|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Show nested quote +Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times).
It is impossible without changing the constitution.
|
No I mean that "they may have done bad things" and "they serve vital functions" logically take one to the conclusion that either the corruption is an acceptable feature and/or that one doesn't believe they are corrupt. If there's another conclusion you're complaining instead of offering it which is what you complain about Danglars doing and many say is their preference and easy.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. "They serve vital functions" is a completely different statement that has no bearing on if they are corrupt or not. Not only that, but I never say "they may have done bad things..." as any kind of contrasting statement to "they are good now".
This is you arguing that the corruption is acceptable in light of what you claim is a vital function they serve.
No, it's not. It's you being obstinate and this is why people don't like discussing things with you. You've become as disingenuous as Danglars and xDaunt.
I find it ironic that you talk down to people in this thread for not reading you/Danglar/xDaunt's post and not properly understanding their points when you have completely failed to comprehend mine and are repeatedly trying to strawman my argument.
It's not though. You can assert that it's fair to assume that they do, but it's also fair for me to expect you to demonstrate that's not just a hegemonic myth. fwiw, I've provided examples of their work not matching how they are perceived and will again if necessary.
The onus is on you because these are major institutions that currently exist and have major societal functions. You are proposing revolutionary-level change. It is up to you to tell us why that level of change is necessary. You haven't said why their functions are a "hegemonic myth".
My views are plainly stated, they are confusing because they don't accept the hegemonic myths most people are inundated with in the western world their entire lives.
Your views aren't anywhere close to plainly stated. You keep them purposefully vague and never succinctly state what your actual point is. Pretty much anyone here is capable of having a meaningful dialogue with your viewpoints if you stated them in good faith, but you don't. You waste our time just like Danglars and xDaunt do.
Your point on banking education isn't relevant to this discussion. Forcing people to do homework in order to talk to you in a fast-moving politics thread on a casual discussion forum just makes you look pretentious and severely discourages people from engaging in discussion.
|
On May 29 2019 07:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times). It is impossible without changing the constitution.
And what would that require?
For those that think I'm not clearly or thoroughly explaining my position (I sincerely appreciate those of you who have noted whether you agree or not that I am clearly stating my position/s and solutions so much as I see them) perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to provide the type of details your requesting for your plan to address the problems you accept exist and present an existential threat.
|
On May 29 2019 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times). It is impossible without changing the constitution. And what would that require?
Genocide on a scale I don't think you're prepared to accept a atom of responsibility for. But a large reformation on political discourse and policy is a start, which requires term limits on congress. Couple that with legit qualified candidates for president from a STEAM field, would be anotger start.
|
On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Show nested quote +Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times).
This entire post is exhibit A of how your posts are unnecessarily vague.
1) Your first point gets at the idea that reform has largely failed throughout our history and that simple reform may not be possible. Nowhere in my posts have I said that the necessary reform would be easy. I've specifically argued against the reasoning behind "abolish" the police, because it's simply nonsensical and overly emotional. Despite you refusing to plainly state your views, it seems that you're in agreement with pretty much everyone that the police need to be significantly changed in order to function the way that we idealize them to. The only assumption that we can make is that you think it's impossible without revolution. Even with that revolution, you haven't provided solid reasoning for why abolition of all these institutions is actually necessary.
2) Your second paragraph seems to be essentially stating that you don't specifically condone the "hyper-specialized response teams" idea that people have been talking about. The reason your writing is poor is because you could use half as many words and state the exact same thing. Your long-winded vagueness serves absolutely no purpose in this discussion.
3) Your third point (about disarming police) supports point 1 and gives us the impression that your problem is you simply don't see a way to make the reforms that most of us all agree on without revolution and "abolition". You could clearly state all of this in less than a paragraph and it would be far more clear and this discussion would be more meaningful. The problem is that you make it unnecessarily long-winded and vague and then keep walking around saying "nope, that's not what I believe". That's not a decent discussion.
And what would that require?
For those that think I'm not clearly or thoroughly explaining my position (I sincerely appreciate those of you who have noted whether you agree or not that I am clearly stating my position/s and solutions so much as I see them) perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to provide the type of details your requesting for your plan to address the problems you accept exist and present an existential threat.
You could succinctly and plainly state:
1) If you see a role for police/FBI/ICE in society. If not, who does the vital jobs that they do? If they don't do vital functions, how are they not vital?
2) If any of your answers to 1 demonstrate a need for some type of law enforcement-type body in some capacity, then why does your belief in the necessity for full-on revolution necessarily couple with "abolish and replace"? What is the necessity for literally abolishing (i.e. completely disband the institution and replace it with a new one, regardless of similar mission) the institution?
|
On May 29 2019 07:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times). It is impossible without changing the constitution. And what would that require? Genocide on a scale I don't think you're prepared to accept a atom of responsibility for.
If that's the only way I'll own my part?
But a large reformation on political discourse and policy is a start,
Start to what if our desired goal requires by your own argument genocide?
which requires term limits on congress. Couple that with legit qualified candidates for president from a STEAM field, would be anotger start.
How does your idea/position/plan provide that, or better than the status quo (which is clearly failing to do it)?
|
As a side note GH, unless you're a very odd brand of progressive, I take it you support unions and their place in our economy, and oppose common conservative movements to weaken unions.
We (i.e. the vast majority of progressives) continue to support the institution of unions and highlight how vital they are to workers in our society, criticizing conservatives when they gut union power because they don't like the well-documented corruption seen in unions.
Do you not see the parallels between conservative criticism of unions and your criticism of law enforcement?
|
On May 29 2019 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times). It is impossible without changing the constitution. And what would that require? Genocide on a scale I don't think you're prepared to accept a atom of responsibility for. If that's the only way I'll own my part? Start to what if our desired goal requires by your own argument genocide? Show nested quote +which requires term limits on congress. Couple that with legit qualified candidates for president from a STEAM field, would be anotger start. How does your idea/position/plan provide that, or better than the status quo (which is clearly failing to do it)?
I'm speaking in generalities. I don't know the minutia nor am I particularly inclined to delve deep into this conversation.
You want me to say revolution, but you won't get that satisfaction. You can change the way the world works by disruption, not necessarily a revolution.
A start to educating people that two party systems or unqualified individuals handling policy making for the population at large is no longer and we need to try something better. What that is, I don't know. But educating people is the start.
|
On May 29 2019 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times). It is impossible without changing the constitution. And what would that require? Genocide on a scale I don't think you're prepared to accept a atom of responsibility for. If that's the only way I'll own my part? But a large reformation on political discourse and policy is a start, Start to what if our desired goal requires by your own argument genocide? which requires term limits on congress. Couple that with legit qualified candidates for president from a STEAM field, would be anotger start. How does your idea/position/plan provide that, or better than the status quo (which is clearly failing to do it)? I'm speaking in generalities.
I don't expect this will receive a fraction of the condemnation I do for merely having the allegation thrown at me.
I don't know the minutia nor am I particularly inclined to delve deep into this conversation.
Are you suggesting you were offering a pointless oneliner?
You want me to say revolution, but you won't get that satisfaction. You can change the way the world works by disruption, not necessarily a revolution.
I presumed with your opposition to revolution you had a viable alternative. It's clear now you don't.
A start to educating people that two party systems or unqualified individuals handling policy making for the population at large is no longer and we need to try something better. What that is, I don't know. But educating people is the start.
A vague "start" to a nondescript "education" for a goal you suggest you don't know?
EDIT: I'm not picking on you btw, I don't think anyone else complaining about my arguments or positions has a better plan (or non-plan depending on one's perspective) than you've just offered.
|
The obvious and easy alternative plan to a violent revolution without a plan is the status-quo. Because no matter how shit you might think it is, and its certainly shit in several aspects, its better then your (lack of a) plan.
|
On May 29 2019 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:
The obvious and easy alternative plan to a violent revolution without a plan is the status-quo. Because no matter how shit you might think it is, and its certainly shit in several aspects, its better then your (lack of a) plan.
For you and the people that advocate it, yeah (other than the whole impending collapse of society as we know it). Sure was convenient when climate collapse denial was a bipartisan hegemonic belief, eh?
|
On May 29 2019 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times). It is impossible without changing the constitution. And what would that require? Genocide on a scale I don't think you're prepared to accept a atom of responsibility for. If that's the only way I'll own my part? But a large reformation on political discourse and policy is a start, Start to what if our desired goal requires by your own argument genocide? which requires term limits on congress. Couple that with legit qualified candidates for president from a STEAM field, would be anotger start. How does your idea/position/plan provide that, or better than the status quo (which is clearly failing to do it)? I'm speaking in generalities. I don't expect this will receive a fraction of the condemnation I do for merely having the allegation thrown at me. Show nested quote + I don't know the minutia nor am I particularly inclined to delve deep into this conversation. Are you suggesting you were offering a pointless oneliner? Show nested quote +You want me to say revolution, but you won't get that satisfaction. You can change the way the world works by disruption, not necessarily a revolution.
I presumed with your opposition to revolution you had a viable alternative. It's clear now you don't. Show nested quote +A start to educating people that two party systems or unqualified individuals handling policy making for the population at large is no longer and we need to try something better. What that is, I don't know. But educating people is the start. A vague "start" to a nondescript "education" for a goal you suggest you don't know?
as soon as you lay down a 5 point plan to your revolution and answer, cleanly, plainly, and concisely to the myriad of questions already posed to you (or decline to explicitly), I will gladly sit down with you, via PM, and hash this out.
But do note from the jump, I never said I had an answer and never provided any idea that I did. I'm merely offering suggestions and topics to spark discussion and if possible, a learning moment for whomever. If the mods think that I should from now on provide essay styled talking points, then so be it.
|
On May 29 2019 07:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 07:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 29 2019 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change? No, I think he's just lumping together the various societal problems we are facing and just referring to it all as one massive impending disaster. GH, your argument is still boiling down to "abolish the police, and then form many separate entities that do basically the same thing they do." First off, just "abolishing the police" is ridiculous because police aren't a monolithic entity in this country. That line sounds more reasonable when talking about the FBI or ICE. Second, even if we do lump all three of those together, why is it functionally necessary to completely abolish these institutions? As I mentioned before, what vague ideas you do put forth sound incredibly inefficient. The various response teams you referenced recently are all done by the police because, well, people can do more than one thing at a time. You can make significant change to an institution (e.g. the FBI) by removing most of its leadership, drastically reforming its training, and holding people to a significantly higher standard. There simply isn't a real need to abolish these institutions and doing so is an idea that is, quite frankly, largely useless because it's never going to get off the ground due to being an overly-emotional appeal that no one but the hard, hard left wants to take on. One reason police need to be abolished is because of the simple and obvious issue of them clearing themselves of wrong doing has failed to be corrected over the decades liberals have said we can reform them away from being what amounts to state sponsored terrorists in many communities. Also, this idea of separate, hyper-specialized response teams does nothing but feed the unsustainable inefficiencies of the capitalist system (i.e. it makes more bullshit jobs for no other reason that to have separate jobs). I've addressed this specific concern multiple times by pointing out that the point from which that was interpreted (not directly stated afaik) from a graphic posted to demonstrate the delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is not one I'm personally tied to (none of them are provided a sound argument is made against them), but merely served to stand as examples of the distinct reforms (for which one could argue they aren't all good for and I would probably agree). On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. If someone has a viable strategy to disarm police in the US in any foreseeable timeline they haven't articulated it (though I've mentioned I'd support it several times). It is impossible without changing the constitution. And what would that require? Genocide on a scale I don't think you're prepared to accept a atom of responsibility for. If that's the only way I'll own my part? But a large reformation on political discourse and policy is a start, Start to what if our desired goal requires by your own argument genocide? which requires term limits on congress. Couple that with legit qualified candidates for president from a STEAM field, would be anotger start. How does your idea/position/plan provide that, or better than the status quo (which is clearly failing to do it)? I'm speaking in generalities. I don't expect this will receive a fraction of the condemnation I do for merely having the allegation thrown at me. I don't know the minutia nor am I particularly inclined to delve deep into this conversation. Are you suggesting you were offering a pointless oneliner? You want me to say revolution, but you won't get that satisfaction. You can change the way the world works by disruption, not necessarily a revolution.
I presumed with your opposition to revolution you had a viable alternative. It's clear now you don't. A start to educating people that two party systems or unqualified individuals handling policy making for the population at large is no longer and we need to try something better. What that is, I don't know. But educating people is the start. A vague "start" to a nondescript "education" for a goal you suggest you don't know? as soon as you lay down a 5 point plan to your revolution and answer, cleanly, plainly, and concisely to the myriad of questions already posed to you (or decline to explicitly), I will gladly sit down with you, via PM, and hash this out. But do note from the jump, I never said I had an answer and never provided any idea that I did. I'm merely offering suggestions and topics to spark discussion and if possible, a learning moment for whomever. If the mods think that I should from now on provide essay styled talking points, then so be it.
No one has an answer (certainly not better than what I've expressed) is kinda been one of my driving points. We can leave revolution alone entirely and focus on whatever alternatives folks have, which so far is the status quo, which again results in the mass death and forced migration of hundreds of millions as well as the continued exploitation and failure to reform police, hold people like Trump accountable and so on.
Or people are welcome to abandon the status quo and instead come work on making sure the revolution is as much like they'd like as is responsible (this is my preference). And then together we can make sure we don't f up this "5 point plan".
|
|
|
For any chance at a revolution you need either both of the following things or just one of them in an extraordinary quantity: enthusiasm for an articulated radically different way of running things and despair. I don't see the US being anywhere close to meeting either of those.
|
On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent.
Eh, that's not exactly true.
Violent crimes are generally very low (depending on area), but crimes like larceny and the like are pretty common. Japan IS generally pretty law-abiding though, by the standards of the modern day.
|
On May 29 2019 09:34 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 07:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Japan has a sizeable police force. They are also mostly unarmed. Crime there is so small to be nonexistent. Eh, that's not exactly true. Violent crimes are generally very low (depending on area), but crimes like larceny and the like are pretty common. Japan IS generally pretty law-abiding though, by the standards of the modern day.
I concur with your expansion of my claim. When I lived and visited, it was alarming. I slept by the river with the homeless and nothing happened. I did get picked up by the Yakuza one day. That was interesting and kinda scary. But nothing happened.
|
Changing topics:
NPR has posted an article about disaster relief and what FEMA should do in the case of areas with high probability of a disaster. The article lists being more proactive, updating the outdated and flawed method they have now, among other things. I worked at the IRS during the last hurricane that hit the east coast and I talked with people on the phone to get them into the system to receive benefits. Most of the people couldn't afford to move for a variety of reasons and some were stationed there for the military. So while it may be out of their control at times, the people who are able to move but don't and continue to be stricken by disasters, do they get a pass?
I won't try to quote the article because there's a ton of images throughout it. The source is here if anyone wants to read it.
Do you think the feds should be on the bill for paying people who live in and continue to live in areas that are prone to disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, and flooding? Or should there be a limit to how many times people can claim aid?
|
Joe Biden connects with working class voters. He's more moderate than most of the Democratic presidential contenders. He's got money and he's got a recognizable name. One problem with his candidacy is having to apologize for many past actions that are liabilities in today's Democratic party. The second problem, arguably bigger, is all the video that exists of him acting creepily around women, especially young girls.
He apologized for the behavior and promised to change. Sadly, it looks like it's still a weak area for him. He's the last Democrat that should go behind a girl and put hands on her.
|
On May 29 2019 10:07 Danglars wrote:Joe Biden connects with working class voters. He's more moderate than most of the Democratic presidential contenders. He's got money and he's got a recognizable name. One problem with his candidacy is having to apologize for many past actions that are liabilities in today's Democratic party. The second problem, arguably bigger, is all the video that exists of him acting creepily around women, especially young girls. He apologized for the behavior and promised to change. Sadly, it looks like it's still a weak area for him. He's the last Democrat that should go behind a girl and put hands on her. https://twitter.com/feliciasonmez/status/1133506426754748416
While it is bad optics, this sounds like the kinda thing my grandpa said to my sister growing up. I don't take anything bad from it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
