 

The values of a structure do not change whatsoever. The people who represent those values can either do so in the right way or the wrong way. And when they do it the wrong way, they are failed at representing that structure and should be exempt from such reference. 

Therefore I wouldn't call such people Stage Green and malign a progressive movement. 

The right however does this all the time to justify their mud slinging. They intentionally cherry pick and choose extreme examples to push their own corrupt agendas 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Fran11 said:

Do Green people tend to have these unrealistic and childish interpretations about the use of force all over the world?

They are always naively against the use of police force. Sometimes it seems they don't even understand that goverment is not possible without the monopoly of force.

This is a mischaracterization of green. This is instead excess of libertarianism. Green generally supports the use of force when it's justified. That's why riots exist.

[Forestluv]

8 hours ago, Fran11 said:

Looking at the video all I see is people insulting police and trying to break a police cord that was just standing with shields protecting a building. 

The police are protecting a random building? And people spontaneously arose to insult and break a police cord because they had nothing better to do? Some context seems to be missing here. . . 

[Fran11]

 

3 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Stage Green isn't stupid. A true stage green is against injustice. 

Cherry picking some weird ones who go after everyone is the same as cherry picking some obnoxious illogical feminist and then using it to smear all feminists and feminism 

Demonization of Stage Green is stupid because they are about progressive. 

If you are talking about people like Antifa who just need an excuse for violence, then these are not representations of Stage Green. Just because someone uses a progressive term to define themselves, they don't automatically represent that. This is like if a rapist said that he stands for women's rights. 

The values of a structure do not change whatsoever. The people who represent those values can either do so in the right way or the wrong way. And when they do it the wrong way, they are failed at representing that structure and should be exempt from such reference. 

Therefore I wouldn't call such people Stage Green and malign a progressive movement. 

The right however does this all the time to justify their mud slinging. They intentionally cherry pick and choose extreme examples to push their own corrupt agendas 

I am not demonizing green. I agree with Green values in general.

You know what else is stupid? Denying all excessive examples as "cherry picks" so Green can look like saints above everyone else.

S. Green excesses don't exist according to you? Anyone who points out at this is is a right-wing cherry picking?

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fran11

[Fran11]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Green generally supports the use of force when it's justified. That's why riots exist.

I was talking specifically about goverment force, not riots.

40 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

The police are protecting a random building? And people spontaneously arose to insult and break a police cord because they had nothing better to do? Some context seems to be missing here. . . 

It was a otherwise peaceful protest. Police always protects nearby public buildings against destruction because it has happened many times here. 

https://images.app.goo.gl/gatYK6RJsXhtTbcPA

The goverment can't afford people destroying the city for fun in every protest, its a poor country.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fran11

[Hatfort]

To your title question, both.

Greens sometimes may have a naive take that police are not necessary. But police brutality exists, excessive use of force exists, and injustice exists and police do not always defend it, they do what they are told. They are more likely to defend a bank than to defend a homeless person.

Greens protests and manifest against social injustice that exists. Who do you think is more likely to be beaten up? Mistrust in police by greens is not totally unfounded, don't be naive yourself.

[Fran11]

5 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

To your title question, both.

Greens sometimes may have a naive take that police are not necessary. But police brutality exists, excessive use of force exists, and injustice exists and police do not always defend it, they do what they are told. They are more likely to defend a bank than to defend a homeless person.

Greens protests and manifest against social injustice that exists. Who do you think is more likely to be beaten up? Mistrust in police by greens is not totally unfounded, don't be naive yourself.

I'm not swinging the pendule to the other side, please tell me where does it seem to you that I'm implying that in my original post.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fran11

[Preety_India]

 

9 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

 

I am not demonizing green. I agree with Green values in general.

You know what else is stupid? Denying all excessive examples so Green can look like saints.

S. Green excesses don't exist according to you? Anyone who points out at this is is a right-wing cherry picking?

You missed my point entirely. They are not the characterization of Green. They are a mischaracterization of Green. 

How come people who don't follow Green values be considered green in the first place? 

And even if some were excessive examples, they are too small to count. They in no means represent a larger group which is relatively peaceful and focused on progressivism. 

You can't use a broad brush and say all Green are this way. Even Green people would not agree with someone like Antifa. 

Progressivism is not a cult.. It's a movement. Sadly a lot of minor groups can hijack it for their own agenda. 

But as history as shown, progressivism wins and such groups pass into the shadows. 

 

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Police always protects nearby public buildings against destruction because it has happened many times here.

The goverment can't afford people destroying the city for fun in every protest, its a poor country.

You first say it was people insulting police that were just protecting a building. Now you say that they are protestors looking to destroy a building for fun?

This seems like an odd characterization. People don’t protest for no reason and try to destroy buildings in their community “for fun”.

The motivation driving the protests is key in determining an SD stage. 

[Fran11]

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You first say it was people insulting police that were just protecting a building. Now you say that they are protestors looking to destroy a building for fun?

Like I said, has already happened, I even posted a picture.

But don't take my word, reaserch about the country if you don't believe it.

Protests are mostly peaceful, but there are always little groups who do this. Stage Red I guess.

Green doesn't like it when Blue hits Red, they think they must be allowed to be as barbarian as they like 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fran11

[Hatfort]

4 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

I'm not swinging the pendule to the other side, please tell me where does it seem to you that I'm implying that in my original post.

In the title, which you make the matter seem binary black or white, and in the sentences you marked with bold letters.

[Fran11]

1 minute ago, Hatfort said:

In the title, which you make the matter seem binary black or white, and in the sentences you marked with bold letters.

Becauwe Im talking about a particular example.

Not the use of force in general, which is many times excessive.

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Green doesn't like it when Blue hits Red, they think they must be allowed to be as barbarian as they like 

 The underlying value driving the protests is key to determine SD stage. If a group is protesting an abortion clinic, it’s not green.

Are you saying that this group is protesting for their right to destroy a random building for fun? Is that really their cause? It seems like you are omitting some key information and promoting a particular narrative. You mentioned you want a non-biased opinion by people outside of Argentina. To get a non-biased opinion, you need to give us all the information - not cherry picked information. 

[Fran11]

10 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

 

You missed my point entirely. They are not the characterization of Green. They are a mischaracterization of Green. 

 

No you missed the point and keep saying that everything you don't like cant be Green because Green is good.

Green does have excesses, thay's why Yellow exists.

 

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Green does have excesses, thay's why Yellow exists.

At every stage there is an unhealthy part. At S Green it's fairly minimized. 

Why not focus on the larger good? 

 

[Fran11]

Just now, Forestluv said:

What is driving the protests is key to determine SD stage. If a group is protesting an abortion clinic, it’s not green.

Are you saying that this group is protesting for their right to destroy a random building for fun? Is that really their cause? It seems like you are omitting some key information. 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Like I said above, protests are mostly peaceful and justified. But there are little groups who go overboard and cause destruction. Should this be allowed? Is it right wing to stop it?

 

[Fran11]

6 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

At every stage there is an unhealthy part. At S Green it's fairly minimized. 

Why not focus on the larger good? 

 

I do, you are drawing that conclussion from one single post I'm making about their excesses.

I said above I agree with Green values in genral. I'm even trying to become a vegan believe it or not.

But specifically their denial about the proper use of force and the need for taking care of public expenditure (take into account its a poor country and we are always in debt or printing money, causes more poverty in long run) are damaging.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fran11

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, Fran11 said:

Becauwe Im talking about a particular example.

Not the use of force in general, which is many times excessive.

Your particular example and the way you set the debate afterwards is totally one-directional. You didn't say anything about excessive use of force, but you described greens very negatively instead and not only on the example.

9 hours ago, Fran11 said:

Do Green people tend to have these unrealistic and childish interpretations about the use of force all over the world?

They are always naively against the use of police force. Sometimes it seems they don't even understand that goverment is not possible without the monopoly of force.

I think many seemingly Green people are really at the Comformist Stage, although superficially they may seem more advanced. Because they just absorbe some advanced ideas from culture but their understanding is very simplistic and they get dogmatic.

Come on, this is not to speak about a particular case.

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Like I said above, protests are mostly peaceful and justified. But there are little groups who go overboard and cause destruction. Should this be allowed? Is it right wing to stop it?

 

You weren’t clear enough. I’m not asking if the protests were peaceful. I’m asking why were they protesting? What was the underlying value of the protests? If they were protesting an abortion clinic, it’s Blue - not Green.  And what building was it? If a group is trying to destroy a mosque, it’s not green.

By only giving selected information, it keeps things within a certain narrative. If you want informed views, you need to give information to us.