A journalist and advocate who rose from homelessness and addiction to serve as a spokesperson for Philadelphia’s most vulnerable was shot and killed at his home early Monday, police said.
Josh Kruger, 39, was shot seven times at about 1:30 a.m. and collapsed in the street after seeking help, police said. He was pronounced dead at a hospital a short time later. Police believe the door to his Point Breeze home was unlocked or the shooter knew how to get in, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. No arrests have been made and no weapons have been recovered, they said.
Authorities haven’t spoken publicly about the circumstances surrounding the killing.
Your point seems to be that people should not generalise an opinion on a large group of people. But you fail to ask the question of when passivism becomes guilty by failing to act. Germany was held accountable for the atrocities of the holocaust. They moved on. They educate in schools in an attempt to prevent this from reoccurring. What is happening in the US with republicans can only persist if people support them, and polling suggests there is support there.
That is indeed my exact point.
That is actually one of my main concerns with the direction lemmy is heading. At some point when the bias becomes extreme enough we need to start calling out those that are crossing the line. If it seems like I am not pointing enough at the extremes of the republican side, it is only because their voices are few and far-between on Lemmy. Typically when I find them, they are already buried in down-votes and comments. I usually a downvote to the pile, upvote a few other comments, and then move on.
In principle, I agree with this, but in practice it seems to be having questionable long-term results. The rise of the extreme right seems as prevalent there as it is in the US. Though some of that may just be overreporting because of the general interest in Germany when it comes to right-wing extremism.
I think this issue is a bit more complex than that. I think it has to do as much or more with people being forced to support the side they feel less negative towards even if they don’t really agree with that side. Here is an interesting if imperfect analogy I read relating to it:
Excerpt from https://lemmy.world/comment/3742406 from /u/Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
My point was not about authoritarian. It is about the lies that are being told to the masses to convince them that being turkeys for Christmas is actually good for them. The lies have gone from extreme into the ridiculous. I watched Trump tell a crowd that climate change is not true and that he can sort out the forest fires tomorrow. He wants to make use of the wasted overflow pipes in cities. Where do you start on that one? Trump has caused murders literally; people died in the insurrection. He is affirmed as being a rapist in judicial hearing. In the UK we call this out as being a nonce. There were republican candidates who said they would follow Trump if he was elected while in prison. Worse still, this is only a minor take on the whole story. Boebert committing sex acts in front of kids. The open gerrymandering in states across the US. The attacks on the judicial system and civil employees. The way they used public servant wages as blackmail instead of using democratic leeway.
How far down the rabbit hole do you have to go before thinking that there is something wrong here, and I have to use my position to prevent more of it?
Apologies, my intention wasn’t to imply you meant Authoritarianism is the main problem, but rather that I thought polarization was. Guess that is what I get for using part of someone else’s comment instead of writing my own.
I see your point. Trump is a lying, liar, who lies. The problem is America has mostly shifted from voting for someone to voting against someone. Trump vs Clinton was an unpopularity contest that America lost, and maybe the world too.
There are undeniably die hard trump supporters out there, but many people that voted for him in the last two elections, and who will likely vote for him again, aren’t really supporters of his, they are more against Biden and Democrats.
Between their hatred for the Democrats and the fact that “we got him this time” was turned into a meme four years ago, there are a good portion of Republicans that have started to treat anything negative about Trump as another attack to be dismissed. Even when they see a video of his own words, it is dismissed as taken out of context, a misquote, a deep fake, whatever works for them. However anything seemingly positive is laid at his feet.
The biggest problem at this point is attack ads and court cases just further convince the die hard supporters that he really is trying to “drain the swamp” and all the attacks are the response of the swamp. The individual issues that ridiculously pile up for a neutral observer are all just proof of his righteousness in their minds.
Have you seen a version of this article where anti-trump conservatives had to stop running ads against Trump because they were helping him or doing nothing? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/anti-trump-super-pac-says-attack-ads-are-backfiring/ar-AA1hsIwq
Trump is definitely a problem, but he’s also a symptom of the larger problem of polarization. In the past, moderates were able to keep things in balance, but right now being a moderate is nearly a crime to both wings. Republicans tend to call them “RINOs” and Democrats tend to call them “basically Republicans”.
I think even if we eliminate Trump, someone will quickly follow in his steps, and I am not convinced that it will necessarily be a Republican. Too many power-hungry people from across the spectrum have now seen that America is ripe for the taking by a certain kind of charismatic figure.
The only way to slow this down in my mind is to begin building a bridge between the two sides. As a start we need to first and foremost stop forcing centrists to choose a side. Then we need to find a few things we still agree on, before moving on to more challenging issues. If we cannot even find a few issues we agree with the other side, then we at least need to find some issues where the extremes agree with the moderates and build from there. If we cannot even do that then it probably about time to figure out whether we are going for French style political purges or a Roman style first princeps.
If we are throwing out the rule of law anyways them I am voting for the Governator! I am mostly kidding.
I lost you here. What position? Prevent more of what?
Also, sorry if this turned out a bit on the rambling side, I should have waited until morning to write this.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I don’t think polarisation is a bad thing. Everyone has a different perception of where the priorities should be, sometimes that is just pure greed, sometimes it is genuine need. The biggest issue in the US (and the UK) imo, is the voting system. FPTP system are too easy to corrupt. Voters recognise that a vote for an independent can lead to what you really don’t want into power. This encourages tribal voting instincts. In my own area, I know I am going to have to pinch my nose and vote Labour. I will do this knowing full well that the person I am voting for has shown to be nothing but a grifter for over 10 years.
A FPTP system only requires attention in the swing areas. The rest is largely ignored. A PR voting system has been gaining more and more popularity in the UK. A lot are recognising that FPTP has some very real dangers.
Truth and media accountability has become a conduit for celebrity voting. They even used the same model that was used on Trump with Johnson in the UK. We got lucky because we got the idiot who was much easier to spot. Trump also recognised that by throwing out crumbs, people would see him as doing something. Johnson actively did as little as possible. Neither of these would have been voted into power with the media backing they got. I am hoping that our next PM sorts the media out in some way. Leveson Inquiry 2.0 is another item to be looked into, imo.
We, in the UK, need a return to independent oversight. Johnson annexed what was previously independent bodies into government control. He then used them to justify government choices. Johnson was very close to gaining absolute power in the UK. Trump will do exactly this, if he ever gets in. Trump will mimic Erdogan, he will use his current predicament to justify doing even more extreme moves once in power. There is a fair to good chance you will not remove Trump and his family if they return.
Independent oversight seems to be a thing that is greatly missed in the US. There does not seem to be any trusted bodies where people can turn to for an honest opinion on truth. The problem seems to stem from the power of the ruling class of the time having the complete control of who gets which job. Having individual politicians plant the highest power in the legal system into place is always going to cause an imbalance. We have exactly the same problem with the house of Lords. I like the idea of cross party review bodies being used to adjudicate key positions of influence, but a lot of ultimate power positions like SCOTUS need a much wider oversight committee.
The biggest problem of all politics though has to be corruption. Politicians should not be able to earn money from secondary sources.
Not all republicans are bad. But the longer the good ones wait to take the bull by the horns, the harder it will be.
I definitely agree that FPTP is a weak voting system, though I think the US is a lot further away from it than the UK. There are a few places that have rank choice, but it doesn’t seem to be gaining much popularity nationally.
This is definitely a huge problem. There used to be some non-partisan bodies that could be trusted like the Congressional Budget Office, but the ones I am aware of have lost most or all relevance over the last 15-20 years. Independent oversight might be nice, but I suspect that there will be a constant battle of infiltration against those entities.
I agree that SCOTUS is a problem, though I am not sure oversight is the right answer. I think a constitutional amendment or two is in order regarding them; probably further limiting when or how they take court cases, and more importantly not allowing new precedents to be set when the court cannot even agree with itself. At the very least a 6-3 vote should be required for precedent but even better would be 9-0. If they cannot even agree amongst themselves whether something is constitutional at the time of a specific case, then setting new “constitutional” rules or rights anyways is foolishness. They could continue to take and decide cases by 5-4 majorities on an individual basis but those resolutions should be specific to those cases and make no declaration of being more.
In my mind, SCOTUS has always has been a problem. When I look at history, it seems to me, as often as not, SCOTUS has inserted itself into highly contentious issues and driven a legalistic wedge through the nation by picking sides in issues where there is no clear popular opinion.
Also, the thing that people see as SCOTUS’ prime responsibility, judicial review, is not actually mentioned in the constitution, it was co-opted by them shortly after our current constitution was signed. In the same case that they declared the constitution was not just a statement of ideals, but in fact a legal document, they also ignored that legal document and declared their right to unilaterally strike down the nation’s laws. Marbury v Madison In my mind, it is disgusting that the same body that functions as the interpreter of the constitution felt free to disregard it when it suited them, from its very beginning.
Besides its overwhelming impact on US history, the reason for the Marbury v Madison itself is an interesting insight into how contentious US politics has always been.
I could not agree with this more if I tried. It is absolutely disgusting to see how many US politicians become rich while in office.
Thank you for the clarification.
As a side note, I have always found the House of Lord’s to be an interesting if problematic institution.
I tried to read through the wiki about this, but I suspect that my own free press bias was getting in the way of what I was actually reading. I will need to sit down sometime and look more into when I have time to process it all.
Thanks, I read the wiki and watched a lecture from the Uni of Virginia. There is obviously a lot more history around the outcomes of the case, but it asked the question which always seemed blaringly obvious to me and the SCOTUS. How does a non elected body get such power? I will look into it more. I find the diversion between UK law and US law interesting. I have to own up to be an bit of a history geek.
It is a great question.
Same here. I occasionally dive into something random about UK law and am blown away.
If I had some better history teachers at a young age, I think I would have been also.
I found the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan a few years back and binged the entire thing twice, as well as his Revolutions podcast. Been having a hard time finding other things that engaged me as much. I do like most anything by Dan Carlin but there is a lot less depth to it.
Added it to my lists.
My current ones are: https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryforGRANITE/videos (one of the most interesting. For someone who talks about rocks, it is actually very insightful) https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryTime/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/HistoryHit/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/HistoryHit/videos