bcdtttt

The and was not meant to be exclusive. It should maybe be read as or. It's not meant to imply all police forces were slave patrols. Plenty evolved to protect other capital interests.

Police forces have roots in protecting capital, for example warehouse guards or for another slave patrols.

They still exist for that purpose in the US.

They do not exist to protect people. They are a tool of the state and capital.

The years post slavery still were used to enforce Jim Crow laws, segregation, and violence against minorities. They still used dogs to attack peaceful protestors. SWAT teams are a continuation of an ethos of being warriors, willing to do violence at the behest of the government and capital at the expense of the people.

And did not mean to imply exclusively. Plenty of police departments don't have roots in slave patrols.

The establishment of the Charleston police department directly traces roots into slave patrols. The department was formed from city guard, who were used to round up spaces and put down slave revolts.

While some night watches were public safety distributed among community members, they were often there to protect the goods of merchants rather than protect the ordinary citizens of an area from petty crime. As merchants grew, and their goods became more valuable targets, the merchants would hire on guards, but saw the opportunity to turn the existing night watch systems in place to their favor, essentially insisting on distributing the cost of guarding their goods across the community.

I'm not saying the night watches didn't evolve into police departments, I'm saying the night watches were co-opted prior to them becoming uniformed departments.

And slave patrols led directly into being police departments in some parts of the US. I do not claim that's in the history of all depts, but across the south there are many cases of patrols becoming formalized into police departments.

According to the cops. The same cops who shoot people for having wallets and sticks. Same cops who beat Deaf people for not following verbal instructions. Same cops who shoot autistic folks.

Yeah, I don't think "armed" means "was an imminent threat to life" in the slightest. It's much more likely it's a cover your ass designation.

Cop didn't do everything right. A cop who does everything right leaves the force.

I'm probably your age, kids back in my day would kill or injure other kids for being gay or Black. I think a lot of bullying has actually gone down, but because of the internet one sociopathic kid can fuck over people at scale.

Do you know why ACAB? Is not because they are rude, it's not cause they mean. It's because they participate in a societal role that requires them to do bastardly things.

They have to enforce unjust laws and unjust outcomes, and statistically do so more heavily across minority populations.

The institution requires them to be bastards, ACAB is a statement about the institution of police and the people who elect to join that institution.

Yeah. Which is wild to me because Biden was center/center right. It's not like one has to hide it the past four years. And most online platforms will still be moderated for the next little while.

Now do "How American companies oppress workers and run lives". We got wage theft, abuse, sexual harassment, at will firings, wage slavery, and all sorts of fucked up healthcare forcing people to work here. Edit: to say nothing of our prison slave labor here.

Why would women and Black men not be good authors? If you have evidence that the books nominated were chosen on something other than merit, share that, otherwise you sound like an ass by insinuating that women and Black men can't write. Not everything has to be a big culture war battle, chill out.

I like how this author is ambivalent towards the technology. "They both are fine, whatever" feels like the right take and I wish I saw it more in computing. Programming languages? IDEs? Repo structure? Service architecture? It's always traders, it's rarely clearly a one winner. Pick one that works and say meh.

Comparing it to Jonestown is ludicrous. Most of America didn't pack up and follow them out.

A more similar comparison would be the flight from MySpace or Digg. One day those places just weren't it, and everyone was talking about how much better the new place is. Some folks stayed behind, most of us moved, and some folks used it as a chance to get off the ride.

There's nothing conspiratorial here, everyone can see musk is a divisive figure. And I think everyone can see Twitter has changed. People look at blue sky and see something of the old Twitter and go, "I like it here, I should tell the people I know it's nice here."

But like Digg and MySpace, some people will stay behind, many will move, and some will use it to exit the game entirely.

You've been duped. Your information environment sounds very narrow, and you may be over valuing information from people who are politically similar (I believe some people call this an "echo chamber", but I'm not fond of that term.)

Strongly recommend you take steps to interrogate your inputs more critically. Or at least change the way you present, because you come across as quite dogmatic and zealous, like a flat earther.

Damn, got me with the "understanding and being critical of the media you watch is how they get you".

Are you ok over there? It sounds like you might need some help...

Trusting Alex Jones is a bold strategy. And not one for anyone who has any media literacy, but you do you!

You seem to think that I care about the audience. It's funny because it's a puppeteer piloting the shambling corpse of Jones's products around to mock him. A constant reminder of his failure he'll see every day.

Oh no, far to the contrary, this is funny as hell. The fact that Alex Jones isn't there makes it even funnier.

And they got all of the stuff and the brands. The chemical brands, the infowars brands, all of it.

I don't think that follows are all, actually. I might give something away and say, "support my patreon" or "buy me a beer" or "contribute back" or "pay for support".

You might expect that any arbitrary person might not compensate you, but still expect compensation.

Giving away your work doesn't mean you don't value your labor.

It's anarchism, my friend. Not the purge style anarchism, but the academic Kropotkin "Conquest of Bread" style of anarchism.

And it's existed many times in human history, it just is fairly antagonistic with capitalism, so anarchism is a lot less popular these days.

But it absolutely exists elsewhere in society!

This is laughable. Like, yes, free software is better and open source is a capitalist spin.

But these problems still impact free software. AWS can still exploit the labor of free software engineers and profit while not giving those devs any support.

Pretty sure they don't delete your account, right? Just change the name to some gibberish and overwrite your password hash, so no one can find the account by name.

I'm a game dev, and it's useful for me to have stats about how frequently abilities are used, what items players use, etc. to tune game systems. I've often thought it would be really easy to collect telemetry-- send a json blob with some info about actions players take in game -- but I want to make this both transparent and useful to players too.

I know that telemetry should be opt in, but no players will ever turn it on. And that leads to a conundrum- do I incentivize turning it on? Make it opt out? Gate some features (like heat maps on a play session or skill visualizations) behind it?

Would it be useful to have the ability to see exactly what was sent? Like, I could show a telemetry json or yaml blob in the options screen to show what events I collect. Would it be useful to have fine grained telemetry controls, like, the ability to toggle any arbitrary telemetry event from being fired?

It's a tough spot to be in, as a dev, to want insight into how people interact with your system, while also wanting to give people a chance to decline.

I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion. Just because a life has a step early in the process of forming that includes an egg and a sperm does not mean that it is a living thing at that point. You are affirming the consequent here, which is a logical fallacy.