|
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 |
Ahm... The fuck?
So for you, if the argument is ok, comparing Weinstein to Hitler is AOK because both showed some deplorable behaviour? We are entering Hillary vs Satan territory here.
MLK wasn't a Saint but for SURE a net positive, Columbos did way more truely horrible stuff BUT he was important and therefore i'm against razing his statues... But the argument you are making there is so horrible, i can't believe someone actually would write such a thing.
|
On June 12 2020 10:41 Velr wrote:
Ahm... The fuck?
So for you, if the argument is ok, comparing Weinstein to Hitler is AOK because both showed some deplorable behaviour? We are entering Hillary vs Satan territory here.
MLK wasn't a Saint but for SURE a net positive, Columbos did way more truely horrible stuff BUT he was important and therefore i'm against razing his statues... But the argument you are making there is so horrible, i can't believe someone actually would write such a thing.
Yeah I completely reject this idea that we can't even slightly quantify ethical behavior. Adultery being compared to actual fucking genocide is complete nonsense. We are able to think more than that. It is complete intellectual laziness to pretend the two are remotely comparable.
|
On June 11 2020 00:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2020 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 10 2020 23:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 10 2020 22:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2020 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 10 2020 11:20 JimmiC wrote:There is so much to unpack when it comes to the US and the issues around the police and crime. You have the rampant systemic racism. You have civic governments often looking for arrest "stats" to help in the next election instead of actual results. You have a massive amount of poor people considering the countries wealth. You have prohibition and a unwinnable "war on drugs" You have the mass, mostly unregulated gun ownership making being police a much more dangerous job than most countries. You have a for profit healthcare system which means prevention is not a priority since they want more customers and their customers to stay for longer, which is the opposite of what your society should want. You have a for profit prison system which means to succeed they need more customers who stay longer, which is exactly the opposite of what your society should want. You don't tackle the mental health issues of the poor or of the police. You have a police forces and unions who operate like gangs protecting their own regardless if they should and massive amounts of PSTD since there is so many shootings (both at them and others) where the police are first on the scene or involved. Simply defunding the police is not going to accomplish anything without understanding that none of these issues work independently of each other. The first and easiest step would be to tackle all the gun issues, by regulating it FAR FAR more and making them so much less accessible. Your police are armed to their teeth because so is the populous. Can you imagine the stress of every traffic stop even being a possible interaction with some one with a gun? You can make a great case for why police forces need to make a report for each time they uuholster their gun in other countries, not so much in the US. You could vastly disarm the police if you disarm the populous as well. It is very strange for me to that people on the left even are against this when it works EVERY where else. It is clear why it does not happen, gun and weapons companies are big business and make big donations to all politician's, and the more they can sell to people the more they can sell to the police. It is a vicious circle that everyone on the outside knows the solution for but some how the NRA's amazing marketing campaign has convinced people that guns some how equal freedom, hell they even took some of the wording out of the second amendment to the point where many Americans believe it says their slogan to help them sell more guns rather than what was actually written. (The actual " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment What the NRA doesn’t like to admit is that guns were regulated in early America. People deemed untrustworthy — such as British loyalists unwilling to swear an oath to the new nation — were disarmed. The sale of guns to Native Americans was outlawed. Boston made it illegal to store a loaded firearm in any home or warehouse. Some states conducted door-to-door registration surveys so the militia could “impress” those weapons if necessary. Men had to attend musters where their guns would be inspected by the government. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/nra-second-amendment-guns-violenceIf American's do not end their gun issues, they will likely never fix their police. This has become so accepted that the satirical news site the Onion has been able to regularly repromote its article “ ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”But if that is a unwinable battle the next best place to start is dealing with the nations mental health issues.I really doubt that all the people who want to be police are psychopath's as has been suggested, heck I don't think there would even be enough psycopaths. But I don't doubt that given the massive stress, horrible events they both witness as first responders (not just murders, rapes, assaults and so on but also gruesome car accidents and so on), that they become very desensitized to violence and gain more and more prejudices both because of the culture they are surrounded with, but also because of the horrible things they see and experience. If you blame the people in the police for the problems instead of the system, you are no different than the people who blame the people committing the crimes instead of the system. On a case by case basis either can be true, but when it is this widespread it becomes clear that the conditions of the system are what is broken, and what breaks the people. So this means making sure that everybody poor, rich, everyone in between has medical care, that includes mental health. It means moving the system from treating the symptoms (all stages criminally, policing and incarceration, and healthcare for that matter) to treating the causes. There is actually a huge savings in doing this for the overall system the problem is because of how everything is structured "for profit" the people who could are incentivized not too. The easiest way to do this is make it government funded. That way the government and the people are better off if the system works better and therefore costs less. Right now hospitals want you to be sick (it is not surprising that the US has some of the worst overall health) and the prisons want you to get jailed, stay jailed and come back to jail once you get out. (In fact judges have gotten in trouble for taking kick backs from prisons for sentencing people longer and to their facilities). So for socialist's the government oversight is likely a positive and for capitalists, all the money being wasted in that system can now be spent on various other goods. And all the criminals in jail can now because customers and positive members of the economy. The people who are against the "defund the police" movement are right to be questing it, because no system in the world operates without some sort of policing. You can't stop paying the police, and make the job even more stressful and worse for mental health, while you are doing it and expect all the violence to magically go away. What you need is a full system overhaul where all the various stages are pulling together for the same goal. No one has found the perfect system yet. But there are many that are functioning a lot better than the US. The Netherlands would be a great place to start since they are actually closing prisons because they don't have enough "customers" instead of bursting at the seems. https://johnhoward.ca/blog/dutch-closing-prisons/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/12/why-are-there-so-few-prisoners-in-the-netherlandsAnd there are a bunch of other countries that you could also look at that have actual well (MUCH MUCH better than the US) functioning systems and take the best aspects from all of them. It is actually more drastic societal changes that are needed to improve the situation than defunding the police. And it means spending a lot more money up front to end up saving even a bunch more at the end. It does not take much analysis to see that taking the police completely out of the picture when you see how well armed the Boogaloo boys, Proud boys (strange how they all call themselves boys, I guess they also know they are not mature enough to be men, but I digress), gangs and various other well armed and bad intentioned groups that left to their own idea of justice will not end as a benefit to society. You don't even have to get into the criminal gangs in the US and beyond, because you have so many "legal" or legal adjacent gun owners who are not the people you want in control of justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement#:~:text=The boogaloo movement, members of,they call the "boogaloo". This seems like another case of American exceptionalism where you can easily look at other countries and see what they are doing and copy them, hell talk to them and see how you can do what they do and do it better. Otherwise if the answer is more of the same you are going to keep getting the same results. Defunding the police is just going to make people buy more guns, I bet it already has. Sure "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but you are not putting any effort or money into fixing the people, you are just creating more messed up people who kill people with more guns. You need to attack the root issues which is way to many mental health issues and culture that creates more. Then you mix in a fetishist attitude about guns and gun violence and you get what you have now. The answer is not some confusing message and something that has never worked anywhere. The answer is in finding out what has worked in other places the best and customize it to work for your unique setting. I've slowly learned that the "Defund The Police" movement and related sets of ideas are extremely diverse, and everything falling under that three-word catchphrase can end up hiding some of the more constructive, comprehensive solutions. For example, I've seen many clarifying posts and messages that the "Defund The Police" movement actually means something like this: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Q4x2bVN.jpg) Now, a lot of these exploratory ideas are things I can easily get behind. I think these potential options would actually help those who want to protect and serve communities, because it would put less pressure on cops. They're currently asked to do wayyy more than they're trained to do (or that any one person should be expected to do, for that matter). The proponents of these ideas are intending to alleviate that burden and allocate a significant amount of resources towards additional, necessary professionals who can work parallel to the police, and often resolve conflicts without the required intervention of law enforcement. The biggest problem, I think, is that the phrase "Defund The Police" does a poor, unclear job of getting these points across. We have to keep in mind that a large percentage of Americans couldn't even manage to comprehend a three-word catchphrase that was literally and semantically crystal clear ("Black Lives Matter") without throwing in absurd extrapolations about other lives not mattering... if we're starting off with another three-word message that already isn't equally clear because of the word "Defund" and has a negative connotation attached to it, then the DTP message is already dead on arrival. I'm sure that there are other catchphrases that can be used that could have a better chance of resonating with people, like "Alleviate Blue Burden" or something else that's equally loaded and contrived. People can look at that and actually ask what that means (or, if they recognize Blue = Police, probably infer that the movement is to help the police in some way... which might not be the worst context in the world, especially if we're trying to persuade more people to join the cause). All this being said, if you're an advocate of completely defunding and completely abolishing law enforcement, then the phrase "Defund The Police" does a pretty good job of laying out your central thesis. If, instead, you're looking for a broader financial reform that includes law enforcement and a variety of other entities, then I think you need a better, broader catchphrase. It's important to note that "defund the police" comes specifically out of the abolitionist movement. Work that goes back decades. Work that included dialectically moving past reformist strategies like you see there. The stuff you're seeing there DPB is the centrist reactionary cooption of that phrase and is at the core of the discordance between the tepid reforms listed and the phrase "defund the police". Now reformists are free to do what they wish, but it's important to know this distinction and not try to tell people that do want to abolish the police (because reformism has categorically failed them) that they actually want to go back to fruitless reformist strategies. That's definitely fair, and it sounds like those who don't want to literally defund and abolish the police should probably run a parallel movement and message. On June 10 2020 23:03 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Hashtag slogan-making is a tricky thing. Defund The Police is an excellent bundle of firewood to throw on the flames and are not the words worth dying on. You can play semantics all you want over, "Well, we don't literally mean defund or abolish the police and instead here's a 10-point proposal list of reforms you aren't looking at", but the public has a tendency to latch on simple phrasing that skirts around nuance. I'd think "Rebuild the Police", "Rethink Policing" or "Rebuild Justice" strikes me as the tone that would satisfy most. We're talking an enormously complicated problem spanning policing, criminal justice, the legal system, the medical industry, prisons, institutional racism, hospitals, education and economic fairness that cannot be captured by three words that imply on face value that slashing police budgets will correct the problem that the Floyd protests exposed. Agreed. A different and distinct message would probably help, for both movements' sakes. Appreciated. Also important to note that what you're talking about is a counterrevolutionary movement and stands in opposition of defunding and abolishing the police, despite the superficially overlapping goals. Sure; I think it's very clear that many people who want police reform and other progress are more interested in working within the system and making more measured changes, which would definitely be different than abolishing the police (and vice-versa). On June 10 2020 23:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 23:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I think starting the goal post super far away is great for these types of movements. Yell at centrists you want to destroy the entire institution of policing and they'll actually give a shit and listen to you. If you shoot for the stars and miss, you at least hit the moon or something. I tend to agree. If the messaging is on the far end, the compromise just comes when it's time for implementation. If you start compromising before that point, then the compromise goes too far and you don't end up getting almost anything you needed. If messaging about defunding and abolition results in a more level approach involving rebuilding what exists in a more accountable way by the time it comes to action, that's still valuable progress. If you start your message with the compromise built-in, you end up selling the cause short. It's easy to forget that there is a constant disconnect that exists between an ideology and the messaging it uses. Trumpers were and probably still are happy with their "Build the Wall" messaging even though it never resulted in a wall. It's just how it works. I generally appreciate the strategy of trying to start as close to your ideal side as possible, so that any ground you give through compromise still nets you a greater win than if you started exactly in the middle and conceded more. That being said, there's also the risk that starting off at too extreme of a position may deter the other side from even coming to the table to talk with you (i.e., "they're not serious in making an equitable deal if we need to start at such an extreme position"). It seems to be all about a careful balancing act between getting as much of your side as possible while still convincing the other side that you're willing to negotiate with them in good faith. I respect you and your efforts to better navigate this issue by getting informed from where you can. I implore you and anyone else that wants to seriously understand the abolitionist perspective (and get a sense of the robustness behind the work) ignore me and the particular platform (for people with bias against them), and give this person a listen. While many people, including myself are relatively new to the abolitionist movement Ruth Wilson Gilmore has a deep and personal understanding of the work, a personal and generational history in the liberation movement in the US, and a lifetime of experience in this particular struggle between reform and radical changes to police and prison. She discusses and makes a case of sorts in favor of abolition.It's an hour+ of interview I've only partially gotten through at this point, but going forward would love to discuss the content with anyone that might consider themselves curious about abolition but drawn to more traditional channels of reform.
That interview was rather disappointing for me. The journalist asks at the beginning "what do I mean by abolition?" He says it's not something stupid like defunding the police and "letting the chips fall where they may." There's a short recap of the history of policing. Policing is not about "safety" but enhancing productivity and ensuring usefulness. We should be asking ourselves what we want out of punishment. Sure, yes, all good.
When Gilmore does get a chance to explain what she means by alternative ways of living, ways that communities can take some of the their social responsibility from the police, she points in the second episode to: 1) "public education" in the 19th century southern United States (as if we didn't have that) + Show Spoiler +That said, what we’re trying to do in thinking with so many people in so many places about abolition, is how can it be possible to realize a new way of being, given what it is we already know how to do. We can look back through history or around the world now and see, for example, as Du Bois taught us in “Black Reconstruction in America,” that post-Civil War communities in the South developed all kinds of institutions for well-being and opportunity and safety that did not rely on organized violence, but rather we’re opening up to the possibility of greater and greater freedom through the institution of such things as public education, and so on.
|
Errrr
Am I the only one having trouble linking Columbus to genocide ?
Did he ever set foot onto the mainland?
Why not blame the portuguese and the spanish?
|
On June 12 2020 12:52 Erasme wrote:
Errrr
Am I the only one having trouble linking Columbus to genocide ?
Did he ever set foot onto the mainland?
Why not blame the portuguese and the spanish?
h
Pretty sure the genocide people associate him with is that of the Taino people, on the island that he arrived on. Diseases and the conditions of the encomienda system/other systems of forced labor killed off about 90% (lowest estimate, highest is over 99% I believe) of the Taino population in thirty years.
|
On June 12 2020 12:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2020 00:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2020 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 10 2020 23:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 10 2020 22:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2020 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 10 2020 11:20 JimmiC wrote:There is so much to unpack when it comes to the US and the issues around the police and crime. You have the rampant systemic racism. You have civic governments often looking for arrest "stats" to help in the next election instead of actual results. You have a massive amount of poor people considering the countries wealth. You have prohibition and a unwinnable "war on drugs" You have the mass, mostly unregulated gun ownership making being police a much more dangerous job than most countries. You have a for profit healthcare system which means prevention is not a priority since they want more customers and their customers to stay for longer, which is the opposite of what your society should want. You have a for profit prison system which means to succeed they need more customers who stay longer, which is exactly the opposite of what your society should want. You don't tackle the mental health issues of the poor or of the police. You have a police forces and unions who operate like gangs protecting their own regardless if they should and massive amounts of PSTD since there is so many shootings (both at them and others) where the police are first on the scene or involved. Simply defunding the police is not going to accomplish anything without understanding that none of these issues work independently of each other. The first and easiest step would be to tackle all the gun issues, by regulating it FAR FAR more and making them so much less accessible. Your police are armed to their teeth because so is the populous. Can you imagine the stress of every traffic stop even being a possible interaction with some one with a gun? You can make a great case for why police forces need to make a report for each time they uuholster their gun in other countries, not so much in the US. You could vastly disarm the police if you disarm the populous as well. It is very strange for me to that people on the left even are against this when it works EVERY where else. It is clear why it does not happen, gun and weapons companies are big business and make big donations to all politician's, and the more they can sell to people the more they can sell to the police. It is a vicious circle that everyone on the outside knows the solution for but some how the NRA's amazing marketing campaign has convinced people that guns some how equal freedom, hell they even took some of the wording out of the second amendment to the point where many Americans believe it says their slogan to help them sell more guns rather than what was actually written. (The actual " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment What the NRA doesn’t like to admit is that guns were regulated in early America. People deemed untrustworthy — such as British loyalists unwilling to swear an oath to the new nation — were disarmed. The sale of guns to Native Americans was outlawed. Boston made it illegal to store a loaded firearm in any home or warehouse. Some states conducted door-to-door registration surveys so the militia could “impress” those weapons if necessary. Men had to attend musters where their guns would be inspected by the government. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/nra-second-amendment-guns-violenceIf American's do not end their gun issues, they will likely never fix their police. This has become so accepted that the satirical news site the Onion has been able to regularly repromote its article “ ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”But if that is a unwinable battle the next best place to start is dealing with the nations mental health issues.I really doubt that all the people who want to be police are psychopath's as has been suggested, heck I don't think there would even be enough psycopaths. But I don't doubt that given the massive stress, horrible events they both witness as first responders (not just murders, rapes, assaults and so on but also gruesome car accidents and so on), that they become very desensitized to violence and gain more and more prejudices both because of the culture they are surrounded with, but also because of the horrible things they see and experience. If you blame the people in the police for the problems instead of the system, you are no different than the people who blame the people committing the crimes instead of the system. On a case by case basis either can be true, but when it is this widespread it becomes clear that the conditions of the system are what is broken, and what breaks the people. So this means making sure that everybody poor, rich, everyone in between has medical care, that includes mental health. It means moving the system from treating the symptoms (all stages criminally, policing and incarceration, and healthcare for that matter) to treating the causes. There is actually a huge savings in doing this for the overall system the problem is because of how everything is structured "for profit" the people who could are incentivized not too. The easiest way to do this is make it government funded. That way the government and the people are better off if the system works better and therefore costs less. Right now hospitals want you to be sick (it is not surprising that the US has some of the worst overall health) and the prisons want you to get jailed, stay jailed and come back to jail once you get out. (In fact judges have gotten in trouble for taking kick backs from prisons for sentencing people longer and to their facilities). So for socialist's the government oversight is likely a positive and for capitalists, all the money being wasted in that system can now be spent on various other goods. And all the criminals in jail can now because customers and positive members of the economy. The people who are against the "defund the police" movement are right to be questing it, because no system in the world operates without some sort of policing. You can't stop paying the police, and make the job even more stressful and worse for mental health, while you are doing it and expect all the violence to magically go away. What you need is a full system overhaul where all the various stages are pulling together for the same goal. No one has found the perfect system yet. But there are many that are functioning a lot better than the US. The Netherlands would be a great place to start since they are actually closing prisons because they don't have enough "customers" instead of bursting at the seems. https://johnhoward.ca/blog/dutch-closing-prisons/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/12/why-are-there-so-few-prisoners-in-the-netherlandsAnd there are a bunch of other countries that you could also look at that have actual well (MUCH MUCH better than the US) functioning systems and take the best aspects from all of them. It is actually more drastic societal changes that are needed to improve the situation than defunding the police. And it means spending a lot more money up front to end up saving even a bunch more at the end. It does not take much analysis to see that taking the police completely out of the picture when you see how well armed the Boogaloo boys, Proud boys (strange how they all call themselves boys, I guess they also know they are not mature enough to be men, but I digress), gangs and various other well armed and bad intentioned groups that left to their own idea of justice will not end as a benefit to society. You don't even have to get into the criminal gangs in the US and beyond, because you have so many "legal" or legal adjacent gun owners who are not the people you want in control of justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement#:~:text=The boogaloo movement, members of,they call the "boogaloo". This seems like another case of American exceptionalism where you can easily look at other countries and see what they are doing and copy them, hell talk to them and see how you can do what they do and do it better. Otherwise if the answer is more of the same you are going to keep getting the same results. Defunding the police is just going to make people buy more guns, I bet it already has. Sure "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but you are not putting any effort or money into fixing the people, you are just creating more messed up people who kill people with more guns. You need to attack the root issues which is way to many mental health issues and culture that creates more. Then you mix in a fetishist attitude about guns and gun violence and you get what you have now. The answer is not some confusing message and something that has never worked anywhere. The answer is in finding out what has worked in other places the best and customize it to work for your unique setting. I've slowly learned that the "Defund The Police" movement and related sets of ideas are extremely diverse, and everything falling under that three-word catchphrase can end up hiding some of the more constructive, comprehensive solutions. For example, I've seen many clarifying posts and messages that the "Defund The Police" movement actually means something like this: + Show Spoiler + Now, a lot of these exploratory ideas are things I can easily get behind. I think these potential options would actually help those who want to protect and serve communities, because it would put less pressure on cops. They're currently asked to do wayyy more than they're trained to do (or that any one person should be expected to do, for that matter). The proponents of these ideas are intending to alleviate that burden and allocate a significant amount of resources towards additional, necessary professionals who can work parallel to the police, and often resolve conflicts without the required intervention of law enforcement. The biggest problem, I think, is that the phrase "Defund The Police" does a poor, unclear job of getting these points across. We have to keep in mind that a large percentage of Americans couldn't even manage to comprehend a three-word catchphrase that was literally and semantically crystal clear ("Black Lives Matter") without throwing in absurd extrapolations about other lives not mattering... if we're starting off with another three-word message that already isn't equally clear because of the word "Defund" and has a negative connotation attached to it, then the DTP message is already dead on arrival. I'm sure that there are other catchphrases that can be used that could have a better chance of resonating with people, like "Alleviate Blue Burden" or something else that's equally loaded and contrived. People can look at that and actually ask what that means (or, if they recognize Blue = Police, probably infer that the movement is to help the police in some way... which might not be the worst context in the world, especially if we're trying to persuade more people to join the cause). All this being said, if you're an advocate of completely defunding and completely abolishing law enforcement, then the phrase "Defund The Police" does a pretty good job of laying out your central thesis. If, instead, you're looking for a broader financial reform that includes law enforcement and a variety of other entities, then I think you need a better, broader catchphrase. It's important to note that "defund the police" comes specifically out of the abolitionist movement. Work that goes back decades. Work that included dialectically moving past reformist strategies like you see there. The stuff you're seeing there DPB is the centrist reactionary cooption of that phrase and is at the core of the discordance between the tepid reforms listed and the phrase "defund the police". Now reformists are free to do what they wish, but it's important to know this distinction and not try to tell people that do want to abolish the police (because reformism has categorically failed them) that they actually want to go back to fruitless reformist strategies. That's definitely fair, and it sounds like those who don't want to literally defund and abolish the police should probably run a parallel movement and message. On June 10 2020 23:03 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Hashtag slogan-making is a tricky thing. Defund The Police is an excellent bundle of firewood to throw on the flames and are not the words worth dying on. You can play semantics all you want over, "Well, we don't literally mean defund or abolish the police and instead here's a 10-point proposal list of reforms you aren't looking at", but the public has a tendency to latch on simple phrasing that skirts around nuance. I'd think "Rebuild the Police", "Rethink Policing" or "Rebuild Justice" strikes me as the tone that would satisfy most. We're talking an enormously complicated problem spanning policing, criminal justice, the legal system, the medical industry, prisons, institutional racism, hospitals, education and economic fairness that cannot be captured by three words that imply on face value that slashing police budgets will correct the problem that the Floyd protests exposed. Agreed. A different and distinct message would probably help, for both movements' sakes. Appreciated. Also important to note that what you're talking about is a counterrevolutionary movement and stands in opposition of defunding and abolishing the police, despite the superficially overlapping goals. Sure; I think it's very clear that many people who want police reform and other progress are more interested in working within the system and making more measured changes, which would definitely be different than abolishing the police (and vice-versa). On June 10 2020 23:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 23:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I think starting the goal post super far away is great for these types of movements. Yell at centrists you want to destroy the entire institution of policing and they'll actually give a shit and listen to you. If you shoot for the stars and miss, you at least hit the moon or something. I tend to agree. If the messaging is on the far end, the compromise just comes when it's time for implementation. If you start compromising before that point, then the compromise goes too far and you don't end up getting almost anything you needed. If messaging about defunding and abolition results in a more level approach involving rebuilding what exists in a more accountable way by the time it comes to action, that's still valuable progress. If you start your message with the compromise built-in, you end up selling the cause short. It's easy to forget that there is a constant disconnect that exists between an ideology and the messaging it uses. Trumpers were and probably still are happy with their "Build the Wall" messaging even though it never resulted in a wall. It's just how it works. I generally appreciate the strategy of trying to start as close to your ideal side as possible, so that any ground you give through compromise still nets you a greater win than if you started exactly in the middle and conceded more. That being said, there's also the risk that starting off at too extreme of a position may deter the other side from even coming to the table to talk with you (i.e., "they're not serious in making an equitable deal if we need to start at such an extreme position"). It seems to be all about a careful balancing act between getting as much of your side as possible while still convincing the other side that you're willing to negotiate with them in good faith. I respect you and your efforts to better navigate this issue by getting informed from where you can. I implore you and anyone else that wants to seriously understand the abolitionist perspective (and get a sense of the robustness behind the work) ignore me and the particular platform (for people with bias against them), and give this person a listen. While many people, including myself are relatively new to the abolitionist movement Ruth Wilson Gilmore has a deep and personal understanding of the work, a personal and generational history in the liberation movement in the US, and a lifetime of experience in this particular struggle between reform and radical changes to police and prison. She discusses and makes a case of sorts in favor of abolition.It's an hour+ of interview I've only partially gotten through at this point, but going forward would love to discuss the content with anyone that might consider themselves curious about abolition but drawn to more traditional channels of reform. That interview was rather disappointing for me. The journalist asks at the beginning "what do I mean by abolition?" He says it's not something stupid like defunding the police and "letting the chips fall where they may." There's a short recap of the history of policing. Policing is not about "safety" but enhancing productivity and ensuring usefulness. We should be asking ourselves what we want out of punishment. Sure, yes, all good. When Gilmore does get a chance to explain what she means by alternative ways of living, ways that communities can take some of the their social responsibility from the police, she points in the second episode to: 1) "public education" in the 19th century southern United States (as if we didn't have that) + Show Spoiler +That said, what we’re trying to do in thinking with so many people in so many places about abolition, is how can it be possible to realize a new way of being, given what it is we already know how to do. We can look back through history or around the world now and see, for example, as Du Bois taught us in “Black Reconstruction in America,” that post-Civil War communities in the South developed all kinds of institutions for well-being and opportunity and safety that did not rely on organized violence, but rather we’re opening up to the possibility of greater and greater freedom through the institution of such things as public education, and so on. and 2) small-holder farming — "70% of the world's food comes from small hand farming." Those seem like really strange answers. Do I have to read her book or what? There are plenty of good points made here and yet I can't help but feel that all of the answers she gives kind of slide right by the major questions.
I'm about 40 minutes in and my feeling is similar. I came looking for an answer to the question how a world without police would work. So far this topic hasn't even been brought up once. All I've gotten is that the term abolishment apparently shouldn't be taken literally, so I guess it's not an end goal but rather a path to reform. But that's just my guess, nothing is actually explained.
I'm not sure what the point is of a lenghty podcast about how the current system is not perfect, as that's almost universally accepted. This podcast should have been about explaining what a better system would look like and how it can be realistically achieved. Maybe the rest of the podcast will be better, but so far it's been disappointing.
|
I'm part Taíno from my Cuban heritage, and was taught by my Cuban family that Columbus is a piece of shit who ended up being a nobody at the end of his time due to enslaving the Taíno and native people. However, when I was growing up, my U.S History classes go on to celebrate his success in "Founding the New World", and ignored his vileness. Goes to show how white washed history is even in places where Cuban heritage is present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile#Columbus_and_Portuguese_relations
"Isabella was not in favour of Columbus' enslavement of the American natives and attempted to enforce the recent policies of the Canaries upon the "New World", stating that all peoples were under the subject of the Castilian Crown and could not be enslaved in most situations. The principles she established would have very little effect during her lifetime, however."
|
On June 12 2020 14:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:I'm part Taíno from my Cuban heritage, and was taught by my Cuban family that Columbus is a piece of shit who ended up being a nobody at the end of his time due to enslaving the Taíno and native people. However, when I was growing up, my U.S History classes go on to celebrate his success in "Founding the New World", and ignored his vileness. Goes to show how white washed history is even in places where Cuban heritage is present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile#Columbus_and_Portuguese_relations"Isabella was not in favour of Columbus' enslavement of the American natives and attempted to enforce the recent policies of the Canaries upon the "New World", stating that all peoples were under the subject of the Castilian Crown and could not be enslaved in most situations. The principles she established would have very little effect during her lifetime, however."
Remember that Columbus was so monstrous that people in 15th century europe cared about him being a monster in a far away land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusations_of_tyranny_and_brutality
That is why people are sceptical of the worship of him.
|
I don't think statues of famous people equal worship at all.
Columbus has statues because he was one of the greatest explorers of all times and opened a new era in world history. Period.
It's part of our cultural and historical heritage and we should use stuff like statues to learn and reflect about the guy, what he did and his time. Including the fact he was a complete bastard.
And also, where does it stop? Remove statues of Julius Cesar because he genocided the Gauls? What about removing Homer from libraries because the Illiad is culturally insensitive to Trojans?
At one point we can also think, without being given little arrows of goodness and badness for everything and everyone.
Talking if which, Gone with the Wind has been removed from HBO catalogue. That seriously pisses me off. It doesn't glorify the South or slavery in any way. It just happens there and is void of judgment. And the Don't Mention the War fawlty tower episode is gone too. Do we need to be that stupid?
|
I am not a fan of destroying statues either. However, i think that the statues and stuff which stands open in our cities should reflect who we are as a society, and be a subject to critical reflection. Otherwise we are forever subject to the first person who stood something on a street corner, no matter how offensive it is nowadays.
And i think some other historical figures could also require some reflection. We tend to have a far too positive view of the most egotistical psychopathic autocratic warmongers of history.
Also, Columbus wasn't that great. He failed his globe circumference maths and got lucky, then immediately turned into a cruel murderous asshole the second he had any power.
|
Well Churchill, Columbus or Julius Cesar are part of what we are, culturally and historically.
A statue doesn't mean we have a positive view on the person. It means that this person deserves to be remembered and has achieved great things.
I would argue that debating of the "goodness" of Cesar is completely irrelevant, and whether we should "honour" him, perfectly ridiculous.
Colbert or Louis XIV were not particularly sympathetic figures. Yet they had a gigantic impact on French history. France would be a totally different culture and nation without them; they virtually made the country for the better and the worse. And people should know that, know and reflect to their contribution. Hence the statues: those guys need to be remembered. It doesn't mean we should like them. And yes, they both participated in french slavery legacy. You know what? Everyone should know that too. And that won't happen by deleting them from public space.
The idea that deleting things that are not ideologically pure is the way to go made sense in Russia in 1920. I think we can do better than that.
And that does NOT apply to confederate generals. Those people achieved nothing but betray their nation for the shittiest reason and proceed to lose a war.
|
Just curious --> are there status of Luis XVI in France? I would guess not but You never know.
|
Can we stop giving Columbus props? He was a pos who has a bunch of incorrect shit attributed to him. He wasn't even the first European to "discover" the new world.
|
Remembering happens in museums and schools. Statues on the streets honor or worship. If you have a huge statues of someone, in a heroic pose, overlooking something important, that does paint a positive image of that person by default.
You should totally remember Hitler. We don't need any Hitler statues on our streets for that. And from a german perspective, the legacy of the third reich did also form who we are today.
And Cesar for example is a Hitler-Level asshole, just a lot longer ago and with better publicity because he actually won his wars.
|
I just wonder why we need statues to remember history. There are a lot of bad guys who achieved great things that we don't have statues of and remember both them and their actions just fine. I don't think I need to mention any names.
Seems to me the statues are there for honoring the person, not for remembering history. If anything, the removal of some of the statues have taught me a lot more about history than them just standing there.
EDIT: I see Simberto posted almost the same thoughts above me. Julius Caesar had some extreme genocides during his reign, which stands out even for his time.
|
I dont have problems with Mongolians having statues of Gynghis Khan (or Bajdar) everwhere same with Russians and monuments dedicated to Katherine the Great or Ivan IV and also same with germans and Friedrich II. And all those people have much more blood on their hands than Columbus. I woulde have something against monuments to Hitler or Stalin though.
|
On June 12 2020 17:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2020 14:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:I'm part Taíno from my Cuban heritage, and was taught by my Cuban family that Columbus is a piece of shit who ended up being a nobody at the end of his time due to enslaving the Taíno and native people. However, when I was growing up, my U.S History classes go on to celebrate his success in "Founding the New World", and ignored his vileness. Goes to show how white washed history is even in places where Cuban heritage is present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile#Columbus_and_Portuguese_relations"Isabella was not in favour of Columbus' enslavement of the American natives and attempted to enforce the recent policies of the Canaries upon the "New World", stating that all peoples were under the subject of the Castilian Crown and could not be enslaved in most situations. The principles she established would have very little effect during her lifetime, however." Remember that Columbus was so monstrous that people in 15th century europe cared about him being a monster in a far away land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusations_of_tyranny_and_brutalityThat is why people are sceptical of the worship of him.
That a lot of people/policies were considered monstrous among their contemporaries is often erased in western history. 100 years from now we'd try to tell a similar story about police. Tell us how they kept order and peace and with our enlightened 2100 morals it's easy to judge their brutality as inappropriate, but at the time...
|
On June 12 2020 19:11 Silvanel wrote:
I dont have problems with Mongolians having statues of Gynghis Khan (or Bajdar) everwhere same with Russians and monuments dedicated to Katherine the Great or Ivan IV and also same with germans and Friedrich II. And all those people have much more blood on their hands than Columbus. I woulde have something against monuments to Hitler or Stalin though.
I think that is because you don't feel the effects of the Khan Dynasty in any specific way today which makes your life worse.
What do you feel about a statue of King Leopold II?
|
On June 12 2020 12:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2020 00:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2020 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 10 2020 23:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 10 2020 22:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2020 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 10 2020 11:20 JimmiC wrote:There is so much to unpack when it comes to the US and the issues around the police and crime. You have the rampant systemic racism. You have civic governments often looking for arrest "stats" to help in the next election instead of actual results. You have a massive amount of poor people considering the countries wealth. You have prohibition and a unwinnable "war on drugs" You have the mass, mostly unregulated gun ownership making being police a much more dangerous job than most countries. You have a for profit healthcare system which means prevention is not a priority since they want more customers and their customers to stay for longer, which is the opposite of what your society should want. You have a for profit prison system which means to succeed they need more customers who stay longer, which is exactly the opposite of what your society should want. You don't tackle the mental health issues of the poor or of the police. You have a police forces and unions who operate like gangs protecting their own regardless if they should and massive amounts of PSTD since there is so many shootings (both at them and others) where the police are first on the scene or involved. Simply defunding the police is not going to accomplish anything without understanding that none of these issues work independently of each other. The first and easiest step would be to tackle all the gun issues, by regulating it FAR FAR more and making them so much less accessible. Your police are armed to their teeth because so is the populous. Can you imagine the stress of every traffic stop even being a possible interaction with some one with a gun? You can make a great case for why police forces need to make a report for each time they uuholster their gun in other countries, not so much in the US. You could vastly disarm the police if you disarm the populous as well. It is very strange for me to that people on the left even are against this when it works EVERY where else. It is clear why it does not happen, gun and weapons companies are big business and make big donations to all politician's, and the more they can sell to people the more they can sell to the police. It is a vicious circle that everyone on the outside knows the solution for but some how the NRA's amazing marketing campaign has convinced people that guns some how equal freedom, hell they even took some of the wording out of the second amendment to the point where many Americans believe it says their slogan to help them sell more guns rather than what was actually written. (The actual " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment What the NRA doesn’t like to admit is that guns were regulated in early America. People deemed untrustworthy — such as British loyalists unwilling to swear an oath to the new nation — were disarmed. The sale of guns to Native Americans was outlawed. Boston made it illegal to store a loaded firearm in any home or warehouse. Some states conducted door-to-door registration surveys so the militia could “impress” those weapons if necessary. Men had to attend musters where their guns would be inspected by the government. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/nra-second-amendment-guns-violenceIf American's do not end their gun issues, they will likely never fix their police. This has become so accepted that the satirical news site the Onion has been able to regularly repromote its article “ ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”But if that is a unwinable battle the next best place to start is dealing with the nations mental health issues.I really doubt that all the people who want to be police are psychopath's as has been suggested, heck I don't think there would even be enough psycopaths. But I don't doubt that given the massive stress, horrible events they both witness as first responders (not just murders, rapes, assaults and so on but also gruesome car accidents and so on), that they become very desensitized to violence and gain more and more prejudices both because of the culture they are surrounded with, but also because of the horrible things they see and experience. If you blame the people in the police for the problems instead of the system, you are no different than the people who blame the people committing the crimes instead of the system. On a case by case basis either can be true, but when it is this widespread it becomes clear that the conditions of the system are what is broken, and what breaks the people. So this means making sure that everybody poor, rich, everyone in between has medical care, that includes mental health. It means moving the system from treating the symptoms (all stages criminally, policing and incarceration, and healthcare for that matter) to treating the causes. There is actually a huge savings in doing this for the overall system the problem is because of how everything is structured "for profit" the people who could are incentivized not too. The easiest way to do this is make it government funded. That way the government and the people are better off if the system works better and therefore costs less. Right now hospitals want you to be sick (it is not surprising that the US has some of the worst overall health) and the prisons want you to get jailed, stay jailed and come back to jail once you get out. (In fact judges have gotten in trouble for taking kick backs from prisons for sentencing people longer and to their facilities). So for socialist's the government oversight is likely a positive and for capitalists, all the money being wasted in that system can now be spent on various other goods. And all the criminals in jail can now because customers and positive members of the economy. The people who are against the "defund the police" movement are right to be questing it, because no system in the world operates without some sort of policing. You can't stop paying the police, and make the job even more stressful and worse for mental health, while you are doing it and expect all the violence to magically go away. What you need is a full system overhaul where all the various stages are pulling together for the same goal. No one has found the perfect system yet. But there are many that are functioning a lot better than the US. The Netherlands would be a great place to start since they are actually closing prisons because they don't have enough "customers" instead of bursting at the seems. https://johnhoward.ca/blog/dutch-closing-prisons/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/12/why-are-there-so-few-prisoners-in-the-netherlandsAnd there are a bunch of other countries that you could also look at that have actual well (MUCH MUCH better than the US) functioning systems and take the best aspects from all of them. It is actually more drastic societal changes that are needed to improve the situation than defunding the police. And it means spending a lot more money up front to end up saving even a bunch more at the end. It does not take much analysis to see that taking the police completely out of the picture when you see how well armed the Boogaloo boys, Proud boys (strange how they all call themselves boys, I guess they also know they are not mature enough to be men, but I digress), gangs and various other well armed and bad intentioned groups that left to their own idea of justice will not end as a benefit to society. You don't even have to get into the criminal gangs in the US and beyond, because you have so many "legal" or legal adjacent gun owners who are not the people you want in control of justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement#:~:text=The boogaloo movement, members of,they call the "boogaloo". This seems like another case of American exceptionalism where you can easily look at other countries and see what they are doing and copy them, hell talk to them and see how you can do what they do and do it better. Otherwise if the answer is more of the same you are going to keep getting the same results. Defunding the police is just going to make people buy more guns, I bet it already has. Sure "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but you are not putting any effort or money into fixing the people, you are just creating more messed up people who kill people with more guns. You need to attack the root issues which is way to many mental health issues and culture that creates more. Then you mix in a fetishist attitude about guns and gun violence and you get what you have now. The answer is not some confusing message and something that has never worked anywhere. The answer is in finding out what has worked in other places the best and customize it to work for your unique setting. I've slowly learned that the "Defund The Police" movement and related sets of ideas are extremely diverse, and everything falling under that three-word catchphrase can end up hiding some of the more constructive, comprehensive solutions. For example, I've seen many clarifying posts and messages that the "Defund The Police" movement actually means something like this: + Show Spoiler + Now, a lot of these exploratory ideas are things I can easily get behind. I think these potential options would actually help those who want to protect and serve communities, because it would put less pressure on cops. They're currently asked to do wayyy more than they're trained to do (or that any one person should be expected to do, for that matter). The proponents of these ideas are intending to alleviate that burden and allocate a significant amount of resources towards additional, necessary professionals who can work parallel to the police, and often resolve conflicts without the required intervention of law enforcement. The biggest problem, I think, is that the phrase "Defund The Police" does a poor, unclear job of getting these points across. We have to keep in mind that a large percentage of Americans couldn't even manage to comprehend a three-word catchphrase that was literally and semantically crystal clear ("Black Lives Matter") without throwing in absurd extrapolations about other lives not mattering... if we're starting off with another three-word message that already isn't equally clear because of the word "Defund" and has a negative connotation attached to it, then the DTP message is already dead on arrival. I'm sure that there are other catchphrases that can be used that could have a better chance of resonating with people, like "Alleviate Blue Burden" or something else that's equally loaded and contrived. People can look at that and actually ask what that means (or, if they recognize Blue = Police, probably infer that the movement is to help the police in some way... which might not be the worst context in the world, especially if we're trying to persuade more people to join the cause). All this being said, if you're an advocate of completely defunding and completely abolishing law enforcement, then the phrase "Defund The Police" does a pretty good job of laying out your central thesis. If, instead, you're looking for a broader financial reform that includes law enforcement and a variety of other entities, then I think you need a better, broader catchphrase. It's important to note that "defund the police" comes specifically out of the abolitionist movement. Work that goes back decades. Work that included dialectically moving past reformist strategies like you see there. The stuff you're seeing there DPB is the centrist reactionary cooption of that phrase and is at the core of the discordance between the tepid reforms listed and the phrase "defund the police". Now reformists are free to do what they wish, but it's important to know this distinction and not try to tell people that do want to abolish the police (because reformism has categorically failed them) that they actually want to go back to fruitless reformist strategies. That's definitely fair, and it sounds like those who don't want to literally defund and abolish the police should probably run a parallel movement and message. On June 10 2020 23:03 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Hashtag slogan-making is a tricky thing. Defund The Police is an excellent bundle of firewood to throw on the flames and are not the words worth dying on. You can play semantics all you want over, "Well, we don't literally mean defund or abolish the police and instead here's a 10-point proposal list of reforms you aren't looking at", but the public has a tendency to latch on simple phrasing that skirts around nuance. I'd think "Rebuild the Police", "Rethink Policing" or "Rebuild Justice" strikes me as the tone that would satisfy most. We're talking an enormously complicated problem spanning policing, criminal justice, the legal system, the medical industry, prisons, institutional racism, hospitals, education and economic fairness that cannot be captured by three words that imply on face value that slashing police budgets will correct the problem that the Floyd protests exposed. Agreed. A different and distinct message would probably help, for both movements' sakes. Appreciated. Also important to note that what you're talking about is a counterrevolutionary movement and stands in opposition of defunding and abolishing the police, despite the superficially overlapping goals. Sure; I think it's very clear that many people who want police reform and other progress are more interested in working within the system and making more measured changes, which would definitely be different than abolishing the police (and vice-versa). On June 10 2020 23:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 23:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I think starting the goal post super far away is great for these types of movements. Yell at centrists you want to destroy the entire institution of policing and they'll actually give a shit and listen to you. If you shoot for the stars and miss, you at least hit the moon or something. I tend to agree. If the messaging is on the far end, the compromise just comes when it's time for implementation. If you start compromising before that point, then the compromise goes too far and you don't end up getting almost anything you needed. If messaging about defunding and abolition results in a more level approach involving rebuilding what exists in a more accountable way by the time it comes to action, that's still valuable progress. If you start your message with the compromise built-in, you end up selling the cause short. It's easy to forget that there is a constant disconnect that exists between an ideology and the messaging it uses. Trumpers were and probably still are happy with their "Build the Wall" messaging even though it never resulted in a wall. It's just how it works. I generally appreciate the strategy of trying to start as close to your ideal side as possible, so that any ground you give through compromise still nets you a greater win than if you started exactly in the middle and conceded more. That being said, there's also the risk that starting off at too extreme of a position may deter the other side from even coming to the table to talk with you (i.e., "they're not serious in making an equitable deal if we need to start at such an extreme position"). It seems to be all about a careful balancing act between getting as much of your side as possible while still convincing the other side that you're willing to negotiate with them in good faith. I respect you and your efforts to better navigate this issue by getting informed from where you can. I implore you and anyone else that wants to seriously understand the abolitionist perspective (and get a sense of the robustness behind the work) ignore me and the particular platform (for people with bias against them), and give this person a listen. While many people, including myself are relatively new to the abolitionist movement Ruth Wilson Gilmore has a deep and personal understanding of the work, a personal and generational history in the liberation movement in the US, and a lifetime of experience in this particular struggle between reform and radical changes to police and prison. She discusses and makes a case of sorts in favor of abolition.It's an hour+ of interview I've only partially gotten through at this point, but going forward would love to discuss the content with anyone that might consider themselves curious about abolition but drawn to more traditional channels of reform. That interview was rather disappointing for me. The journalist asks at the beginning "what do I mean by abolition?" He says it's not something stupid like defunding the police and "letting the chips fall where they may." There's a short recap of the history of policing. Policing is not about "safety" but enhancing productivity and ensuring usefulness. We should be asking ourselves what we want out of punishment. Sure, yes, all good. When Gilmore does get a chance to explain what she means by alternative ways of living, ways that communities can take some of the their social responsibility from the police, she points in the second episode to: 1) "public education" in the 19th century southern United States (as if we didn't have that) + Show Spoiler +That said, what we’re trying to do in thinking with so many people in so many places about abolition, is how can it be possible to realize a new way of being, given what it is we already know how to do. We can look back through history or around the world now and see, for example, as Du Bois taught us in “Black Reconstruction in America,” that post-Civil War communities in the South developed all kinds of institutions for well-being and opportunity and safety that did not rely on organized violence, but rather we’re opening up to the possibility of greater and greater freedom through the institution of such things as public education, and so on. and 2) small-holder farming — "70% of the world's food comes from small hand farming." Those seem like really strange answers. Do I have to read her book or what? There are plenty of good points made here and yet I can't help but feel that all of the answers she gives kind of slide right by the major questions.
The first question I have is does the police/prison system work? I would say demonstrably no.+ Show Spoiler + Not that they are imperfect as sr18 suggests, but so ineffective it's resulted in the wealthiest country on the planet incarcerating absurd numbers, recidivism is off the charts, frequent mass murders, ridiculous suicide rates, etc.
So I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that some police forces making their ties to kkk and neonazi groups public and becoming vigilantes would be more harmful than allowing them to maintain their plausible deniability and state authority. Which is to say I don't accept the proposition that just disbanding the police and giving their budgets to schools without a plan would be worse than maintaining police as they exist.
If nothing else they'd have a lot less tax money to spend on their armaments.
|
Well people on my list are (mostly) those who did terrible things to polish population, thats why i mentioned them specifically, You would need to ask someone with relation to Kongo how they feel about him. I personally dont have any feelings about Leopold II. However i would guess its NOT OK. Because it is rather modern, did he do anything worth mentioning other then genocide?
And why did You focus on Mongols rather than Katherine and Fredrich??? The effects of their wars and policies are felt in Poland to this day. Trust me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
