- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
Cops shouldn't do warning shots. Either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. Sure, there are protestors that I'd be more sad about them shooting, but it's not like I expect them to be more restrained against people protesting in favor of something good.
I believe this is American gun dogma. Official policy in Turkey is to fire warning shots, and Turkish police kill far fewer people than American ones. I’d rather take my chances with the Turks.
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 09:29
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 00:19
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
Either don't shoot at all or shoot to wound. And don't shoot at all. Also disband the police.
I believe this is also part of the guidance Turkish police are expected to follow — shooting in the legs is advised over shooting the torso or head. Hollywood and web forums seem to have planted this meme that shooting should always be to kill. The famously humane Turkish police is kinder than Americans, lmao.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 09:52
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
After a cursory search in the case of Finland, it seems our cops themselves are reluctant to officially state any policy beyond "priority is on non-violent de-escalation of the situation, use of firearms is always the last means of resort and should adhere to a proportionality principle, and all police use of force is always investigated. The police are trained to consider any shooting even as potentially fatal". Because we have so few cop shootings, even anecdotal data is sparse, but in an exceptional spree stabbing incident back in 2017, when police arrived on the scene they shot the man in the thigh and tasered him. Some police shootings here have involved guns on the suspect's side too, and presumably the cops would assess the threat level higher.
It’s along similar lines in Turkey, which is set to join the European Union any day now.
quote:Within the scope of subparagraph (c) of the seventh paragraph, the police calls the person to "stop" before using a gun. If the person does not comply with this call and continues to flee, a gun may be fired first as a warning. However, if it is not possible to capture the person because he insists on escaping, a gun can be fired in sufficient measure to ensure the capture of the person.
A cursory search on Google in Turkey shows countless cases of people deemed violent suspects by the (broadly murderous, practically genocidal) Turkish police being disabled with a shot to the foot, which comports with my reading of this policy that shoot-to-kill is supposed to be a last resort. Although some years ago there were columnists arguing the police should have a license to kill “as they do in America.” Are Turkish cops just great shots? They seem maybe only a hair smarter or skilled than American ones.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2021 01:00
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
I think that a lot of the practicality arguments basically come from guys who are thinking of 25m pistol ranges rather than more realistic five meter engagements. It's very possible to aim for a leg. Americans (whether police or not) are just told to kill, rather than risk physical or legal liability.
America’s just really big and spread out, Europeans wouldn’t know with their tiny countries where everyone has to rub shoulders all the time, so this makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2021 14:39
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
what
I visited the site a dozen times and I never saw anything about trans people.
I’ve never heard of the website and in my first search result for the first set of keywords I could think of (“trans woke”) I found this. I don’t think you were looking hard.
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-trade-went-woke/
quote: How UK trade went woke
Trade agreements are no longer simply about imports and exports.
BRITAIN-UN-CLIMATE-COP26
The woke trade agenda is as much about PR and economic protections as it is about values.
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
LONDON — Welcome to the new era of woke trade.
New U.K. deals will reduce tariffs, ease the flow of data across borders and … improve gender rights.
Sexism is just one of the social issues cropping up in global trade agreements — alongside environmental protections, human, labor and animal rights, and safeguards for indigenous communities.
While some argue the widening out of trade policy to reflect voters' values more broadly is a political necessity, others worry this over-complicates negotiations.
As Britain formulates an independent trade policy outside the European Union for the first time in more than 40 years, such dilemmas are particularly politically sticky. Boris Johnson's government, many of whom are instinctively allergic to accusations of "virtue signaling," must also sell global trade to voters.
"'Woke' trade policy is here to stay, and that's a good thing," said John Ballingall, a British economist working at consultancy Sense Partners in New Zealand. He added societal issues are now “mainstream government objectives,” with trade deals reflecting that.
“Trade policy has adjusted to reflect changes in societal preferences,” he said. “And that's no bad thing.”
Others are less convinced. Daniel Hannan, a Conservative peer and senior government adviser on trade, said such important moral questions “should be treated as issues in their own right, not shoe-horned into trade deals.”
Speaking at a conference in central London, he said arguing for environmental provisions or gender rights in trade agreements was “a kind of massive virtue signal,” adding: “That isn't what a trade deal is or does. A trade deal is about identifying specific obstacles and removing them.”
Hannan won unexpected support from Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat former business secretary who appeared at the same event. He said making trade deals “with knobs on” was “completely inappropriate” and “devalues” the agreements, as well as the issues themselves. “The whole idea that gender, human rights and labor standards should be part of trade agreements is virtue signaling and it's deeply unhelpful and actually is blocking sensible trade agreements,” he added.
Even those who support a moralistic approach to trade admit such societal issues make negotiations more difficult, although they argue this is a trade-off worth making.
"Anyone who argues we should go back to the old days of trade working in a silo is in cloud cuckoo land,” said Chris Southworth, secretary general of the U.K. branch of the International Chambers of Commerce. “Trade now impacts every single area of public policy. It’s just nonsense to think trade should exist in a room on its own.”
Woke PR
It’s not just Britain transforming trade policy from simply the exchange of goods and services. The EU and others have long been at it on the environment. New Zealand insists on clauses to protect Māori communities, while Canada and Chile and a number of East African nations have written women's rights into deals.
“The U.K. begins its quest for global trade deals at a time when the British people have come to expect high standards in food production, agriculture and animal welfare,” said Sophia Gaston, director of the British Foreign Policy Group think tank. “They are also increasingly attuned to issues around labor standards and the environmental footprint of imported goods. These aren't just 'woke concerns' — they are very much the mainstream.”
Aside from the moral imperatives, there are economic benefits to the woke agenda too. Advocates argue that empowering women, transforming the planet to become carbon-neutral and nurturing powerful indigenous economies will not only be beneficial from an equalities and environmental standpoint but will also fuel production and tap new markets and skills.
But some lofty moral ambitions come with economic costs — at least in the short term — including efforts to improve animal welfare, give workers a fair deal and protect the planet. That’s why writing those issues into trade deals can become useful, so that countries avoid undercutting each other with lower standard imports that are cheaper to produce.
Nic Lockhart, an expert in international trade at law firm Sidley Austin, said writing woke terms into deals is a recognition that upholding values can “come at a cost in the marketplace, and so by seeking agreements with trading partners you're seeking to level the playing field.”
It’s accepted within the U.K. government that failing to recognize values held dear by the public could sound the death knell for future deals. When the U.K. trade department was set up, ministers and officials looked to the failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations between the EU and U.S. as a lesson in how not to do trade, according to a former government official.
The TTIP talks collapsed amid public fears the agreement would benefit big businesses at the expense of the environment, workers and animals. That outcome was viewed as a massive trade failure, not to mention a waste of resources.
When Liz Truss took over the U.K. trade department in summer 2019, she vowed to avoid another TTIP disaster and began viewing deals like election campaigns — each had to earn its own mandate from the public.
That meant making arguments beyond dry GDP figures and import and export numbers, focusing on jobs and the softer benefits of what the much-heralded “Global Britain” brand could mean.
She also aimed to walk the line between flag-waving free-traders, whose approach the public might not swallow, and the environmentalists, NGOs and opposition parties, whose trade-skeptic arguments might also overshoot and misjudge the public mood.
It was a lesson New Zealand had to learn too. Ballingall said the government there had to rebuild “the social license for trade liberalization” in the wake of difficult [Trans-Pacific Partnership] negotiations. That meant speaking to Māori groups, trade unions and environmental campaigners — not just exporters — “all with the idea of trying to reflect their interests inside trade agreements.”
Woke trade barriers
But making a moral case for trade with Australia and New Zealand is a walk in the park compared to other plans Britain has for deals with the Gulf Nations, India and the U.S., among others.
Working to strike a trade deal that includes Saudi Arabia, for example — an oil-rich, human-rights nightmare of a nation where restrictions on women are rife — risks becoming a PR fireball for the British government.
Gaston, from the British Foreign Policy Group, said a moral approach to trade “becomes more challenging with strategic partners and non-democratic states.” She added: “Ultimately, the British people recognize that economic interests do sometimes need to be prioritized, but they will want to know the government has really tried to defend the values they care strongly about.”
Others make the argument that trade can become a platform for more woke nations to challenge others — although there is little suggestion of that happening with China.
“Our diplomacy alongside our economic diplomacy does work,” insisted one U.K. minister, arguing the U.K. can export its values as well as its goods. “We’re the people’s government, and the people are very clear that deforestation matters to them and women should have rights around the world.”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2022 17:54
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
This article doesn't contain the word 'trans', unless you felt 'transforming' and 'Transatlantic' are relevant. It does use the word woke, which is a poor choice, but other than that I'd say it's even-handed. Did you even read it?
I used Google, which doesn’t care if the keywords appear in the article. I did read the article, it’s horseshit promoting odious views written entirely in the language of those who speak for those views, presented as some both sides disingenuity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2022 23:20
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
E: wrong forum. I said “Socialists ftw,” instead I’ll just say this is a stain on our world and they should pretend to do better at least.
mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Dec 16, 2022
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2022 23:16
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
Oh yes? Can you post the actual nationality based crime rates if they disagree with the above so?
Conviction rates are about as reliable a comparative statistic as we're going to get, otherwise.
Why isn't the Danish state's deep-set systematic racism working against brown Indian people? Or Indonesians? Or Asian Vietnamese, or black South Africans or Nigerians?
Its wilfully dense to pretend theres no posible cultural element when theres a strong shared culture to 8 of the top 9 nationalities, and their rate of offending is sky high compared to other immigrant nationalities. Its clearly far more than race. Particularly when other literal darker skinned skinned immigrants from different regions have crime rates circa 1/20th of the top.
Being convicted of a crime is generally regarded as being found guilty of a crime, in the eyes of human civilisation, yes. "A magical realm of pure fantasy" is a funny way of describing 'reality'.
What is the shared cultural element?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2023 02:18
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
did Egypt beat Liechtenstein to universal suffrage
Switzerland too
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2023 19:23
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
counterpoint: make mmt a real thing
state should borrow until inflation becomes relevant, then just tax the poo poo out of everything till it's not, goto 1
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 23:04
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
Only after 2022 with full blown invasion of Ukraine, the slope of that graph would start getting steeper. I think at the moment it's close to that 2% guideline. But really the change should have happened after 2014 at the latest and should be way past that guideline, so maybe too little too late and now Ukrainians are paying for it...
It was extremely upsetting to Europeans to suggest this until fairly recently
NATO summit: Trump says Germany is ‘captive’ to Russia
www.aljazeera.com (2018-07-11) posted:
In heated exchange with NATO chief ahead of summit, Trump is fiercely critical of Germany for importing gas from Russia.
US President Donald Trump has told NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg that Germany is “captive” to Russia because it is importing energy from there.
In a heated exchange with the NATO chief ahead of a summit in Brussels on Wednesday, the US president was fiercely critical of German oil and gas imports from Russia.
Trump said it was “very inappropriate” for the US to be paying for European defence from Russia while Germany is supporting gas deals with Moscow.
“They pay billions of dollars to Russia and we have to defend them against Russia,” Trump told Stoltenberg at a breakfast meeting.
“Germany as far as I’m concerned is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” he said.
Stoltenberg conceded that there was disagreement between NATO allies over a natural gas pipeline deal between Germany and Russia.
Berlin has been supportive of building a second pipeline to transport Russian gas straight to Germany through the Baltic Sea, despite objections from other EU countries that the pipeline would increase the bloc’s dependence on Russian energy.
The US has previously warned it could impose sanctions if the project goes ahead.
Addressing reporters after his breakfast with Trump, Stoltenberg said it’s not up to NATO to make a decision on the future of the project.
“This is a national decision,” the secretary-general said. “It’s not for NATO to settle that issue.”
Commenting on the exchange with the US commander in chief, Stoltenberg said that Trump has a “very direct language” but that there was fundamental agreement on the need for “fairer burden sharing in the alliance”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended her country’s contribution to the alliance.
“Germany does a lot for NATO,” she said.
Merkel also denied Germany was under Russian control, saying Germany makes independent policies and decisions. The chancellor is due to meet President Trump later on Wednesday.
## NATO spending spat
Dozens of NATO leaders are set to meet in Brussels on for what is likely to be a stormy summit.
Although the 29-member military alliance’s annual meetings have traditionally been fairly by-the-book affairs, expectations are different this year – thanks, in large, to Trump.
The US president has been openly critical of many of NATO’s practices, often railing against Washington spending more money on defence than other member states.
Addressing reporters ahead of the summit, Stoltenberg said he expected “open and frank discussions about defence spending” and recommitment of allies to increase spending.
“I think he’s had frank discussions and far more open than he would like at this stage,” Al Jazeera’s diplomatic correspondent James Bays said, noting the public nature of Trump’s remarks over breakfast.
Bays added it was a “difficult time” for the secretary-general with the most powerful NATO member “raising doubts about the alliance as has never been done before”.
Reporting from Moscow, Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands said he expected Moscow to have a mixed response to Trump’s comments.
“They will be relishing this wrecking ball activity,” Challands said.
There would be “no love lost” for NATO, Challands said, which Moscow sees as an “imperial US project” to “persuade [Europe] that Russia is the enemy”.
On the flipside, Challands added, Russia would likely be “concerned that what Trump is doing is reinforcing the perception of Russia as the enemy of Europe”.
This stuff aged pretty well
As he arrives at NATO summit, President Trump hounds allies over 'delinquent' defense spending
www.usatoday.com posted:
BRUSSELS — President Donald Trump arrived Tuesday at the home of NATO headquarters with a seemingly singular preoccupation: allies who aren't sharing in the burden of providing for the collective defense.
His rallying cry: "2 percent." That's the amount NATO members are expected to spend on defense as a share of their economies. Only four of 29 allies meet that target.
The latest salvo came in two tweets from Air Force One, in which he misrepresented the arrangement by which allies contribute to their joint defense.
The squabbling over who pays for the protection afforded by the alliance has already set a combative tone for the two-day NATO summit in Brussels this week, as the allies discuss its response to Russia's growing military, political and cyber incursions into Europe.
"Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?" Trump tweeted.
A 2014 agreement did require members to increase defense spending, with a goal of contributing 2 percent of the nation's economic output by 2024. But more importantly, that spending is on their own defense forces — not payments to the United States.
But Trump is correct that only four NATO members — the United States, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Greece — currently meet the 2 percent expectation. A fifth country, Poland, fell to 1.99 percent his year, as faster-than-expected economic growth outpaced defense budgets.
Diplomats say Trump's singular focus on the 2 percent benchmark might be counterproductive.
"The more he harangues allies, and the more he makes this the defining issue, the more difficult it will be for some allies actually to increase spending," said Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO from 2009 to 2013. "Given that Trump’s popularity in Europe is at an historic low for a US president, acceding to his demands is becoming more difficult for many European leaders."
European Council President Donald Tusk suggested as much Tuesday.
“Dear America, appreciate your allies. After all, you don’t have that many," he said in Brussels ahead of Trump's visit.
"We do have a lot of allies, but we cannot be taken advantage of," Trump responded. "We're being taken advantage of by the European Union."
Trump has tied the issue of defense spending to his larger trade wars, saying the United States should not be subsidizing nations with which it runs a trade deficit.
"The European Union makes it impossible for our farmers and workers and companies to do business in Europe (U.S. has a $151 Billion trade deficit), and then they want us to happily defend them through NATO, and nicely pay for it," Trump tweeted. "Just doesn’t work!"
One particular target of Trump's displeasure has been German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"Germany pays 1 percent. One percent," Trump said at a campaign rally last week. "And I said, you know, Angela, I can't guarantee it, but we're protecting you, and it means a lot more to you than protecting us because I don't know how much protection we get by protecting you."
Germany's actual spending is 1.24 percent of its gross domestic product.
But experts say Trump's focus on the percentage of defense spending only captures one dimension of an ally's contribution. Germany's government, for example, approved an increase in troops to serve in Afghanistan, to 1,300. And other countries include military pensions in its totals, which is effectively spending on past defense.
Trump's excessive fixation on defense spending ignores those contributions, argues Jeffrey Rathke, the co-author of a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on NATO burden sharing. He also said the NATO figures don't take into account civilian spending that helps boost defense, like diplomatic efforts and training of local defense forces.
Trump's frequent complaints about defense spending also obscure the fact that European defense spending is going up — even by Trump's own measure.
Nineteen of the 29 members spend more on defense than they did in 2014, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said half are on pace to meet the target by 2024.
There are a lot of reasons for that: New threats from Russia following its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, an improving European economy, and U.S. pressure under both President Barack Obama and, more pointedly, Trump.
"Trump can claim some credit for the increase," said Daalder, Obama's NATO ambassador. "The allies are certainly willing to give it to him if he were to recommit fully to NATO and collective defense."
mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Apr 4, 2024
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 10:22
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 00:19
|
|
- mawarannahr
- May 21, 2019
-
|
It was upsetting for many Germans and German politicians. In contrast in many Eastern European countries it was almost a political consensus that Russia is a threat and defense needs have to be met even before 2014. Europeans aren't a homogenous blob, as can be seen from how dysfunctional EU can be.
At the time the article was written, the only Eastern European NATO country meeting the target was Estonia, it claims
quote:
But Trump is correct that only four NATO members — the United States, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Greece — currently meet the 2 percent expectation. A fifth country, Poland, fell to 1.99 percent his year, as faster-than-expected economic growth outpaced defense budgets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 10:36
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 09:29
