|
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 06:08 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
This is what I was talking about at first with people having grossly distorted perceptions of how consistent, effective, and/or legal the current system is. You guys are so sure it's the best we can do without even really having a firm grasp on how well or absolutely appallingly horrible it is currently working.
It's not entirely your fault, most of you have very different relationships with police. As middle-class white/Asian people (or not in this country) you all have far more faith and find far more comfort in the police than those wanting to abolish them. Black people rarely call the police because they rarely help. I for one have never called the police in my life or even seriously contemplated it. Not because I've never been in threatening situations, I've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc... Not once did calling the police cross my mind. Not once did I think they would make the situation better or more safe. Not once. I'm not alone. There are millions of us across the country.
But there's plenty who do, and far too often when they do, they end up having to attend a funeral for a loved one who needed medical help and got shot instead, not terribly dissimilar to Trump's alleged new plan to pass a law to give drug dealers the death penalty.
You guys don't think the system is unacceptably messed up, because it doesn't impact your lives. In fact it kind of helps make your lives possible. You need a public police as it currently exists, otherwise you're the only thing in between the struggling masses and the exploitative wealth addicts and that's not very appealing.
|
On March 16 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep 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. 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.
Speaking as one of the four or five non-Americans involved in this discussion thread, I can tell you that these safer nations with better policing forces got into this position through police reforms.
And while I can't say Canada is a nation that is on par with places like Norway or Japan, I will say that the police are as much a part of the community as anything else.
|
On March 16 2018 06:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep 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. 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. Speaking as one of the four or five non-Americans involved in this discussion thread, I can tell you that these safer nations with better policing forces got into this position through police reforms. And while I can't say Canada is a nation that is on par with places like Norway or Japan, I will say that the police are as much a part of the community as anything else.
I can't speak to how you guys got where you are, but I can assure you that more socially democratic countries doing something doesn't play well here as a reason to do it 
Realistically you could call what I'm advocating police reform too, but that's not how the justice system will see it. The goal is to make communities safer with less armed police, more restorative justice, and equitable treatment. Cops and polticians have shown for decades that they are utterly incapable. It's not as if it's getting better either. We can't even get them to keep statistics so we can assess if they are reforming.
You can call it reform (and technically it pretty much is) but you have to destroy what we have in the process. You can't preserve the existing people and structure and make the changes that need to be made. Whether it's the Democratic AG in NY who let Trump off in exchange for campaign cash, the cops that frequently plant drugs on innocent people, steal their property, abuse their rights, etc... they aren't going to 'reform' themselves while they run the show. They'll only reform themselves if they have no other acceptable choice.
|
On March 16 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:08 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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? This is what I was talking about at first with people having grossly distorted perceptions of how consistent, effective, and/or legal the current system is. You guys are so sure it's the best we can do without even really having a firm grasp on how well or absolutely appallingly horrible it is currently working. It's not entirely your fault, most of you have very different relationships with police. As middle-class white/Asian people (or not in this country) you all have far more faith and find far more comfort in the police than those wanting to abolish them. Black people rarely call the police because they rarely help. I for one have never called the police in my life or even seriously contemplated it. Not because I've never been in threatening situations, I've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc... Not once did calling the police cross my mind. Not once did I think they would make the situation better or more safe. Not once. I'm not alone. There are millions of us across the country. But there's plenty who do, and far too often when they do, they end up having to attend a funeral for a loved one who needed medical help and got shot instead, not terribly dissimilar to Trump's alleged new plan to pass a law to give drug dealers the death penalty. You guys don't think the system is unacceptably messed up, because it doesn't impact your lives. In fact it kind of helps make your lives possible. You need a public police as it currently exists, otherwise you're the only thing in between the struggling masses and the exploitative wealth addicts and that's not very appealing.
So because you choose to generalize every police officer as being an evil asshole based on the actions of some, we should abolish the police altogether? And you haven't offered an actual alternative, since you vehemently claim that any argument against what you did offer is incorrect because you didn't make an argument. And then you go on to say that rich communities should be governed by the poor communities, until they atone for their ways? Am I getting this right? If not please say exactly what you're trying to say, because so far you're pulling a danglars/xdaunt of implying really silly things and then constantly shifting goal posts of "that's not what I meant, you all misunderstand."
|
On March 16 2018 06:44 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 06:08 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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? This is what I was talking about at first with people having grossly distorted perceptions of how consistent, effective, and/or legal the current system is. You guys are so sure it's the best we can do without even really having a firm grasp on how well or absolutely appallingly horrible it is currently working. It's not entirely your fault, most of you have very different relationships with police. As middle-class white/Asian people (or not in this country) you all have far more faith and find far more comfort in the police than those wanting to abolish them. Black people rarely call the police because they rarely help. I for one have never called the police in my life or even seriously contemplated it. Not because I've never been in threatening situations, I've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc... Not once did calling the police cross my mind. Not once did I think they would make the situation better or more safe. Not once. I'm not alone. There are millions of us across the country. But there's plenty who do, and far too often when they do, they end up having to attend a funeral for a loved one who needed medical help and got shot instead, not terribly dissimilar to Trump's alleged new plan to pass a law to give drug dealers the death penalty. You guys don't think the system is unacceptably messed up, because it doesn't impact your lives. In fact it kind of helps make your lives possible. You need a public police as it currently exists, otherwise you're the only thing in between the struggling masses and the exploitative wealth addicts and that's not very appealing. So because you choose to generalize every police officer as being an evil asshole based on the actions of some, we should abolish the police altogether? And you haven't offered an actual alternative, since you vehemently claim that any argument against what you did offer is incorrect because you didn't make an argument. And then you go on to say that rich communities should be governed by the poor communities, until they atone for their ways? Am I getting this right? If not please say exactly what you're trying to say, because so far you're pulling a danglars/xdaunt of implying really silly things and then constantly shifting goal posts of "that's not what I meant, you all misunderstand."
I honestly don't think you offer anything of substance when you engage with me and p6's echoing of your asinine post helped confirm that. As such I won't even bother engaging with you until you display even a modicum of integrity in your posting.
If there's a question worth answering in there someone else can ask it and I'll probably answer, but I can barely force myself to read your posts at this point to search for something that doesn't reek of intellectual dishonestly and/or ineptitude.
|
GH, you've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc. You know who hasn't? Me.
You wouldn't call the police in those situations. You know who would? Me.
And you want everyone else to go to your lifestyle? I think you'll get a collective HELL NO from most anyone. It seems like you are the one living the worse life and you are the one doing it to yourself. Don't drag everyone else down with you.
When you say abolish the police, I'm guessing you're not actually saying to abolish law enforcement. I don't think you look fondly on the time of lynch mobs. Those times were worse for minorities. From your other posts that call police the biggest criminal gang, I think you just want different people in charge. Like, you'd probably prefer if the Black Panthers were the law enforcement. You really haven't been clear on anything though, so it's hard to say.
The problem is that every community that tries to self-police is always the shittiest community. I live near Chicago. There are areas that have the same attitude towards police as you do. Those are always the most violent areas. The community police in those areas are gangs. They look out for their own, but are significantly worse for everyone else than the actual police. They're the whole reason why those areas are so violent. You can bet that nobody in my community would want that and that includes the small number of black people living here.
Could policing be better? Absolutely. Europe does it a lot better. That is achieved through reform, not through abolishing the police. This whole multi-page back and forth is ridiculous.
|
On March 16 2018 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 16 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep 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. 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. Speaking as one of the four or five non-Americans involved in this discussion thread, I can tell you that these safer nations with better policing forces got into this position through police reforms. And while I can't say Canada is a nation that is on par with places like Norway or Japan, I will say that the police are as much a part of the community as anything else. Realistically you could call what I'm advocating police reform too
Same page people, same damn page...
and again from the post he is talking about without quoting
You can call it reform (and technically it pretty much is)
On March 16 2018 06:51 RenSC2 wrote:
When you say abolish the police, I'm guessing you're not actually saying to abolish law enforcement.
Guess less, read more. And ffs quote something
It's not a choice I prefer, that should be abundently obvious. That's one reason I'd like someone I could call without having to worry about them shooting/beating/arresting me because they are so gawdawful incompetent and a part of a dysfunctional system.
Yall are too damn much.
|
On March 16 2018 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:51 RenSC2 wrote:
GH, you've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc. You know who hasn't? Me.
You wouldn't call the police in those situations. You know who would? Me.
And you want everyone else to go to your lifestyle? I think you'll get a collective HELL NO from most anyone. It seems like you are the one living the worse life and you are the one doing it to yourself. Don't drag everyone else down with you.
When you say abolish the police, I'm guessing you're not actually saying to abolish law enforcement. I don't think you look fondly on the time of lynch mobs. Those times were worse for minorities. From your other posts that call police the biggest criminal gang, I think you just want different people in charge. Like, you'd probably prefer if the Black Panthers were the law enforcement. You really haven't been clear on anything though, so it's hard to say.
The problem is that every community that tries to self-police is always the shittiest community. I live near Chicago. There are areas that have the same attitude towards police as you do. Those are always the most violent areas. The community police in those areas are gangs. They look out for their own, but are significantly worse for everyone else than the actual police. They're the whole reason why those areas are so violent. You can bet that nobody in my community would want that and that includes the small number of black people living here.
Could policing be better? Absolutely. Europe does it a lot better. That is achieved through reform, not through abolishing the police. This whole multi-page back and forth is ridiculous.
Guess less, read more. And ffs quote something It's not a choice I prefer, that should be abundently obvious. That's one reason I'd like someone I could call without having to worry about them shooting/beating/arresting me because they are so gawdawful incompetent and a part of a dysfunctional system. The fact your main argument is "I don't feel safe with police (with reason), so no one should have police" is... I don't know. messed up as hell.
Yes the US needs better police. No. anything even approaching the idea of 'abolishing' them for something else is completely non-viable and using the term will just instantly turn everyone off of your idea, no matter how good it might be.
|
On March 16 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 06:51 RenSC2 wrote:
GH, you've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc. You know who hasn't? Me.
You wouldn't call the police in those situations. You know who would? Me.
And you want everyone else to go to your lifestyle? I think you'll get a collective HELL NO from most anyone. It seems like you are the one living the worse life and you are the one doing it to yourself. Don't drag everyone else down with you.
When you say abolish the police, I'm guessing you're not actually saying to abolish law enforcement. I don't think you look fondly on the time of lynch mobs. Those times were worse for minorities. From your other posts that call police the biggest criminal gang, I think you just want different people in charge. Like, you'd probably prefer if the Black Panthers were the law enforcement. You really haven't been clear on anything though, so it's hard to say.
The problem is that every community that tries to self-police is always the shittiest community. I live near Chicago. There are areas that have the same attitude towards police as you do. Those are always the most violent areas. The community police in those areas are gangs. They look out for their own, but are significantly worse for everyone else than the actual police. They're the whole reason why those areas are so violent. You can bet that nobody in my community would want that and that includes the small number of black people living here.
Could policing be better? Absolutely. Europe does it a lot better. That is achieved through reform, not through abolishing the police. This whole multi-page back and forth is ridiculous.
Guess less, read more. And ffs quote something It's not a choice I prefer, that should be abundently obvious. That's one reason I'd like someone I could call without having to worry about them shooting/beating/arresting me because they are so gawdawful incompetent and a part of a dysfunctional system. The fact your main argument is "I don't feel safe with police (with reason), so no one should have police" is... I don't know. messed up as hell. Yes the US needs better police. No. anything even approaching the idea of 'abolishing' them for something else is completely non-viable and using the term will just instantly turn everyone off of your idea, no matter how good it might be.
Yeah, totally, lucky for us the idea that there wouldn't be people trained for intervention is something people made up instead of arguing with my position.
EDIT: Can anyone tell me how you guys measure the efficacy of police/the justice system currently?
|
On March 16 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2018 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 06:51 RenSC2 wrote:
GH, you've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc. You know who hasn't? Me.
You wouldn't call the police in those situations. You know who would? Me.
And you want everyone else to go to your lifestyle? I think you'll get a collective HELL NO from most anyone. It seems like you are the one living the worse life and you are the one doing it to yourself. Don't drag everyone else down with you.
When you say abolish the police, I'm guessing you're not actually saying to abolish law enforcement. I don't think you look fondly on the time of lynch mobs. Those times were worse for minorities. From your other posts that call police the biggest criminal gang, I think you just want different people in charge. Like, you'd probably prefer if the Black Panthers were the law enforcement. You really haven't been clear on anything though, so it's hard to say.
The problem is that every community that tries to self-police is always the shittiest community. I live near Chicago. There are areas that have the same attitude towards police as you do. Those are always the most violent areas. The community police in those areas are gangs. They look out for their own, but are significantly worse for everyone else than the actual police. They're the whole reason why those areas are so violent. You can bet that nobody in my community would want that and that includes the small number of black people living here.
Could policing be better? Absolutely. Europe does it a lot better. That is achieved through reform, not through abolishing the police. This whole multi-page back and forth is ridiculous.
Guess less, read more. And ffs quote something It's not a choice I prefer, that should be abundently obvious. That's one reason I'd like someone I could call without having to worry about them shooting/beating/arresting me because they are so gawdawful incompetent and a part of a dysfunctional system. The fact your main argument is "I don't feel safe with police (with reason), so no one should have police" is... I don't know. messed up as hell. Yes the US needs better police. No. anything even approaching the idea of 'abolishing' them for something else is completely non-viable and using the term will just instantly turn everyone off of your idea, no matter how good it might be. Yeah, totally, lucky for us the idea that there wouldn't be people trained for intervention is something people made up instead of arguing with my position. Again, any talk about 'abolishing police' is going to draw that reaction because, shocker, you just said you want to abolish the people trained for law enforcement.
What you want is reform and if you don't use the word abolish we can talk about what sort of reform that would be and how the US might get the political will to do it.
|
On March 16 2018 07:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2018 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 06:51 RenSC2 wrote:
GH, you've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc. You know who hasn't? Me.
You wouldn't call the police in those situations. You know who would? Me.
And you want everyone else to go to your lifestyle? I think you'll get a collective HELL NO from most anyone. It seems like you are the one living the worse life and you are the one doing it to yourself. Don't drag everyone else down with you.
When you say abolish the police, I'm guessing you're not actually saying to abolish law enforcement. I don't think you look fondly on the time of lynch mobs. Those times were worse for minorities. From your other posts that call police the biggest criminal gang, I think you just want different people in charge. Like, you'd probably prefer if the Black Panthers were the law enforcement. You really haven't been clear on anything though, so it's hard to say.
The problem is that every community that tries to self-police is always the shittiest community. I live near Chicago. There are areas that have the same attitude towards police as you do. Those are always the most violent areas. The community police in those areas are gangs. They look out for their own, but are significantly worse for everyone else than the actual police. They're the whole reason why those areas are so violent. You can bet that nobody in my community would want that and that includes the small number of black people living here.
Could policing be better? Absolutely. Europe does it a lot better. That is achieved through reform, not through abolishing the police. This whole multi-page back and forth is ridiculous.
Guess less, read more. And ffs quote something It's not a choice I prefer, that should be abundently obvious. That's one reason I'd like someone I could call without having to worry about them shooting/beating/arresting me because they are so gawdawful incompetent and a part of a dysfunctional system. The fact your main argument is "I don't feel safe with police (with reason), so no one should have police" is... I don't know. messed up as hell. Yes the US needs better police. No. anything even approaching the idea of 'abolishing' them for something else is completely non-viable and using the term will just instantly turn everyone off of your idea, no matter how good it might be. Yeah, totally, lucky for us the idea that there wouldn't be people trained for intervention is something people made up instead of arguing with my position. Again, any talk about 'abolishing police' is going to draw that reaction because, shocker, you just said you want to abolish the people trained for law enforcement. What you want is reform and if you don't use the word abolish we can talk about what sort of reform that would be and how the US might get the political will to do it.
Reform as most people are using it implies that the people doing it and in power (police, their union leadership, prosecutors, etc...) can stay, they can't.
|
On March 16 2018 04:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +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.
She made the same speech in India only a week ago. This was in case you thought she was content to let her splitting of America and vilification fade from memory.
|
lol if this entire thing ends up being a dimensia episode...god damn.
|
On March 16 2018 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's in the post prior. That was just explaining things for Plansix.
|
On March 16 2018 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 07:14 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2018 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 06:51 RenSC2 wrote:
GH, you've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc. You know who hasn't? Me.
You wouldn't call the police in those situations. You know who would? Me.
And you want everyone else to go to your lifestyle? I think you'll get a collective HELL NO from most anyone. It seems like you are the one living the worse life and you are the one doing it to yourself. Don't drag everyone else down with you.
When you say abolish the police, I'm guessing you're not actually saying to abolish law enforcement. I don't think you look fondly on the time of lynch mobs. Those times were worse for minorities. From your other posts that call police the biggest criminal gang, I think you just want different people in charge. Like, you'd probably prefer if the Black Panthers were the law enforcement. You really haven't been clear on anything though, so it's hard to say.
The problem is that every community that tries to self-police is always the shittiest community. I live near Chicago. There are areas that have the same attitude towards police as you do. Those are always the most violent areas. The community police in those areas are gangs. They look out for their own, but are significantly worse for everyone else than the actual police. They're the whole reason why those areas are so violent. You can bet that nobody in my community would want that and that includes the small number of black people living here.
Could policing be better? Absolutely. Europe does it a lot better. That is achieved through reform, not through abolishing the police. This whole multi-page back and forth is ridiculous.
Guess less, read more. And ffs quote something It's not a choice I prefer, that should be abundently obvious. That's one reason I'd like someone I could call without having to worry about them shooting/beating/arresting me because they are so gawdawful incompetent and a part of a dysfunctional system. The fact your main argument is "I don't feel safe with police (with reason), so no one should have police" is... I don't know. messed up as hell. Yes the US needs better police. No. anything even approaching the idea of 'abolishing' them for something else is completely non-viable and using the term will just instantly turn everyone off of your idea, no matter how good it might be. Yeah, totally, lucky for us the idea that there wouldn't be people trained for intervention is something people made up instead of arguing with my position. Again, any talk about 'abolishing police' is going to draw that reaction because, shocker, you just said you want to abolish the people trained for law enforcement. What you want is reform and if you don't use the word abolish we can talk about what sort of reform that would be and how the US might get the political will to do it. Reform as most people are using it implies that the people doing it and in power (police, their union leadership, prosecutors, etc...) can stay, they can't.
According to who? The minority of people who have a bad experience with the system or the majority of the people who have a good experience with the system? I get you think Minorities having their own semi autonomous reservations where they police themselves seems like a good idea for some reason but you can't seriously be thinking that the majority of the country wants or will ever want the system and the people they enjoy going away.
|
Canada11349 Posts
And abolish means get rid of the whole thing. It doesn't mean "basically reform".
Maybe what you want is radical reform. But if you say abolition that means something. And then when you have no idea for replacement, that's not us misinterpreting you, nor are we embarrassing ourselves. That's you not fully expressing your solution, or else you not fully thinking through the ramifications of abolition.
|
On March 16 2018 07:23 Falling wrote:
And abolish means get rid of the whole thing. It doesn't mean "basically reform".
Maybe what you want is radical reform. But if you say abolition that means something. And then when you have no idea for replacement, that's not us misinterpreting you. That's you not fully expressing your solution, or else you not fully thinking the ramifications of abolition.
yup, no idea, didn't present a single one says the most honest representation of my argument. This has gotten pathetic...
|
|
|
Canada11349 Posts
On March 16 2018 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 07:23 Falling wrote:
And abolish means get rid of the whole thing. It doesn't mean "basically reform".
Maybe what you want is radical reform. But if you say abolition that means something. And then when you have no idea for replacement, that's not us misinterpreting you. That's you not fully expressing your solution, or else you not fully thinking the ramifications of abolition. yup, no idea, didn't present a single one says the most honest representation of my argument. This has gotten pathetic...
Then say something. I have supposed that all the other restorative justice ideas from the Rolling Stones article are successfully implemented. In this hypothetical situation, what replaces the police that is materially different from the modern police force found in the western world, isn't a private police force, and isn't community based enforcement (because you weren't sure on that one, walking back on it when asked about it)? What's left?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
