|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 16 2018 03:15 Danglars wrote:
The most real response to someone angry at post-factual bullshit is to point out that they just prefer their own bullshit, make it out to not smell so bad, and are relatively comfortable swimming around in it. It’s both a matter of perspective and a more modern restatement of two irreconciliable viewpoints. I also like the aspect of Trump that pokes a lot of holes in the bullshit ceiling, all while being very unlikable and offering no cohesive alternative.
Is climate change among the bullshit you are describing? I'm not really sure what you are referring to here.
|
Today, conservatives fail to remember yet again that the basket of deplorables speech literally made the point they're making that we need to reach out to conservative and moderate voters supporting Trump with legitimate grievances.
In the next few sentences after mentioning the "basket of deplorables" no less.
|
Yeah but it doesn't sound as bad when you take it in context
|
Canada11369 Posts
On March 16 2018 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 03:20 Falling wrote:On March 15 2018 17:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 17:48 Falling wrote:
Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it? I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. If you're prepared to engage with that in mind, I'll indulge you. Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos. And there's actually every reason to believe that the results will be catastrophically worse. If you pull down a creaky system, for everything that isn't working, there is still checks and balances that somewhat mitigate the power of corrupt people. If you pull down and replace it with a half-baked idea, there are no brakes stopping the worst of the corrupt people. We can see this in the Russian Revolution- the tyranny of the czars was one thing, but even they bothered to tour their prison system to see what it was like- nothing of the sort occurred. Even the Gestapo was trying determine the truth of whether or not a person was a spy- Stalinist Russia just needed a high quota of captured traitors- guiltiness was irrelevant. But how they got there was upsetting the entire apple cart without replacing it with anything that would preclude a madman like Stalin from gaining power and staying in power indefinitely while amassing even more. This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working. Good rules that were twisted are better off untwisted than a situation where we throw out all the rules and don't have a good set of new rules to replace. No rules is substantially worse that twisted rules because there is not even a chance of stopping the worst people. So then if we are to utterly replace the old rules with the new, we ought to know what the new is and whether they are any good. It's a shame you wrote all that without reading the later responses that addressed it.
The part where you said you didn't know what it would look like? Casting vision for the Hoover Dam? Thing is, they already knew dams worked, and yes engineering it on a larger scale would make all the difference on whether they could do it or not. But even then, if the Hoover Dam failed, you might take out a town or two... abolishing the police is a far more fundamental change to the entire country. So yes, I would like to see a proof of concept first. But hey, that's why you guys have states, isn't it? Oregon or another heavily liberal state can abolish their police force and the rest of the country can see what happens as an experimental model.
On March 16 2018 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I guess windmills must be tilted from time to time.
If that's in reference to me, it's a pretty radical idea advanced, but it's one that I've heard rumbling elsewhere. Therefore, if it's an idea that might be gaining traction in certain quarters, then I would like to know what abolitionists envision the solution to be.
|
On March 16 2018 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote:
Yeah but it doesn't sound as bad when you take it in context
It was a terrible way to frame the entire argument, which is why it is still a talking point. But it isn’t much better than the standard “urban elites” that make me believe the speaker has never been to city.
|
On March 16 2018 03:44 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 03:20 Falling wrote:On March 15 2018 17:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 17:48 Falling wrote:
Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it? I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. If you're prepared to engage with that in mind, I'll indulge you. Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos. And there's actually every reason to believe that the results will be catastrophically worse. If you pull down a creaky system, for everything that isn't working, there is still checks and balances that somewhat mitigate the power of corrupt people. If you pull down and replace it with a half-baked idea, there are no brakes stopping the worst of the corrupt people. We can see this in the Russian Revolution- the tyranny of the czars was one thing, but even they bothered to tour their prison system to see what it was like- nothing of the sort occurred. Even the Gestapo was trying determine the truth of whether or not a person was a spy- Stalinist Russia just needed a high quota of captured traitors- guiltiness was irrelevant. But how they got there was upsetting the entire apple cart without replacing it with anything that would preclude a madman like Stalin from gaining power and staying in power indefinitely while amassing even more. This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working. Good rules that were twisted are better off untwisted than a situation where we throw out all the rules and don't have a good set of new rules to replace. No rules is substantially worse that twisted rules because there is not even a chance of stopping the worst people. So then if we are to utterly replace the old rules with the new, we ought to know what the new is and whether they are any good. It's a shame you wrote all that without reading the later responses that addressed it. The part where you said you didn't know what it would look like? Casting vision for the Hoover Dam? Thing is, they already knew dams worked, and yes engineering it on a larger scale would make all the difference on whether they could do it or not. But even then, if the Hoover Dam failed, you might take out a town or two... abolishing the police is a far more fundamental change to the entire country. So yes, I would like to see a proof of concept first. But hey, that's why you guys have states, isn't it? Oregon or another heavily liberal state can abolish their police force and the rest of the country can see what happens as an experimental model.
I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, or work towards abolishing them instead.
It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight.
|
On March 16 2018 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Democrats are going to try to convince you that nothing is more important than beating Trump, and the last person we should have try is this guy.
I'm sure a lot of the Democrats there got a similar reaction though.
Libs: Listen to the kids
Kids: We really like Bernie Sanders
Libs: shut up and vote for who and what we tell you!
Not going to lie, it was pretty funny watching Democrats squirm over registering all these kids. This would be a bread and butter registration drive (wonder why we don't have automatic registration in the wealthiest country in the world nearly 2 decades into the 21st century?) type event but they knew what they would be getting and they couldn't figure out if they really wanted it or not
Didn't you hear? They're all Russian bots.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On March 16 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 03:44 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 03:20 Falling wrote:On March 15 2018 17:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 17:48 Falling wrote:
Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it? I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. If you're prepared to engage with that in mind, I'll indulge you. Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos. And there's actually every reason to believe that the results will be catastrophically worse. If you pull down a creaky system, for everything that isn't working, there is still checks and balances that somewhat mitigate the power of corrupt people. If you pull down and replace it with a half-baked idea, there are no brakes stopping the worst of the corrupt people. We can see this in the Russian Revolution- the tyranny of the czars was one thing, but even they bothered to tour their prison system to see what it was like- nothing of the sort occurred. Even the Gestapo was trying determine the truth of whether or not a person was a spy- Stalinist Russia just needed a high quota of captured traitors- guiltiness was irrelevant. But how they got there was upsetting the entire apple cart without replacing it with anything that would preclude a madman like Stalin from gaining power and staying in power indefinitely while amassing even more. This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working. Good rules that were twisted are better off untwisted than a situation where we throw out all the rules and don't have a good set of new rules to replace. No rules is substantially worse that twisted rules because there is not even a chance of stopping the worst people. So then if we are to utterly replace the old rules with the new, we ought to know what the new is and whether they are any good. It's a shame you wrote all that without reading the later responses that addressed it. The part where you said you didn't know what it would look like? Casting vision for the Hoover Dam? Thing is, they already knew dams worked, and yes engineering it on a larger scale would make all the difference on whether they could do it or not. But even then, if the Hoover Dam failed, you might take out a town or two... abolishing the police is a far more fundamental change to the entire country. So yes, I would like to see a proof of concept first. But hey, that's why you guys have states, isn't it? Oregon or another heavily liberal state can abolish their police force and the rest of the country can see what happens as an experimental model. I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Yes. I got that. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. Compared to what? King's soldiers with the divine right of kings? It's only been 200 years, compared to however many thousands of years you want to go back in recorded human history. The amount of limitations we've placed upon the state for the protection of the citizens is no joke. It's take a long time and we will never reach perfection because we are dealing with imperfect humans, but we can strive for better.
The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, Right. That's what I am for. or work towards abolishing them instead. And it's the part that comes after the abolition that I'm having trouble envisioning.
It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. So is it that you change the conditions sufficiently that police are unnecessary? Will we have changed human nature sufficiently that people will just follow criminal and civil law always? Is it that boots on the ground will become entirely unnecessary (the one part you were skeptical was the boots on the ground enforcement, but what's the alternative if not community boots on the ground nor a police force?)
|
So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. Unless you're being like trump/bernie and going "I don't like X, wouldn't it be cool if we could make X illegal so I could feel good?"
|
Well of all the topics I could have imagined seeing here..
To not be completely useless to the subject: Wtf are we talking about abolishing police for because they don't work in certain places where they have put exactly no effort into making them work in the first place? The police education in US is an absolute joke. In most other civilised countries they require a bachelors or masters degree. And guess what? We're not afraid they'll just randomly shoot us while pulled over for speeding. Here in Scandinavia they actually protect and serve the citizens, not their own pockets. There is no system in which cops will not be needed as long as humans have flaws. The utopia you speak of isn't plausable
I should emphasise again that I'm not blaming the police officers themselves, I'm blaming the system put in place which sets them up to fail from the start. The lax gun laws isn't exactly optimal to help you do your job without being afraid of your average Joe suddenly pulling up a shotgun and blasting your head off either.
|
On March 16 2018 04:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 03:44 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 03:20 Falling wrote:On March 15 2018 17:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 17:48 Falling wrote:
Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it? I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. If you're prepared to engage with that in mind, I'll indulge you. Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos. And there's actually every reason to believe that the results will be catastrophically worse. If you pull down a creaky system, for everything that isn't working, there is still checks and balances that somewhat mitigate the power of corrupt people. If you pull down and replace it with a half-baked idea, there are no brakes stopping the worst of the corrupt people. We can see this in the Russian Revolution- the tyranny of the czars was one thing, but even they bothered to tour their prison system to see what it was like- nothing of the sort occurred. Even the Gestapo was trying determine the truth of whether or not a person was a spy- Stalinist Russia just needed a high quota of captured traitors- guiltiness was irrelevant. But how they got there was upsetting the entire apple cart without replacing it with anything that would preclude a madman like Stalin from gaining power and staying in power indefinitely while amassing even more. This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working. Good rules that were twisted are better off untwisted than a situation where we throw out all the rules and don't have a good set of new rules to replace. No rules is substantially worse that twisted rules because there is not even a chance of stopping the worst people. So then if we are to utterly replace the old rules with the new, we ought to know what the new is and whether they are any good. It's a shame you wrote all that without reading the later responses that addressed it. The part where you said you didn't know what it would look like? Casting vision for the Hoover Dam? Thing is, they already knew dams worked, and yes engineering it on a larger scale would make all the difference on whether they could do it or not. But even then, if the Hoover Dam failed, you might take out a town or two... abolishing the police is a far more fundamental change to the entire country. So yes, I would like to see a proof of concept first. But hey, that's why you guys have states, isn't it? Oregon or another heavily liberal state can abolish their police force and the rest of the country can see what happens as an experimental model. I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Yes. I got that. Show nested quote +Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. Compared to what? King's soldiers with the divine right of kings? It's only been 200 years, compared to however many thousands of years you want to go back in recorded human history. The amount of limitations we've placed upon the state for the protection of the citizens is no joke. It's take a long time and we will never reach perfection because we are dealing with imperfect humans, but we can strive for better. Show nested quote +The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, Right. That's what I am for. And it's the part that comes after the abolition that I'm having trouble envisioning. Show nested quote +It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. So is it that you change the conditions sufficiently that police are unnecessary? Will we have changed human nature sufficiently that people will just follow criminal and civil law always? Is it that boots on the ground will become entirely unnecessary (the one part you were skeptical was the boots on the ground enforcement, but what's the alternative if not community boots on the ground nor a police force?)
Did you read the outline I provided earlier? It seems like you didn't.
Improving the material conditions of impoverished people will certainly lead to a reduction in a variety of crimes. Restorative justice will reduce recidivism and habitual incarceration. Engaging and empowering disadvantaged members in communities in the decisions being made in their communities regarding justice will help make building quality citizens a community responsibility as the consequences of failure are shared by the community. And so on and son.
That's what I want to do, you want to (I imagine) put cameras on them and maybe force them into training classes they will ignore and the blue wall will both resist and undermine at every possible opportunity.
Besides that you can't even get cops to submit to drug/alcohol tests in some states after causing car accidents and/or killing people and prosecutors can do, as Sam B put it in reference to the Democratic AG that let Trump off after he donated to his campaign "anything the fuck they want", I refuse to accept the idea that what we have is working good enough that abolishing it isn't better with consideration to the alternatives already available in many ways.
EDIT: wtf are you guys even talking about? please at least try to read some of the relevant posts rather than just coming in and asking ignorantly arrogant rhetorical questions.
Especially you hunts.
|
On March 16 2018 03:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Today, conservatives fail to remember yet again that the basket of deplorables speech literally made the point they're making that we need to reach out to conservative and moderate voters supporting Trump with legitimate grievances.
In the next few sentences after mentioning the "basket of deplorables" no less.
I just skimmed the transcript again and I have to say this is some mighty fine spin here.
Half are people who felt the government has let them down, half are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic." Millions of people who disagree with her are all these horrible things. Sorry, I wouldn't be surprised if this comment alone was worth more than all the Russian bots put together.
|
On March 16 2018 04:32 hunts wrote:
So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. Unless you're being like trump/bernie and going "I don't like X, wouldn't it be cool if we could make X illegal so I could feel good?"
It couldn’t be more pie in the sky if you tried. Or more regressive, considering we used to have private police departments and community policing pre-19th century. It went about as well as expected. I’m all for reforming the policing in the US to focus their roles like in EU countries. Or creating a separate federal agency to oversee police departments nationwide. Because those are politically viable and have proven best practices.
|
|
|
On March 16 2018 04:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 04:32 hunts wrote:
So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. Unless you're being like trump/bernie and going "I don't like X, wouldn't it be cool if we could make X illegal so I could feel good?" It couldn’t be more pie in the sky if you tried. Or more regressive, considering we used to have private police departments and community policing pre-19th century. It went about as well as expected. I’m all for reforming the policing in the US to focus their roles like in EU countries. Or creating a separate federal agency to oversee police departments nationwide. Because those are politically viable and have proven best practices.
The two of you jiving on this makes perfect sense.
When you're done patting yourselves on the back for pummeling a fictional argument you can engage with mine or move on to your next self-congratulatory inanity.
|
On March 16 2018 04:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 04:32 hunts wrote:
So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. Unless you're being like trump/bernie and going "I don't like X, wouldn't it be cool if we could make X illegal so I could feel good?" It couldn’t be more pie in the sky if you tried. Or more regressive, considering we used to have private police departments and community policing pre-19th century. It went about as well as expected. I’m all for reforming the policing in the US to focus their roles like in EU countries. Or creating a separate federal agency to oversee police departments nationwide. Because those are politically viable and have proven best practices.
That's what it seems like. I feel that GH's plan of "abolish the police" would result in the rich hiring personal police forces to keep them safe. While the poor would get the shaft, until they start protesting and demanding state funded groups of people to also police the poor areas to protect them from crime. And then we would be right back at square one. It feels like a very trump/bernie type of plan, where you say something that sounds good and makes you feel good, without thinking about the reality of it.
|
On March 16 2018 04:54 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 04:46 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2018 04:32 hunts wrote:
So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. Unless you're being like trump/bernie and going "I don't like X, wouldn't it be cool if we could make X illegal so I could feel good?" It couldn’t be more pie in the sky if you tried. Or more regressive, considering we used to have private police departments and community policing pre-19th century. It went about as well as expected. I’m all for reforming the policing in the US to focus their roles like in EU countries. Or creating a separate federal agency to oversee police departments nationwide. Because those are politically viable and have proven best practices. That's what it seems like. I feel that GH's plan of "abolish the police" would result in the rich hiring personal police forces to keep them safe. While the poor would get the shaft, until they start protesting and demanding state funded groups of people to also police the poor areas to protect them from crime. And then we would be right back at square one. It feels like a very trump/bernie type of plan, where you say something that sounds good and makes you feel good, without thinking about the reality of it.
Perhaps you should try reading my argument instead of trying to feel it? Might make your posts at least slightly relevant to the discussion.
|
Separating the issues like over-criminalization, law profiteering, and lack of police accountability (which are all solvable within the current frameworks), it's the concept that community and social involvement will create a safer and freer environment.
Which is kind of true, in a small-town kind of way. Except those communities largely function because of populations so small that everyone knows everyone, usually with the added side-effects of becoming insular and socially rigid.
Problem is that when the populations start scaling up, communities coming into conflict with communities starts becoming just as much of a problem as individuals conflicting with the community. And anyone that's been to a municipal town-hall, or civic discussion board, would say how disjointed community opinions are.
And frankly, it's kind of shocking to me that GH of all people is advocating for communities enforcing their own values. Seems to me there's a very logical direction that will go for minority groups.
|
On March 16 2018 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 04:54 hunts wrote:On March 16 2018 04:46 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2018 04:32 hunts wrote:
So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. Unless you're being like trump/bernie and going "I don't like X, wouldn't it be cool if we could make X illegal so I could feel good?" It couldn’t be more pie in the sky if you tried. Or more regressive, considering we used to have private police departments and community policing pre-19th century. It went about as well as expected. I’m all for reforming the policing in the US to focus their roles like in EU countries. Or creating a separate federal agency to oversee police departments nationwide. Because those are politically viable and have proven best practices. That's what it seems like. I feel that GH's plan of "abolish the police" would result in the rich hiring personal police forces to keep them safe. While the poor would get the shaft, until they start protesting and demanding state funded groups of people to also police the poor areas to protect them from crime. And then we would be right back at square one. It feels like a very trump/bernie type of plan, where you say something that sounds good and makes you feel good, without thinking about the reality of it. Perhaps you should try reading my argument instead of trying to feel it? Might make your posts at least slightly relevant to the discussion.
I think the problem is you haven't presented an argument yet other than 'abolish the police', and the RS article doesn't add much clarity. I mean, the article suggests community patrols as a substitute to the police but judging by you recent posts that's not what you're suggesting? Or is it?
|
On March 16 2018 05:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Separating the issues like over-criminalization, law profiteering, and lack of police accountability (which are all solvable within the current frameworks), it's the concept that community and social involvement will create a safer and freer environment.
Which is kind of true, in a small-town kind of way. Except those communities largely function because of populations so small that everyone knows everyone, usually with the added side-effects of becoming insular and socially rigid.
Problem is that when the populations start scaling up, communities coming into conflict with communities starts becoming just as much of a problem as individuals conflicting with the community. And anyone that's been to a municipal town-hall, or civic discussion board, would say how disjointed community opinions are.
And frankly, it's kind of shocking to me that GH of all people is advocating for communities enforcing their own values. Seems to me there's a very logical direction that will go for minority groups.
Would anyone actually read what I argued instead of going off the almost wholly fictional interpretations that conveniently don't quote my argument or simply ignore significant parts of it.
I don't have a problem with everyone disagreeing with me, but I think it's fair to ask that you at least read what it is you're disagreeing with. Especially before the "I find it shocking GH", and "Bernie/Trump" and all the other petty pussyfooting snideness.
Moreover it should really not be coming from p6 or hunts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
