EPTI've been seeing some off-topic discussion going on in the past couple of days within this thread. Let's keep things on track.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 154
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
I've been seeing some off-topic discussion going on in the past couple of days within this thread. Let's keep things on track. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On April 30 2018 11:39 micronesia wrote: You didn't answer my question aside from another vague handwave. Either answer it, or explain why you won't. Basically all I have is that instead of the police doing those various tasks I pointed out, people from other professions who have to attend training and are accountable will do them. While I don't expect us to nail down every detail as to how to change policing with a new system, you can surely do better than that if you want to claim for the umpteenth time that you've adequately explained why this 'new system' is preferable to the current one. So to be clear, the concern/question is: Who would fill the roles of arresting, confronting, etc... people society deems too dangerous to be dealt with on their own cognition or by unarmed intervening teams? Presuming that's the question, I'm not sure what you don't get or think is unfair 'handwaving'. What do you mean by 'you have to do better than that'? How is having the people filling those roles be required to be significantly better trained and accountable to the communities they serve and larger independent oversight groups not clearly better than what we have now? EDIT: With consideration for Seekers post that I've now seen; I'll add that the reason I think my position and defense thereof is relevant to US politics is because nearly every day I see a video or story about someone who looks like me or my friend or my family being abused/murdered by the people our government and society has designated to 'police' them and given the unaccountable authority to too frequently summarily violate their rights, freedom, and take their lives. Here (and elsewhere), where we discuss such events and potential political solutions, I'm frequently reminded by posts like hunts made about the future of the Democratic party and rather seeing it go up in flames and Trump rule the US than see it fall to the progressive wing of the party reminds me that Democrats aren't going to fix the constant abuses I see. That if I press them too hard or use the wrong language they'll abandon me to my struggles and side with even so distasteful a representative as Trump. I need those that find that dynamic repulsive and disturbing to see it for what it is and move away from that asap. I won't be perfect in articulating it and may even sometimes make mistakes (I know, who does that anymore?!) but defending the importance and desperate urgency with which we must act and shift away from the dynamic the 'hunts wing' and 'reformists without a plan (or even reforms) advocate is not a mistake and should be defended by anyone who believes in the importance of the humanity and dignity of ALL of our citizens at a bare minimum imo. To be clear, like was the case back with P6, I'm not 'singling out' hunts because of who he is as a person, but merely the post he made so clearly highlighted a significant problem I view as critical to understanding my political positions on this and a variety of other issues. It's in no way a personal thing or meant to attack him beyond the position presented and it's relationship to my larger framing. EDIT2: edit: To be honest I don't appreciate being told you'll come back with more info later, then ignored with the intention only to respond if I bring it back up I sincerely apologize. I should have made it clear at the time that was my position. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
I think you see that more clearly when you criticize capitalism than when you criticize the police; my strategy about capitalism has always been to point out things that are wrong about what we have rather than to map out exactly what we should have instead, because a) I don't have everything figured out obviously, I don't matter and b) if I can get you to agree with what I say we can come up with solutions together and those solutions are probably better than the ones I'd find alone. Even though that's my position I often encounter points of view, supposedly on my side cause they agree what I describe is a problem, who immediately stop talking about the problem and instead tell me that even though they agree with me, don't I know about how bad USSR was; or they will insist about the minutiae of a plan I haven't shared because I don't want to craft it alone. There are some similarities there. The idea is that we're a side because we recognize police isn't working in the US. The reality is that not everyone is willing to do something about it, not even in theoretical discussions on a forum. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17983 Posts
On April 30 2018 16:04 Nebuchad wrote: Some amount of methodological disagreement can be characterized as opposition, imo. At least that's something I've noticed. I think you see that more clearly when you criticize capitalism than when you criticize the police; my strategy about capitalism has always been to point out things that are wrong about what we have rather than to map out exactly what we should have instead, because a) I don't have everything figured out obviously, I don't matter and b) if I can get you to agree with what I say we can come up with solutions together and those solutions are probably better than the ones I'd find alone. Even though that's my position I often encounter points of view, supposedly on my side cause they agree what I describe is a problem, who immediately stop talking about the problem and instead tell me that even though they agree with me, don't I know about how bad USSR was; or they will insist about the minutiae of a plan I haven't shared because I don't want to craft it alone. There are some similarities there. The idea is that we're a side because we recognize police isn't working in the US. The reality is that not everyone is willing to do something about it, not even in theoretical discussions on a forum. I think the main point in opposition to GH is a bit different and one of his own making: pretty much everybody agrees the US police needs a major overhaul. GH insists the only way this c be accomplished is by ripping the system down and replacing it from the ground up. Most people here think the institution of the police is ok, but a lot of the people in it need more and better training, more and independent oversight, clear rules of when arms can be used and accountability for using them (and for other police actions). And of course, the actual bad apples need to be removed in an initial corps-wide screening process. But GH insists that this type of overhaul will not be enough to return the police to their mission of protecting and serving as opposed to the current oppress and mistreat. I'd be interested in where this lack of faith comes from. And finally, a large problem with the police is not actually in the police corps itself, but in the laws they're expected to enforce. Ending the "war on drugs" is a prerequisite before even talking about police reform. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On April 30 2018 16:34 Acrofales wrote: I think the main point in opposition to GH is a bit different and one of his own making: pretty much everybody agrees the US police needs a major overhaul. GH insists the only way this c be accomplished is by ripping the system down and replacing it from the ground up. Most people here think the institution of the police is ok, but a lot of the people in it need more and better training, more and independent oversight, clear rules of when arms can be used and accountability for using them (and for other police actions). And of course, the actual bad apples need to be removed in an initial corps-wide screening process. But GH insists that this type of overhaul will not be enough to return the police to their mission of protecting and serving as opposed to the current oppress and mistreat. I'd be interested in where this lack of faith comes from. And finally, a large problem with the police is not actually in the police corps itself, but in the laws they're expected to enforce. Ending the "war on drugs" is a prerequisite before even talking about police reform. Firstly I feel you didn't pay enough attention to this particular part of Neb's post The idea is that we're a side because we recognize police isn't working in the US. The reality is that not everyone is willing to do something about it, not even in theoretical discussions on a forum. Now I'm done with entertaining the "you haven't explained abolishing the police good enough" for now. But I'm still interested in this "the way GH wants to do it is bad compared to the better way I'm advocating without providing some rudimentary details on" argument that keeps getting put forth. How do you implement this overhaul without tearing it down and rebuilding it from the ground up? The lack of faith comes from everyone knowing the police aren't even willing to provide accurate body counts for how many people they kill for more than a decade and been saying they support reform but no one can point to any measurable improvements in the last several decades. I'm curious where this unfounded faith comes from? + Show Spoiler + Seriously, the police kill people. we don't know how many. We don't know, because they refuse to tell us. How can you have faith they will reform? I've been supportive of ending the war on drugs since junior high and mentioned from the start of this topic that dramatically overhauling what we consider crime and how to correct the undesired behavior including, but far from limited to drug laws, is part and parcel of any path towards resolving these issues. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17983 Posts
On April 30 2018 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Firstly I feel you didn't pay enough attention to this particular part of Neb's post Now I'm done with entertaining the "you haven't explained abolishing the police good enough" for now. But I'm still interested in this "the way GH wants to do it is bad compared to the better way I'm advocating without providing some rudimentary details on" argument that keeps getting put forth. How do you implement this overhaul without tearing it down and rebuilding it from the ground up? The lack of faith comes from everyone knowing the police aren't even willing to provide accurate body counts for how many people they kill for more than a decade and been saying they support reform but no one can point to any measurable improvements in the last several decades. I'm curious where this unfounded faith comes from? + Show Spoiler + Seriously, the police kill people. we don't know how many. We don't know, because they refuse to tell us. How can you have faith they will reform? I've been supportive of ending the war on drugs since junior high and mentioned from the start of this topic that dramatically overhauling what we consider crime and how to correct the undesired behavior including, but far from limited to drug laws, is part and parcel of any path towards resolving these issues. You seem to see "reform" as something that comes from within the police force. I agree with you that they are not going to do that. But the police force can be reformed from the outside without needing to tear it down first. For starters, you keep going on about how many people the cops kill. I agree with you that it is atrocious that you don't even have that information and that the police is resistant to publishing (or probably even collecting) it. That apparently isn't something the police are willing to change by themselves. So why haven't politicians enforced even this tiny step in oversight so that they can at least assess how large the problem is? The answer is quite simple: there is no political will to even take this tiniest of steps. So if this tiniest of steps is impossible in the current political climate, what makes you think anybody is at all interested in the vast leap of "abolishing" the whole thing? Not only is that politically impossible, but you also alienate anybody who might be willing to start down the road to reaching your actual end goal (which isn't the abolishment of law enforcement, it is having functional law enforcement). I think you could get a broad coalition of not just lefties, but also centrists and even some right-wing people for stricter oversight rules on the police. Leftists and centrists because the police is abusing their power, and people like Rand Paul or even Ted Cruz (I know, pipe dream) because the police is a corrupt government institution that needs to be limited. But none of those people will bother if they think that most of the population doesn't give a shit, and those that do give a shit are anarchistic crackpots who want to abolish the whole system (and just to be clear: I don't think you're an anarchistic crackpot, I am just making it clear that this is how you will be seen... just as they see Bernie as a filthy commie). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On April 30 2018 18:30 Acrofales wrote: You seem to see "reform" as something that comes from within the police force. I agree with you that they are not going to do that. But the police force can be reformed from the outside without needing to tear it down first. For starters, you keep going on about how many people the cops kill. I agree with you that it is atrocious that you don't even have that information and that the police is resistant to publishing (or probably even collecting) it. That apparently isn't something the police are willing to change by themselves. So why haven't politicians enforced even this tiny step in oversight so that they can at least assess how large the problem is? The answer is quite simple: there is no political will to even take this tiniest of steps. So if this tiniest of steps is impossible in the current political climate, what makes you think anybody is at all interested in the vast leap of "abolishing" the whole thing? Not only is that politically impossible, but you also alienate anybody who might be willing to start down the road to reaching your actual end goal (which isn't the abolishment of law enforcement, it is having functional law enforcement). I think you could get a broad coalition of not just lefties, but also centrists and even some right-wing people for stricter oversight rules on the police. Leftists and centrists because the police is abusing their power, and people like Rand Paul or even Ted Cruz (I know, pipe dream) because the police is a corrupt government institution that needs to be limited. But none of those people will bother if they think that most of the population doesn't give a shit, and those that do give a shit are anarchistic crackpots who want to abolish the whole system (and just to be clear: I don't think you're an anarchistic crackpot, I am just making it clear that this is how you will be seen... just as they see Bernie as a filthy commie). There's lots of political will among the people, it's the politicians and the uber wealthy who pay them both to protect their property who will never, under any circumstances, allow voters/the system (which we've covered extensively can't be fixed because the people who need to fix it are dependent on it remaining 'broken') to strip that from them, allow the police to be held accountable, or to reform them in a way that would stop them from strangling people to death on the sidewalk for selling loose cigarettes. They need enforcers to protect their property to prevent the masses of people they helped exploit to get it from coming and taking it back. You might as well be advocating for requiring politicians to be honest all the time and expecting them to pass it in the senate and Trump to sign it. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21667 Posts
So you need to go around the politicians. That calls for a civil revolution to depose the government and institute a replacement that will carry out your demands. The situation is the US is, imo, shit. But its not nearly shit enough to sustain a civil revolution. We both want the same end goal. A proper competent police force that actually serves the people. The main difference in opinion seems to be how to get there. And you consider your plan superior because it has a chance of being implemented, unlike reform. So how do you (broadly speaking ofcourse) see your plan actually being put into motion. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On April 30 2018 19:02 Gorsameth wrote: If politicians won't enact reform they won't go with your abolish plan either. So you need to go around the politicians. That calls for a civil revolution to depose the government and institute a replacement that will carry out your demands. The situation is the US is, imo, shit. But its not nearly shit enough to sustain a civil revolution Well then we're back to the whole, "it's not going to get better so leave or suck it up". That's not acceptable for me. So it's the preference of two allegedly impossible solutions, but the whole reform choice promises to never get better (remember we can't point to any measurable improvements in decades). Revolutions suck, they aren't easy, it may not come any time soon. But at least that option has the potential to work, and has a bit of a tradition here. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Something something tree of liberty blood of tyrants 'Merica! It's kinda in our job description as citizens to rise up to revolution. Maybe 2018 isn't the time , maybe not 2020 or even 2028, but every day we must prepare. For when it is the right time, because it will come, we must be ready. Else we risk the revolution replacing one tyrant with another and condemning generations to the struggle of building a new revolutionary movement to throw off the tyrant we bestowed them. I'd argue that the bandaids of incremental reforms (if we can even identify/get those, you see Trumps agencies new mission statements?) act to diffuse the revolutionary spirit unless they are recognized as the result of the fear of the impending revolution should they refuse your reforms. In that way they should only embolden the pursuit of revolution for without the revolutionary spirit the will to reform is dead. So I won't stop the many people here advocating for reform from doing so, but I will tell them the reason their calls for reform have failed to drive any measurable improvements is because they are essentially telling the dog to attack it's master. EDIT: My advice to reform advocates would be figure out how to improve the 'abolish the police' platform in such a way that you're not advocating for reform of the police, but reforming of the plan to abolish them. Put another way, spend your energy convincing people they better agree to your reforms or you'll be left with no choice to join us revolutionaries, because in fact, the abuse you see is truly unacceptable. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
If everyone else happened to be white... I know it's controversial to bring race into political debates, but when it comes to the police, policing and perception thereof, race does play a significant factor in the US especially. Also, can those entertaining the 'few bad apples' argument, which I've seen pop up, remember that the phrase is 'a few bad apples spoil the barrel' not 'a few bad apples aren't anything to worry about, why are we talking about these few bad apples instead of all these nice ones?' | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21667 Posts
It reminds me of the mass shooting 'problem'. If classrooms full of dead children don't lead to a 'revolution'. what will? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On April 30 2018 19:55 Gorsameth wrote: Thanks for the explanation but to me that reads as 'most likely never'. And that is where I think this discussion ends for me. We both want the same thing, a functional police that serves the people, disagree on how to get there and neither side has much of a chance of getting there. It reminds me of the mass shooting 'problem'. If classrooms full of dead children don't lead to a 'revolution'. what will? Sustained efforts to raise class consciousness, connecting the tragedies, suffering, and every day questions/problems to their true sources, and arming people with the tools and rhetoric to combat the never ending calls for sustaining of the status quo and the futility of rebellion. Precisely the opposite of what you're doing imo. But with that we can drop it again. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States529 Posts
Things were shitty for African Americans since the inception of the US, and the history of righting that wrong up until the MLK era has always been “incremental reform” (3/5ths compromise, Missouri compromise, etc.) coupled with the Civil War (which was fought mainly to reunite the country, and freeing the slaves was mainly to set a future precedent of removing slavery tensions between North and South and less caring about their actual plight). Then you get Rosa Parks, Little Rock, civil disobedience, etc. One could call each of those instances revolution on a small scale. Lo and behold, only a decade or two later there’s a much more substantial paradigm shift towards appreciation of African Americans and MLK gets his own federal holiday (despite federal agents wanting to assasinate him while he was still alive). The point being that historical precedent sides with GH in “revolution” over “incremental reform” for not only cultural paradigm shifts, but political ones as well (with the added benefit of being seen as a near-mythical hero for future generations). EDIT - I should note that I’m only supporting this point as it pertains to African Americans and their historical racial struggles (which police reform certainly is related to). I’m not ready to say incremental reform is/has been ineffective for other areas of politics or policy. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On April 30 2018 21:17 SoSexy wrote: What a classy, cultural performance by Michelle Wolf. I thought it was pretty good personally. Tough to call her uncouth when we have a president on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On April 30 2018 22:33 iamthedave wrote: Is this Michelle Wolf 'thing' just that she made a joke referencing SHS's appearance? Or is there another reason it's in the news cycle right now? She offended everyone on both aisles because she had the ovaries to call out the sycophants and exposed just how the WHCD has bloated to a self-congratulatory pat on the back for sucking up to the White House. News media people weren't too happy she reminded them they are in a Stockholm Syndrome with needing Trump as much as Trump needs them, and how much they enabled him. Trump isn't happy probably because the jokes made fun of him and his staff. Some commentators saying the left is too busy being outraged over honest jokes rather than real action, and the like. If you want a good article about this I'd read this one. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
I haven't yet seen a criticism of it that I've felt was valid, particularly in the utterly absurd and vulgar context of the situation as a whole in the US right now. Sometimes you have to call a spade a f***ing spade and she did so repeatedly, to the spades' faces. Her comment about how Trump said it first in regards to her pussy grabbing joke was IMO one of the most important things in the whole piece, that and the willingness to call lies, lies. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
All and all, I would say she was on par with the average Trump rally when it came to class | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
I have no evidence to support this, but I would not be at all surprised if many comedians did not want to do the WHCD this year. It's the first thing that came to mind when I saw that Michelle Wolf did it. edit: To be clear, I don't disagree with anything she said, really. I just don't find her very funny, and it was clear that some of the audience was not happy to hear some of the things she said. | ||
| ||
