|
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. |
Canada11261 Posts
On March 16 2018 04:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 04:12 Falling wrote: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. 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?) 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.
I have? That's why I'm asking such questions as: Will we have changed human nature sufficiently that people will just follow criminal and civil law always? In other words, let's grant all those programs that were suggested by the Rolling Stones. Suppose all those restorative programs are up and running. Will humans stop breaking criminal and civil law to the extent that no enforcing body will be necessary?
|
On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument.
|
On March 16 2018 05:09 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 04:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 04:12 Falling wrote: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. 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?) 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. I have? That's why I'm asking such questions as: Show nested quote +Will we have changed human nature sufficiently that people will just follow criminal and civil law always? In other words, let's grant all those programs that were suggested by the Rolling Stones. Suppose all those restorative programs are up and running. Will humans stop breaking criminal and civil law to the extent that no enforcing body will be necessary?
Not sure what you mean by 'enforcement body' but as I'm presuming you mean it, yes in some fashion.
|
On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument.
Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with.
This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts.
|
On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts.
Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement.
|
On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why are people's critiques not valid? Can you correct us so that we know what your actual argument is? It is a little silly to just yell about people not understanding you. Elaborate. Explain what you actually mean.
|
On March 16 2018 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts. Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement.
Which is why it's important to keep reading to see if any of these might have come up, or if perhaps, instead in some cases, people started arguing a bunch of other nonsense of which your argument fit, prompting my comment.
But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs.
On March 16 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Why are people's critiques not valid? Can you correct us so that we know what your actual argument is? It is a little silly to just yell about people not understanding you. Elaborate. Explain what you actually mean.
I shouldn't have to re-write out what people have already skipped just in the last few pages. If someone wants to engage in the related discussion they can read the recent related posts. Don't expect a summary every page so you don't have to click back a few.
Or tell people to quote what they are responding to so that there is a train of what was said. That's why it's there. It's no coincidence that when people make these fictitious arguments (not just mine btw) they tend not to quote the post/s they are allegedly summarizing.
|
When everyone misinterprets your argument, maybe you explained it badly and should try again in a more clear manner.
|
On March 16 2018 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:
When everyone misinterprets your argument, maybe you explained it badly and should try again in a more clear manner.
Yeah, except for when it's abundantly clear they didn't read it. You want a clue, look for the part where I said the groups they are horribly mischaracterizing are unpaid volunteers, then compare that to how many times/people repeated it.
Why in the world would I say it again when it couldn't be more clear they didn't read it in the first place.
|
On March 16 2018 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:
When everyone misinterprets your argument, maybe you explained it badly and should try again in a more clear manner.
Or just copy paste the older post? Or link back to it?
|
On March 16 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts. Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement. Which is why it's important to keep reading to see if any of these might have come up, or if perhaps, instead in some cases, people started arguing a bunch of other nonsense of which your argument fit, prompting my comment. But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs. Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Why are people's critiques not valid? Can you correct us so that we know what your actual argument is? It is a little silly to just yell about people not understanding you. Elaborate. Explain what you actually mean. I shouldn't have to re-write out what people have already skipped just in the last few pages. If someone wants to engage in the related discussion they can read the recent related posts. Don't expect a summary every page so you don't have to click back a few. Or tell people to quote what they are responding to so that there is a train of what was said. That's why it's there. It's no coincidence that when people make these fictitious arguments (not just mine btw) they tend not to quote the post/s they are allegedly summarizing.
But the people replying to you are replying to what you originally said. They don't understand. If people can understand other posts, but not this specific one, perhaps the messaging could also use some work.
|
On March 16 2018 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:
When everyone misinterprets your argument, maybe you explained it badly and should try again in a more clear manner.
Or just copy paste the older post? Or link back to it?
I did that before, you should remember it well?
People complained then too. Just stop being so privileged. People walk hours for clean water, you guys can read a few pages of posts. Or just keep their ignorance to themselves, that's always an option.
On March 16 2018 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts. Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement. Which is why it's important to keep reading to see if any of these might have come up, or if perhaps, instead in some cases, people started arguing a bunch of other nonsense of which your argument fit, prompting my comment. But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs. On March 16 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Why are people's critiques not valid? Can you correct us so that we know what your actual argument is? It is a little silly to just yell about people not understanding you. Elaborate. Explain what you actually mean. I shouldn't have to re-write out what people have already skipped just in the last few pages. If someone wants to engage in the related discussion they can read the recent related posts. Don't expect a summary every page so you don't have to click back a few. Or tell people to quote what they are responding to so that there is a train of what was said. That's why it's there. It's no coincidence that when people make these fictitious arguments (not just mine btw) they tend not to quote the post/s they are allegedly summarizing. But the people replying to you are replying to what you originally said. They don't understand. If people can understand other posts, but not this specific one, perhaps the messaging could also use some work.
And then there were clarifying posts. That's how this works. I can't be expected to go back to square 1 with every opposing poster displaying they didn't even read the conversation up until the point they joined. I'm not expecting them to recall something I posted weeks or even days ago, we're talking hours.
When people have asked even remotely close to reasonable questions based on the discussion so far I've engaged with them.
|
On March 16 2018 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:42 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2018 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:
When everyone misinterprets your argument, maybe you explained it badly and should try again in a more clear manner.
Or just copy paste the older post? Or link back to it? I did that before, you should remember it well? People complained then too. Just stop being so privileged. People walk hours for clean water, you guys can read a few pages of posts. Or just keep their ignorance to themselves, that's always an option. Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts. Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement. Which is why it's important to keep reading to see if any of these might have come up, or if perhaps, instead in some cases, people started arguing a bunch of other nonsense of which your argument fit, prompting my comment. But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs. On March 16 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Why are people's critiques not valid? Can you correct us so that we know what your actual argument is? It is a little silly to just yell about people not understanding you. Elaborate. Explain what you actually mean. I shouldn't have to re-write out what people have already skipped just in the last few pages. If someone wants to engage in the related discussion they can read the recent related posts. Don't expect a summary every page so you don't have to click back a few. Or tell people to quote what they are responding to so that there is a train of what was said. That's why it's there. It's no coincidence that when people make these fictitious arguments (not just mine btw) they tend not to quote the post/s they are allegedly summarizing. But the people replying to you are replying to what you originally said. They don't understand. If people can understand other posts, but not this specific one, perhaps the messaging could also use some work. And then there were clarifying posts. That's how this works. I can't be expected to go back to square 1 with every opposing poster displaying they didn't even read the conversation up until the point they joined. I'm not expecting them to recall something I posted weeks or even days ago, we're talking hours. When people have asked even remotely close to reasonable questions based on the discussion so far I've engaged with them.
You make it sound like a privilege to engage with you. It isn't. You're just some dude like the rest of us. You're making yourself out to be a victim and you're totally not.
|
But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs.
See you start with a vauge idea that everyone spots as a crazy "lets just make the problem worse" and then you devolve into trying to defend your vauge idea that you even say you don't have figured out.
Then you go full crazy with that. Thats some straight Zimbabwe level shit GH.
|
On March 16 2018 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:42 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2018 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:
When everyone misinterprets your argument, maybe you explained it badly and should try again in a more clear manner.
Or just copy paste the older post? Or link back to it? I did that before, you should remember it well? People complained then too. Just stop being so privileged. People walk hours for clean water, you guys can read a few pages of posts. Or just keep their ignorance to themselves, that's always an option. On March 16 2018 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts. Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement. Which is why it's important to keep reading to see if any of these might have come up, or if perhaps, instead in some cases, people started arguing a bunch of other nonsense of which your argument fit, prompting my comment. But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs. On March 16 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Why are people's critiques not valid? Can you correct us so that we know what your actual argument is? It is a little silly to just yell about people not understanding you. Elaborate. Explain what you actually mean. I shouldn't have to re-write out what people have already skipped just in the last few pages. If someone wants to engage in the related discussion they can read the recent related posts. Don't expect a summary every page so you don't have to click back a few. Or tell people to quote what they are responding to so that there is a train of what was said. That's why it's there. It's no coincidence that when people make these fictitious arguments (not just mine btw) they tend not to quote the post/s they are allegedly summarizing. But the people replying to you are replying to what you originally said. They don't understand. If people can understand other posts, but not this specific one, perhaps the messaging could also use some work. And then there were clarifying posts. That's how this works. I can't be expected to go back to square 1 with every opposing poster displaying they didn't even read the conversation up until the point they joined. I'm not expecting them to recall something I posted weeks or even days ago, we're talking hours. When people have asked even remotely close to reasonable questions based on the discussion so far I've engaged with them. You make it sound like a privilege to engage with you. It isn't. You're just some dude like the rest of us. You're making yourself out to be a victim and you're totally not.
No, I'm pretty sure last week or so there was some resolution to ignore me. SO I would hardly imagine it a privilege. Maybe some sort of addiction though. People lost an argument to me at some point and now they try to find any opportunity they can to score one back. In their haste they often fall into what we saw here.
On March 16 2018 05:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs.
See you start with a vauge idea that everyone spots as a crazy "lets just make the problem worse" and then you devolve into trying to defend your vauge idea that you even say you don't have figured out. Then you go full crazy with that. Thats some straight Zimbabwe level shit GH.
"Abolish the police" isn't that new. Admittedly it's not widespread in any of the circles you guys run in, but people have been working on this for a while. It's a catchphrase for a much larger concept that I attempted to provide a rough outline for. Then people took that as an opportunity to jump on the phrase and ignore the clarifying underlying position or simply fabricate their own.
I'm not making myself a victim like we saw p6 do, I'm simply pointing out what happened in hopes that you guys stop embarrassing yourselves, and the outside chance someone offers some fruitful insight.
|
On March 16 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts. Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement. Which is why it's important to keep reading to see if any of these might have come up, or if perhaps, instead in some cases, people started arguing a bunch of other nonsense of which your argument fit, prompting my comment. But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs.
There's the very obvious issue here of systemically enforced segregation. It's one thing to have lines drawn because of socio-economic situations that are arbitrary, another to have lines enshrined by communities that define who belongs where.
And of course, what happens when a community causes a problem outside the community. Whose jurisdiction is that? Is it the offended community, who will in all likelihood be harsher on the outsider, or their own community who will likely be more accepting and forgiving? And either way, the result will be tensions between communities. Which is largely why you want a (supposedly) unbiased 3rd party that will handle such conflicts and problems.
And when a community inevitably fucks up (because there will be fuck-ups), there will need to be some kind of directive from a governing body above that will provide oversight. Which will need some kind of enforcement tools to implement or correct the issues directly.
There are other logistical issues that will come up the further this gets delved into, but the rough point is that a lot of the current policing system has evolved from the necessity of solving a lot these problems. And this doesn't necessarily preclude a community solution; most safer nations are built on a sense of community first and foremost, and thus requiring a lot less policing overall.
|
Canada11261 Posts
On March 16 2018 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:09 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 04:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 04:12 Falling wrote: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. 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?) 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. I have? That's why I'm asking such questions as: Will we have changed human nature sufficiently that people will just follow criminal and civil law always? In other words, let's grant all those programs that were suggested by the Rolling Stones. Suppose all those restorative programs are up and running. Will humans stop breaking criminal and civil law to the extent that no enforcing body will be necessary? Not sure what you mean by 'enforcement body' but as I'm presuming you mean it, yes in some fashion.
I mean exactly that. A body of people that will enforce the law when people inevitably break it. Or investigate when people do break it. Or be a deterrent simply by existing or act as first responders, particularly in hostile situations? Or deal with trespassing and noise ordinances? Or do you believe that all those other programs detailed in the Rolling Stones article will stop people from breaking the law entirely? And if there is to a body of enforcers, and it isn't community enforcers, how will it be materially different from the modern police force (found in any western country)? Or for that matter different from private police forces as you weren't jumping at the anarcho-capitalist solution. What's left?
|
On March 16 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I'm basing it entirely on the Rolling Stones article. But if that's not what your advocating, please don't link an article as your argument. Perhaps you missed in the article quote (it's not super obvious), and afterwords (more clear) that was already the component I was most skeptical of for reasons listed in the article and in thread. This is what I'm talking about by people needing to read what they are disagreeing with. This especially goes for repeat offenders like p6 and hunts. Did you read the Rolling Stones article? Because if point 5 was the only one you were skeptical of, that still leaves 3 of 5 that are entirely based on communal or local enforcement. Which is why it's important to keep reading to see if any of these might have come up, or if perhaps, instead in some cases, people started arguing a bunch of other nonsense of which your argument fit, prompting my comment. But to address your point, you're right. We should start by empowering disadvantaged and exploited communities. rich white communities should be the last ones to gain autonomy. They should all be strictly controlled by outside groups primarily composed of those disadvantaged communities until they have learned how they would like to reform the new system to better suit their needs. safer nations are built on a sense of community first and foremost, and thus requiring a lot less policing overall.
There, that I can work with. That's a concept. You guys seem to think pointing out problems or unanswered questions (clearly none of you have done any research on this) undermines my point, it doesn't, it tells you what kind of answers you need to be demanding from public officials instead of why they still don't have body cams on cops, or take money from prisons that are filled with what is called 'cheap labor' by those charged with administering their society.
While you guys don't think you are, you're painting my position inaccurately. I'm not arguing we have an alternative all figured out, I'm saying your reforms aren't happening or working on the rare occasion they do and alternative structures are seeing remarkable successes in their capacities. Spending resources on uplifting communities and providing equitable and restorative justice and restricting communities (like the ones that needed the VRA for example) autonomy in this process will be inevitably important.
These aren't things I would disagree with, and should really be intuitive to those familiar with me.
|
Canada11261 Posts
Spending resources on uplifting communities and providing equitable and restorative justice and restricting communities (like the ones that needed the VRA for example) autonomy in this process will be inevitably important.
Alright. So what does that have to do with abolishing the police? Like, at all? Why would that be an either/or? Rather than a both/and? (Supposing this will work in the way it's supposed to.)
|
Yeah but you have a tendency of just saying "abolish the police" or "disarm the police" and then wondering why people don't automatically get on board with the idea. Then you present that you don't have the answers and are just saying it as a suggestion when people challenge you on it. then you try to say people are embarrassing themselves when they don't understand what you ment was purely theoretical and not ment to be taken seriously like when you say rich white people should be beholden to minorities until the minorities are satisfied. .
This is a cycle with you that we go through every time. You're the one thats embarrassing himself by saying radical ideas and then never having anything to support those when obvious problems are brought up. You might as well support communism for as much ideological credibility you have.
We get it that you don't care about legitimacy or practicality. People that actually want things to happen do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
