|
It's an insanely circular argument here. Either you think man is fundamentally good and meeting the material needs of them will solve all crime and thus you don't need a coercive arm of the state or you don't and think you do. No one argues for the status quo but that is what everyone reverts to attacking. Most abolish people itt mean abolish in its current state and replace with some new form of community policing, so they actually mean reform in colloquial language. Once this was clear the thread made alot more sense. I stand on the side that there will still be crime no matter how much you pour into social programs without a means for the state to enforce laws (greed is a powerful motivator particularly when there is no consequences, I'm a bad person and would break laws for more money)
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Why are you assuming there will be no consequences? There will still be jails and laws. We don't need a heavily militarized racist gang to enforce them though. Granted we should absolutely rebuild the Justice System while we're at it, but that's out of the scope of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
flashman posted:It's an insanely circular argument here. Either you think man is fundamentally good and meeting the material needs of them will solve all crime and thus you don't need a coercive arm of the state or you don't and think you do. No one argues for the status quo but that is what everyone reverts to attacking. I'm more thinking of crimes of passion. Heat of the moment style things. Basic necessities being met will cut out a *lot* of crime. There will however of course be people who will still do crimes, that's just kind of how free will works. Abolishing the police as they are and starting over from new doesn't fit reform to me. Reformative acts are like passing new rules to try and get the current system fixed, when there is no fixing the current system. Burn it down. Start over. Like, even the guy who first turned me onto Anarchical thinking, Thought Slime, says that with the removal of police you must make something new and something better in their place. That there will be people who commit crimes, even with basic needs met (re: All the rich fucks committing staggering amounts of crime to get richer) and that in a better system, there'd be a rotating group of people serving on this defense initiative. Being that they'd be smaller and more community based, they'd better know how to serve the needs of the community. Would it be perfect? No. There is no perfect system, but it'd be damned better than what we have now. Koalas March posted:Why are you assuming there will be no consequences? There will still be jails and laws. We don't need a heavily militarized racist gang to enforce them though. In my dream world, jails would be a thing of the past. Incarceration would be a last resort for people who are incapable of not being a danger to themselves or others. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
I don't even see it as a must, there will be something to take its place, that's how society works. You don't need a cop standing over your shoulder to govern your every interaction with other people, you and others are perfectly capable of navigating social situations by yourself. You are capable of adapting to new ones and resolving conflicts without calling the cops to murder someone. But as long as the cops exist there's gonna be people who would rather call the cops to murder someone than figure out how to engage with people as equals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
flashman posted:It's an insanely circular argument here. Either you think man is fundamentally good and meeting the material needs of them will solve all crime and thus you don't need a coercive arm of the state or you don't and think you do. No one argues for the status quo but that is what everyone reverts to attacking. I think it would be more accurate to say that some people are having trouble understanding what law enforcement looks like when it's not formed in such a way as our current incredibly broken policing. People say "abolish the police" because the police are bad and fundamentally broken. Social programs work to address the problems that cause crime, and are a solution that actually takes into account the fundamental goal of reducing crime. Something police are not set up to do, or have any interest in doing. I don't believe anyone is expecting a crimeless utopia, they're talking about creating something to actually reduce crime rather than just respond to it, which is where we are now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Why are you assuming there will be no consequences? There will still be jails and laws. We don't need a heavily militarized racist gang to enforce them though. This is where the word abolish is unclear, like I mentioned in my post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
flashman posted:This is where the word abolish is unclear, like I mentioned in my post. I think the problem is a lot of people (including myself) refuse to use the word reform because, as you see with Cuomo's statement today, people seem to think "well we wrote down on a piece of paper they're not allowed to choke people. Job done!" Is reform and we want a radical change instead. Abolish the police for most people doesn't mean Abolish all forms of policing, but abolishing the current police and state of policing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
Has there been much discussion of mental illness and policing? https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/overlooked-in-the-undercounted.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
flashman posted:This is where the word abolish is unclear, like I mentioned in my post. I would argue that abolish the police the police is perfectly clear - the police are an institution, not the sole manifestation of the concept of law and order. Abolition of the police means just that - abolish the institution that is the police. Other institutions can and will replace them in some functions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:I think the problem is a lot of people (including myself) refuse to use the word reform because, as you see with Cuomo's statement today, people seem to think "well we wrote down on a piece of paper they're not allowed to choke people. Job done!" Is reform and we want a radical change instead. I understand that now, unfortunately even in this thread it's used both ways so it's quite confusing when most people mean reform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
I guess anything is reformism if it doesn't involve the annihilation of the entire universe or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I guess anything is reformism if it doesn't involve the annihilation of the entire universe or something. Some people are just really dedicated to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
The reason 'abolish' is closer in accuracy than 'reform' is because we need alternative institutions with no connections to the current heavily racist, violent, and self-protecting one. At the same time we are building them we should be dismantling Nathan Bedford Forrest's Institution for the Murderously Racist, and make sure we're not porting over people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
At this point, it's pretty likely that wasteland warlords would be less violent than the police as they are. Reforming the police is like trying to reform ICE, or reform the Proud Boys. A more culturally sensitive Klan. A kinder, gentler Waffen-SS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
My opinion on the police is that I do think you absolutely need some type of government force in certain situations. Such as people performing armed robberies, rapes, etc. However, the reality is the overwhelming vast majority of times cops intervene is stuff like noise complaints and other very minor things. There is no need for police in these types of situations. There are several alternatives such as crisis assistance that would be far better suited under these situations. That said, yes there are police that abuse power and what not but at the end of the day you have to have some from of people who work for the community there to stop someone from trying to rob and kill someone. I realize that it is a pastry dish of corruption, but much like elected officials its something that we have to do our best in weeding it out because at the end of the day it is something that is needed under such situations. But these situations are rare so deploying the such a entity should also be rare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 07:40
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:My opinion on the police is that I do think you absolutely need some type of government force in certain situations. Such as people performing armed robberies, rapes, etc. There is no weeding out bad cops. The 'Thin Blue Line' and 'Sheeps, wolves, and sheepdogs' mentality is a part of cop culture. A good cop is forced to either become a bad cop, or ends up out of the service. Either because they quit, or they got shot in the back of the head by their partner. Reminder: When a man recorded police misconduct, a swat team went to his apartment and loving forcibly admitted him to a psych ward. Then they made funny pins that showed a rat being straitjacketed in a loving ambulance, and a cassette tape. That was ordered by the chief of police btw. There is no reforming cops. Burn it all down, and start over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:There is no weeding out bad cops. The 'Thin Blue Line' and 'Sheeps, wolves, and sheepdogs' mentality is a part of cop culture. A good cop is forced to either become a bad cop, or ends up out of the service. Either because they quit, or they got shot in the back of the head by their partner. Reminder: When a man recorded police misconduct, a swat team went to his apartment and loving forcibly admitted him to a psych ward. I didn't imply that we would simply be downsizing the current police force, but making a new type of agency that specializes in high level rare threats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 09:32
|
|
|
Yeah, we all know that someone is likely to be needed to deal with the edge cases of truly insane or violent individuals, but the vast majority of crime doesn't need a gun involved, at all, it also doesn't need the perpetrator caught RIGHT THIS SECOND. Indeed that is impossible anyway. What is needed are people skilled in conflict resolution and negotiation, who can respond to anything less than assaults and armed robberies in progress by talking to people and collecting evidence, none of which needs a gun to back that up. The people who respond need to be as close to unbiased as possible, and be approaching their situation as a dealing with people they are all sworn to protect and serve. The police we have now cannot do that, reforms have not helped, this is because regardless of what laws or regulations are on the books, the training and culture of the police turns every member of the force into someone who views the world as divided between them, and potential threats or victims. And when I say victims I don't mean victims of those who commit crimes, I mean the criminals in uniform, they don't see any of us as allies or people to protect, at best we can be people who bribe them to target someone else, and the people who can do that are the ones who go to their fundraisers and approve their budgets, every single one of the rest of us, white people included, are targets for them, either to be eliminated as a possible threat, or to be taken advantage of in some other way. It is not a system that can be saved so long as any shred of the previous regime exists in it. And it does more harm than just not having law enforcement at all. If you don't believe me ask nearly any rape survivor or domestic violence victim, they can tell you any number of stories where they were ignored, belittled, or taken advantage of when they go to the police for help and a negligible percentage of them ever see justice, but a rather large amount of them get put in more danger when they do report. People always ask for details as to what a new system would look like, and none of the details provided are good enough for them, this is mostly because they don't actually care and want to tie up conversation instead. None of us can tell you exactly what the structure of a replacement organization would look like, we can't tell you the precise wording of the policies, the pay scale, or ranks, that is something that is impossible to figure out at our stage, likewise, I can't tell you what the exact protocol for dealing with the edge cases that keep getting brought up would be. In general terms what I would want to see is the new organization containing no personnel, staff, supplies, or iconography of the previous system. Those involved in the organization of it should be educated in law, sociology, and psychology. They should probably create a training curriculum for the new officers which would include deescalation procedures, negotiation, counseling, legal training, foreign language training, ASL, and probably an unarmed self defense course. There would be specialties, possibly multiple departments focused on those specialties so calls can be routed to the appropriate experts, but they should all have a basic grounding in everything. Awareness or bias training would not be a separate course but rather intertwined with every aspect of the training, just as now officers are indoctrinated into an "us vs them" mentality, we can indoctrinate other things if we work on it as well. There would be no patrolling in cruisers, vehicles would be needed of course, but officers would be assigned to neighborhoods and posted in street level offices or booths, and any "patrolling" would be on foot. These street level officers would be the first to respond to things like accidents or calls in their area, but would ideally spend most of their time in community relations, chatting with locals, helping to resolve minor disputes or point people towards resource, perhaps running trainings in the same things they had to learn, and simply being present without being threats. You'd need on call people as well, and rotations would probably have to go through various precincts or whatever new term we come up with But the idea is to have people getting used to having officers that can be engaged with without feeling threatened. So that people can come up to someone they know or have at least seen around, and to ask for help with a reasonable assurance that it won't cost them their life or liberty to do so. There would need to be a group that reacts to the edge cases that do need an armed force, like the odd hostage situation or school shooter, or maybe terrorist attack. Again this should not be anyone related to the old regime of law enforcement. To be honest I don't know the best way to train people to be willing to shoot others while also minimizing their urge to do so indiscriminately, perhaps the military has some ideas on that front since we don't seem to be massacring civilians left and right too much anymore.(yes I know it happens but we all know it happens for very different reasons than when the cops do it.) We'd probably need a sort of lock up, where people can be put to sober up if they get too trashed and aggressive, but there is not reason it needs to be anything more than a motel style room with a sturdy door. If we are minimizing harm the best way to do so is have them sleep it off and they can deal with the consequences of fines or assault charges when they sober up. That is a very brief and not comprehensive overview of one way a replacement system could be set up. I know I didn't cover every single possibility so shut up, I also know that some people, without the threat of a gun, will not be inclined to follow the advice of their friendly neighborhood officer, this is an issue to be sure, and one that would need to be escalated appropriately depending on the situation, but do we really need to put death on the table as a consequence for robbery, traffic violations, or even assault? I mean, if we wouldn't sentence someone to it when they are caught, why does it become acceptable to do to catch them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 09:47
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I didn't imply that we would simply be downsizing the current police force, but making a new type of agency that specializes in high level rare threats. My bad, I misread your statement. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 10:15
|
|
|
Pustulio posted:Yeah, we all know that someone is likely to be needed to deal with the edge cases of truly insane or violent individuals, but the vast majority of crime doesn't need a gun involved, at all, it also doesn't need the perpetrator caught RIGHT THIS SECOND. Indeed that is impossible anyway. What is needed are people skilled in conflict resolution and negotiation, who can respond to anything less than assaults and armed robberies in progress by talking to people and collecting evidence, none of which needs a gun to back that up. The people who respond need to be as close to unbiased as possible, and be approaching their situation as a dealing with people they are all sworn to protect and serve. And who will put down the criminals that will grow to become crimelord/warlords? Who will put down the gangs that take over the city? Mexico is a perfect example of what happens when the police are removed. Cartels rule whole sections of the country and law is based on their will. You've seen what happens to those who they even suspect of resistance. I think you're being too generous in regards to what we've all known for centuries regarding human nature. Power relates to the axiom that "nature abhors a vacuum."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Pustulio posted:People always ask for details as to what a new system would look like, and none of the details provided are good enough for them, this is mostly because they don't actually care and want to tie up conversation instead. None of us can tell you exactly what the structure of a replacement organization would look like, we can't tell you the precise wording of the policies, the pay scale, or ranks, that is something that is impossible to figure out at our stage, likewise, I can't tell you what the exact protocol for dealing with the edge cases that keep getting brought up would be. The reason is because if you building an institution that is a pillar of modern society from the ground up, it is important to know at least basic overview of what you are going to do. While your post elaborates on many things sufficiently, there are plenty of people who just say "abolish the police" and when pressed on what the alternative may be they simply shrug their shoulders and say "gently caress them." If you are going to engage in some type of revolution you need both a plan and an end goal. Pustulio posted:In general terms what I would want to see is the new organization containing no personnel, staff, supplies, or iconography of the previous system. Those involved in the organization of it should be educated in law, sociology, and psychology. They should probably create a training curriculum for the new officers which would include deescalation procedures, negotiation, counseling, legal training, foreign language training, ASL, and probably an unarmed self defense course. There would be specialties, possibly multiple departments focused on those specialties so calls can be routed to the appropriate experts, but they should all have a basic grounding in everything. Awareness or bias training would not be a separate course but rather intertwined with every aspect of the training, just as now officers are indoctrinated into an "us vs them" mentality, we can indoctrinate other things if we work on it as well. Good stuff. Pustulio posted:I also know that some people, without the threat of a gun, will not be inclined to follow the advice of their friendly neighborhood officer, this is an issue to be sure, and one that would need to be escalated appropriately depending on the situation, but do we really need to put death on the table as a consequence for robbery, traffic violations, or even assault? I mean, if we wouldn't sentence someone to it when they are caught, why does it become acceptable to do to catch them? If someone is threatening to cause significant harm to someone to potentially kill them then yes it is more than viable to kill the perpetrator in that moment. If victim call for help because someone is trying to kill them and the help gets there seeing an assailant is pointing a gun at the victim and screams at the assailant to drop the weapon or they will shoot them and the assailant doesn't drop the weapon, then yes I will say it is more than reasonable for the help to kill the assailant. Is this a common thing to occur in 9/11 calls? Not at all. Does it still happen? Yes. Does it mean that every 9/11 call has to be treated as such a situation? Of course not. Should there be a emergency service that is prepared for such a situation? Of course. There is a difference between deescalating a situation and only using force when absolutely necessary and being well prepared to use such force, compared to engaging in that situation headstrong and escalating it to the point where use of such force is all but guaranteed and being well prepared to use such force. However, there is also a big difference between deescalating a situation and only using force when absolutely necessary and being well prepared to use such force, and deescalating a situation but not being prepared or have the resources to use such force even when such force is necessary. I feel the vast majority of people would choose the former in both examples and that's what we should strive for. Again, do I want such an emergency service being deployed in every or even the vast majority of calls? No. But such a service should exist in those that fall in the fast minority of calls for help. Count Freebasie posted:Mexico is a perfect example of what happens when the police are removed. Cartels rule whole sections of the country and law is based on their will. You've seen what happens to those who they even suspect of resistance There are police in Mexico. Up until a few years ago they even regularly sent the military in the cities to deal with crime and the cartels. Not to mention the context is a bit different. A big reason for Mexico's crime is that the warlords have gotten rich enough to hire their own private army in which Mexico being a relatively poor country finds it much more difficult to deal with them than America would due to all the various factors of being a relatively poor country. There is also the fact that as bad as American crime is, it isn't Mexico and if you would draw a line in the sand is closer to that of Canada and much of Western Europe than Latin America. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jun 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:It seems everyone here really is convinced that if we got rid of all law enforcement tomorrow that communities would step up and provide better systems. (I said law enforcement, not police). This was established like a week ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Mexico is a lovely example of what happens when police are removed, because the cartels and their influence in that country are directly related to outside influence, particularly the USA's demand for drugs and the war on drugs itself. There are very few points of congruence there, in a way the issue with how we run our law enforcement are a direct cause of the problems in Mexico. you say warlords and gangs will take over cities, I ask you why they would need to do that? People don't generally join gangs because they have dreamed of that career path. Most people just want to be safe and have their needs met, I would argue that focusing on doing those things would reduce gangs and so on rather more than focusing on "putting down the criminals that will grow to become crimelord/warlords"? Seriously? You are seriously arguing for preemptively killing people because they might one day run gangs or whatever? gently caress me I don't want you in charge of anything. As to those who do become crimelords or warlords, I think I did argue for a division that can actually use guns to deal with them if they become an issue? Also the new system doesn't exist in a vacuum, I am pretty sure the federal government would have something to say about warlords seizing American territory, don't we have the National Guard or the army for those kind of things? You say I am being too generous in my assumption that people won't turn into monsters without a boot on their neck. It's possible I suppose, but gently caress it why not try? Like, we've tried the system we have now for a couple hundred years and it's not loving working.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Everyone asking 'if we abolish the police then how will we stop roving gangs of murderers and rape squads' is really telling on themselves given that the primary function of police is to brutally enforce a racialized class system....
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:And who will put down the criminals that will grow to become crimelord/warlords? Who will put down the gangs that take over the city? Mexico is a perfect example of what happens when the police are removed. Cartels rule whole sections of the country and law is based on their will. You've seen what happens to those who they even suspect of resistance. Mexico has the fourth largest police force in the world. The problem there is endemic corruption and militarization, as well as their own problems with brutality driven by class, race, and ethnic oppression. The Sicario movies are fictional, not documentaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Everyone asking 'if we abolish the police then how will we stop roving gangs of murderers and rape squads' is really telling on themselves given that the primary function of police is to brutally enforce a racialized class system.... It's the same thing as those Christians who say "if everyone was an atheist and didn't fear hell, everyone would murder and rape indiscriminately!" like, naw just cause that's what you would be doing doesn't mean the same for everyone else. The majority of crime isn't violent in the first place iirc. UBI, healthcare, housing EBT and free rehab/psych care would solve a loooot of problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:It's the same thing as those Christians who say "if everyone was an atheist and didn't fear hell, everyone would murder and rape indiscriminately!" like, naw just cause that's what you would be doing doesn't mean the same for everyone else. Literally the majority of crime is wage theft and corporate fraud, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
Very good thread on the financial incentives for police to be as violent and punitive as they wanna be: https://twitter.com/GalvinAlmanza/status/1272254871664766976?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 07:11
|
|
|
loving lol @ "arrest some rando so you can get overtime doing their paperwork" like jesus christ how loving stupid is this goddamn system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:loving lol @ "arrest some rando so you can get overtime doing their paperwork" like jesus christ how loving stupid is this goddamn system. The exact opposite happens* where I live. Cops will stop people they think are drunk driving, but will literally drive them home and forget about the incident so that they don't have to do paperwork till 5 am. *only applies to white detainees
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 08:28
|
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:Very good thread on the financial incentives for police to be as violent and punitive as they wanna be: O M F'ing G!!!!! I had not seen any city budget this egregious before reading that thread. There is no way anyone in the world could justify this disproportionate spending on police:  Utterly reprehensible!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
CocoaNuts posted:O M F'ing G!!!!! Real "spend less on candles" moment
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
The interview is not all about police, but there are some provocative and thoughtful quotes from Jon Stewart in this interview: https://twitter.com/NYTmag/status/1272531070962016258
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
CocoaNuts posted:The interview is not all about police, but there are some provocative and thoughtful quotes from Jon Stewart in this interview: quote:‘‘Look, we certainly were part of that ecosystem, but I don’t think that news became entertainment because they thought our show was a success,’’ Stewart says. ‘‘Twenty-four-hour news networks are built for one thing, and that’s 9/11. There are very few events that would justify being covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So in the absence of urgency, they have to create it. You create urgency through conflict.’’ This is all you need to read to understand the Jon Stewart is full of poo poo and has never understood either the role the media plays or the role he played in perpetuating oppression. The media is not an organism design to create conflict. Most of the 24 hour news networks are just talking heads telling viewers what to think - 18 hours a day, it's opinion programming. That has nothing to do with creating conflict and everything to do with manufacturing consent. They are an organism designed to perpetuate the views of an elite ruling class, particularly when it comes to what types of political opinions are acceptable and on-trend, and optimally to do it at a profit. And his show and his personal elevation were that. He made politics into a comedy show while real people died as a result of those politics. He helped manufacture the liberal "post political" mindset in a generation of mostly young mostly white people by turning lethal electoral outcomes (for mostly poor, mostly non-white victims) into a comedy sketch. There are tiny glints that he sees now in retrospect the sham covering over the gaping wounds in our society but no evidence at all that he understands his own starring role in that sham. I've heard enough from Jon Stewart. You want to defend yourself on CNN by saying your show is just a comedy program that comes on after crank-calling puppets? Fine. But you can go gently caress yourself when you want to opine on what ails society every day after that one. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Jun 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 07:08
|
|
|
Jon Stewart is a massive influence for many people to pay attention to politics. He doesn’t pass 100 percent purity test, but you show me mainstream pundits with lines as scathing as this: ”They’re not a rogue alien organization that came down to torment the black community. They’re enforcing segregation. Segregation is legally over, but it never ended. The police are, in some respects, a border patrol, and they patrol the border between the two Americas. We have that so that the rest of us don’t have to deal with it. Then that situation erupts, and we express our shock and indignation. But if we don’t address the anguish of a people, the pain of being a people who built this country through forced labor — people say, ‘‘I’m tired of everything being about race.’’ Well, imagine how [expletive] exhausting it is to live that.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
This is Jon Stewart's upcoming film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vhaAoSm1NY That's all you need to know about him and his politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Jon Stewart is a massive influence for many people to pay attention to politics. He doesn’t pass 100 percent purity test, but you show me mainstream pundits with lines as scathing as this: Yeah, zing. Got'em. Scathing lines. Jon Stewart had a platform and he used it to give people a sensible chuckle at how gosh darned divisive politics is and check out from both electoralism and activism. How about instead of showing you flavors of the ten cent titanium tax that does/doesn't go too far enough from the diverse realm of blue-branded mainstream punditry vs red-branded mainstream punditry, we throw mainstream punditry on the trash heap of history and I show you my city councilwoman unlocking the doors of city hall to let thousands of people in to call for our mayor to resign instead? https://twitter.com/AGarlandPhoto/status/1270565427219841024 The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jun 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 08:14
|
|
|
It's cool that Jon Stewart said that but he should've said it a decade ago when he had a tv show. Not like any of these problems are new. Unrelated but useful article: https://twitter.com/DorothyERoberts/status/1272882526495936519?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
John Stewart has been a very funny person and the Daily Show during his time there was pretty great. He seems like a nice and generally good guy in real life but he's missed a lot of opportunities to advocate for a lot of issues, these days it looks like he is slowly feeling his way into truly progressive views, but is unwilling to confront his own failings on the same topics in the past. I think there is hope for him but he isn't really the leading voice we need right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:It's cool that Jon Stewart said that but he should've said it a decade ago when he had a tv show. Not like any of these problems are new. I worked in a group home/residential "treatment" center and it was absolutely insane (with giant gaping holes in both sides of the spectrum). Tons of stories from there. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jun 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 01:07
|
|