|
You're right, abolish the police is really the more accurate phrasing here.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I don't want reform. I don't want bans on chokeholds; they use them anyway and have plenty of other methods by which to harm and kill people. I don't want police oversight boards; we have one and they do nothing. I don't want coffee with a cop; cops are racist murderers. I don't want them doing photo-ops with high-school kids that they're mentoring; the last time they tried that poo poo there were a string of rapes and sexual assaults by cops on those kids. I'm all for it. Humanity has had enough violence throughout it's history but I also recognize the reality of the messy world we live in today. If maybe... in my lifetime I might be able to do a little good like vote for politicians that ban chokeholds, put in effective oversight boards, eliminate police unions, remove qualified immunity then I made a difference. There will be less pain in this world, the next generation is left with a better one and hopefully they'll be able to continue this kind of work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
In Dem Mayors Doing Cop poo poo news, Seattle's mayor had this to say about Cal Anderson park and the occupation fence around the police precinct next to it.quote:Mayor Jenny Durkan tells CHS that her office will “in coming weeks” launch two initiatives planned with local businesses and community representatives to “restore” Cal Anderson Park and take down the barricades around the East Precinct. Boy I hope these initiatives planned by local businesses and community representatives that put business and property at the front of discussions aren't more loving pogroms aimed at the homeless people who are camped up there with nowhere else to go!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm all for it. Then, again, you're a Democrat who says "defund is bad messaging" but actually means "I want the current amount of cops or more but maybe they'll be nicer." This isn't a messaging issue; you don't agree with the substance of what the protests are demanding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Then, again, you're a Democrat who says "defund is bad messaging" but actually means "I want the current amount of cops or more but maybe they'll be nicer." This isn't a messaging issue; you don't agree with the substance of what the protests are demanding. I am someone who believes that while Law Enforcement is going to be integral to any society there's a shocking lack of accountability from these organization in the United States. And it's getting worse. Not just that either, there's a bizarre lack of respect towards civilians, sexism, racism, classism, etc. but also against their own Democratic Governments. To this very day law enforcement unions even in California still fund anti-marijuana campaigns and criminal sentencing reform for the most benign offenses. This needs stop. These imaginary classless societies do not exist today and if they ever do exist you sure as hell are going to need to a better job as persuading folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:And? This summer saw huge massive protests and very very large turnouts and city council meetings, and lots of voter engagement on police issues. The result of that was, mostly, nothing. You can't see how I can conclude that Democratic politicians largely do not support the idea? quote:And as far as I am concerned, Progressives are shooting themselves in the foot. Sure Democrats aren't perfect, many aren't good at all - see Rahm Emanuel - but they are the best shot at reform and the current messaging is incendiary, confusing and easily weaponized by the opposing party. Current messaging is simple, straightforward, and literally any messaging is weaponized by Republicans because they just lie. The issue is that most people have been heavily indoctrinated with pro-police propaganda in US culture and simply don't understand what the problem with the police is, and the politicians largely do not want to challenge the police because of that. Things are changing, it will take time. I suspect based on your posting that you aren't actually engaged with activist groups in your area as far as police reform and abolition, and I would enourage you to get involved so you have a better idea what's going on. Activists in Los Angeles managed to get both a defunding of police and pass a proposition to force funds to be spent on non-police or jail social support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I am someone who believes that while Law Enforcement is going to be integral to any society there's a shocking lack of accountability from these organization in the United States. And it's getting worse. Not just that either, there's a bizarre lack of respect towards civilians, sexism, racism, classism, etc. but also against their own Democratic Governments. To this very day law enforcement unions even in California still fund anti-marijuana campaigns and criminal sentencing reform for the most benign offenses. Yeah, you're not saying anything that is in opposition to what The Oldest Man said. You both agree on the problem, you don't agree at all on the solution, and the solution you're proposing doesn't appear to have anything to do with "defund the police", so it's not really an argument about messaging, you just don't agree with what the protestors using that phrase want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I am someone who believes that while Law Enforcement is going to be integral to any society there's a shocking lack of accountability from these organization in the United States. And it's getting worse. Not just that either, there's a bizarre lack of respect towards civilians, sexism, racism, classism, etc. but also against their own Democratic Governments. To this very day law enforcement unions even in California still fund anti-marijuana campaigns and criminal sentencing reform for the most benign offenses. Blah blah blah, you don't want what the people who say "defund the police" want, stop trying to tell them how to message what they want when you're not on their side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
The problem with trying to get rid of policing is that it's inexorably tied to the capitalist need for poverty. Someone has to evict people, otherwise how will landlords force you to pay rent? Therefore, as long as there are landlords there will be cops who make people homeless. Same goes for food, medicine, etc. If you make an entire economic system that funnels money into as few pockets as possible, you need an oppressive, violent force.Gabriel S. posted:I am someone who believes that while Law Enforcement is going to be integral to any society there's a shocking lack of accountability from these organization in the United States. And it's getting worse. Not just that either, there's a bizarre lack of respect towards civilians, sexism, racism, classism, etc. but also against their own Democratic Governments. To this very day law enforcement unions even in California still fund anti-marijuana campaigns and criminal sentencing reform for the most benign offenses. The only thing that's new is that there are more cameras to capture it all. Under normal circumstances, the only public source for information on police actions were the police themselves. Now that the means of information distribution are publicly owned, we are seeing the terror happen in real time. But it was always there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 03:48
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I am someone who believes that while Law Enforcement is going to be integral to any society there's a shocking lack of accountability from these organization in the United States. And it's getting worse. Not just that either, there's a bizarre lack of respect towards civilians, sexism, racism, classism, etc. but also against their own Democratic Governments. To this very day law enforcement unions even in California still fund anti-marijuana campaigns and criminal sentencing reform for the most benign offenses. So do you want to defund the police?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This summer saw huge massive protests and very very large turnouts and city council meetings, and lots of voter engagement on police issues. I can see that how that would generate skepticism and it honestly should but I don't find it warranted. Or to the degree I see commonly expressed here. I don't see how you can reach the conclusion that "democrats don't largely support the idea" either considering that Biden has the support of progressives, minorities, his own comments on systemic racism and his cabinet picks. He kicked out a racist-authoritarian incumbent in a victory that hasn't been seen since FDR-Hoover. It's too bad the Senate isn't adjusted for population but that's our unfortunate reality. And when I say racist, I mean straight up neo-nazi facist trash. We just call them alt-right to fool ourselves that evil Nazi's are merely just in history, video games and movies. Remember, Jeff Sessions tried to sabotage the consent decrees in Baltimore and Chicago. Jaxyon posted:Current messaging is simple, straightforward, and literally any messaging is weaponized by Republicans because they just lie. No, it is not or we wouldn't have dozens and dozens or article that don't start with "Well, what really mean by defund the police is that we will still have police but..." Republicans having been lying about COVID for ages and this one of the primary reasons why it cost them the election. You cannot lie to all of the people, all of the time. Jaxyon posted:The issue is that most people have been heavily indoctrinated with pro-police propaganda in US culture and simply don't understand what the problem with the police is, and the politicians largely do not want to challenge the police because of that. I agree with this as well, shows like Law and Order for example glorify the work of law enforcement. It's all that "red tape" that's preventing them from catching that crook! There's no reason why we should have all these rules and procedures! But... there's so much more than merely this aspect as why Law Enforcement reform is so difficult in the United States. Jaxyon posted:Things are changing, it will take time. I suspect based on your posting that you aren't actually engaged with activist groups in your area as far as police reform and abolition, and I would enourage you to get involved so you have a better idea what's going on. I've done other volunteering in the past, I have other commitments at the moment but from time to time I do hang out with various left-leaning groups but I won't be doing any of this until the pandemic is over. Jaxyon posted:Activists in Los Angeles managed to get both a defunding of police and pass a proposition to force funds to be spent on non-police or jail social support. Indeed! They booted out the former DA Jackie Lacey with George Gascón a Democrat and Former Cop! His former officers didn't even want him in that position!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The only thing that's new is that there are more cameras to capture it all. Under normal circumstances, the only public source for information on police actions were the police themselves. Now that the means of information distribution are publicly owned, we are seeing the terror happen in real time. But it was always there. Please read up on the consent decrees in Chicago and Baltimore. This is was an extremely big deal. EDIT - I do agree there are serious issues with capitalism and I'm honestly not opposed to seriously re-architecting our society but I think that is way out of scope for this discussion. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So do you want to defund the police? I'm perfectly fine with redistributing funds originally for law enforcement to other organization such as those that assist with non-violent events. I don't agree with the use of "defund the police" as a political slogan, only as a goal or part of larger law enforcement reform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Please read up on the consent decrees in Chicago and Baltimore. This is was an extremely big deal. This is not a helpful contribution to the discussion. In what way do consent decrees alter the way that police actions are captured on film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
It's late, I'm going to bed. Good discussions but I'm going to bed. I'll respond in more detail later this week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm perfectly fine with redistributing funds originally for law enforcement to other organization such as those that assist with non-violent events. I don't agree with the use of "defund the police" as a political slogan, only as a goal or part of larger law enforcement reform. Do you want more, the same, or less funding for cops. Christ arguing with these people is like getting gum caught in your hair
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm perfectly fine with redistributing funds originally for law enforcement to other organization such as those that assist with non-violent events. I don't agree with the use of "defund the police" as a political slogan, only as a goal or part of larger law enforcement reform. I didn't ask you if you like the slogan. Do you want to defund the police. It's kind of a yes or no thing. If you're answer requires more qualification than "yes", I'd hazard a guess that you don't actually agree with the slogan and that's why you don't agree with it's use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I didn't ask you if you like the slogan. Well, it’s an incredibly complex question that requires an incredibly complex answer. “Defund” could mean dozens of different things up to and including abolition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Well, it’s an incredibly complex question that requires an incredibly complex answer. “Defund” could mean dozens of different things up to and including abolition. I didn't ask about abolition, which I support. Defunding is a pretty easy binary answer. "How do you want to defund the police" is more complex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I didn't ask about abolition, which I support. No, there is nothing binary about it. Reducing police budgets by one dollar and abolishing them completely both fall under “defund”.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:No, there is nothing binary about it. Reducing police budgets by one dollar and abolishing them completely both fall under “defund”. Yeah, it's actually a pretty good example of the okie doke that "Defunding the police" in Seattle turned from a 50% demand into a 20% legislative FY2021 cut which is achieved almost entirely by moving departmental functions like 911 dispatch out of the police department leaving something between 5 and 7% actually being removed from money for cops which is... on par with the cuts other city departments are absorbing next year due to revenue shortfalls. There are tons of variations on defunding the police and plenty of space within the "defund the police" demand to make the cuts to actual copbucks turn into nothing. Which is, of course, just another reason why it's hilarious when people grump and grouse about it as a slogan. If you're not willing to take the first tiny baby step and admit that the cops are pulling down too much loving money for the anti-service they provide, you're not worth taking seriously on this subject whatsoever. "Reform" is just a stalking horse for giving cops even more money to roll their eyes through a mandatory training or get bonus pay to wear an additional piece of taxpayer-funded military industrial complex techfetish gear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Well, it’s an incredibly complex question that requires an incredibly complex answer. “Defund” could mean dozens of different things up to and including abolition. And right-wingers will do everything in their power to convince moderates that "Defund" does mean "abolish" since it could mean that and sure enough you can find some leftists arguing for abolition who can be used as a convenient boogeyman. I was at a city meeting a few months ago with other employees and the city manager was asked by an audience member about whether there were any calls to "defund the police" in our city, and he promptly declared that there weren't, and that the city was never going to Defund the Police, to cheers and applause. All I could do was sigh inwardly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
'Reform' is to 'Defund' as 'All' is to 'Black'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 09:07
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:And right-wingers will do everything in their power to convince moderates that "Defund" does mean "abolish" since it could mean that and sure enough you can find some leftists arguing for abolition who can be used as a convenient boogeyman. Yeah, it could and generally does mean that - or steps in the direction of abolition. Cpt_Obvious has pointed out that it's an easy enough slogan to neutralize into more do-nothing poo poo, but "defund" is a compromise step from "abolish." This is, again, just Democrats first calling "defund" a messaging problem rather than what it is (a policy divide between liberals and the left) and calling for unity to try to co-opt and divert the movement toward nice, safe reformist rhetoric that does nothing and lets liberals stay nice and cozy with the cops, particularly when they're in power and having their own army of occupation is pretty convenient actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 09:15
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:No, there is nothing binary about it. Reducing police budgets by one dollar and abolishing them completely both fall under “defund”. I've found that bout 90% of the time on here, people who can't say "yes" to defunding the police and don't like it as a slogan actually aren't interested in defunding the police at all. It's not 100% but what is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 11:14
|
|
|
Any effective reform is necessarily going to involve a reduction in the number of officers, because the only reason police forces require the huge number of under-trained street cops is because their mission is suppression and their strategy is occupation. You need a lot of manpower for that, but that manpower only needs to be violent thugs who aren't compatible with properly reformed law enforcement. Defunding is the only reasonable way of forcing staffing cuts like that. Eventually, as a real training program is implemented and de-escalation and crisis care resources are expanded, they'd get some of their funds back, but for use with assets that allow a significantly smaller number of employees to better protect people, rather than hiring a horde of skinheads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
The point is, it's not a slogan, it's a strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Any effective reform is necessarily going to involve a reduction in the number of officers, because the only reason police forces require the huge number of under-trained street cops is because their mission is suppression and their strategy is occupation. You need a lot of manpower for that, but that manpower only needs to be violent thugs who aren't compatible with properly reformed law enforcement. Defunding is the only reasonable way of forcing staffing cuts like that. Eventually, as a real training program is implemented and de-escalation and crisis care resources are expanded, they'd get some of their funds back, but for use with assets that allow a significantly smaller number of employees to better protect people, rather than hiring a horde of skinheads. I mean, I think the police in basically every city are completely unredeemable monsters led by the most unredeemable monsters among them and that there will never be a point at which the best next step is not "take away more money away from the cops to immediately reduce the harm they can do" until all we're left with is civilianized emergency response services and a National Guard or other paramilitary SWAT function for dealing with barricaded shooters and other edge-case situations with no legal powers of their own. But I'll tell you what, let's do a couple defundings, cut their budgets by 80 or 90% and see what happens. Maybe they'll surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I mean, I think the police in basically every city are completely unredeemable monsters led by the most unredeemable monsters among them and that there will never be a point at which the best next step is not "take away more money away from the cops to immediately reduce the harm they can do" until all we're left with is civilianized emergency response services and a National Guard or other paramilitary SWAT function for dealing with barricaded shooters and other edge-case situations with no legal powers of their own. My magic wand scenario is "fire literally every cop and start over with an entirely different system" but I'm talking in terms of "well ok if we're stuck with reform how do we make that reform actually do something?".
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The point is, it's not a slogan, it's a strategy. I agree with your overall message, but there needs to be some amount of quantification before anyone can honestly answer such a complicated question. Personally, I think "disarm" is a far more coherent and succinct goal. It can mean complete abolition like TOM proposes, or it can be more milquetoast "just take their guns away" style. Either way, it would be a vast improvement over our current state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I agree with your overall message, but there needs to be some amount of quantification before anyone can honestly answer such a complicated question. "Disarm" isn't any more specific than "defund". It's just one you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:My magic wand scenario is "fire literally every cop and start over with an entirely different system" but I'm talking in terms of "well ok if we're stuck with reform how do we make that reform actually do something?". My own reason for supporting iterative defunding rather than immediate abolition is that I believe saying "ok no more cops" at a shot will turn our current police departments (and their unions) into either PMCs/PSCs, street gangs, or brownshirt orgs or hybrids that are incorporated as private security companies and collect lucrative protection contracts from city and state governments but then also do a little fascism and gang protection activity on the side. If we're not willing to go to war on them the day after abolition happens, we need to reduce them by attrition first. Otherwise we'll see a wave of poo poo like what happened at the East Precinct evacuation during the CHAZ/CHOP standoff, where cops were piling tactical gear, body armor, AR15s, and grenades into their personal vehicles and driving off with them for those items never to be seen again, only this time the trigger pullers will also disappear along with all the equipment until they come back a week later as Thin Blue Line Security and Fascist Beatings Co.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The point is, it's not a slogan, it's a strategy. Why can't it be both a slogan and a strategy? It's been both used a protest slogan from protest signs, hashtags, etc. to an actual proposed policy where funds from law enforcement are reduced to moving them towards different organizations that solve problems that were previously the responsibility of police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Why can't it be both a slogan and a strategy? Sorry, let me clarify: it's not a punchy rhetorical slogan that serves mostly to move the discourse. It's the method by which effective change can potentially be achieved, not a starting point for negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
For those looking for further reading on linguistics, check out George Lakoff. This is no different than Estate Tax vs. Death Tax, Weed vs. Dope or Obamacare vs. ACA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:For those looking for further reading on linguistics, check out George Lakoff. This is no different than Estate Tax vs. Death Tax, Weed vs. Dope or Obamacare vs. ACA. Is there a reason you need to continue this bad faith fog machine posting when the subject of discussion, the desire by establishment liberals to sweep policy divides under rug and call them messaging differences, is exactly what you're doing in here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Is there a reason you need to continue this bad faith fog machine posting when the subject of discussion, the desire by establishment liberals to sweep policy divides under rug and call them messaging differences, is exactly what you're doing in here? I don't know what makes you feel that way because this isn't true and if activists actually want to make a difference they need to win elections. And not just in liberal coastal cities and states either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:For those looking for further reading on linguistics, check out George Lakoff. This is no different than Estate Tax vs. Death Tax, Weed vs. Dope or Obamacare vs. ACA. It's not. Police 'reform' has been promised for years and it's invariably toothless. Police departments will have to be forced to adopt new strategies, and the way to do that is to inflict budget and manpower deficiencies via defunding, such that occupation and shock tactics aren't feasible. Reform and defunding aren't the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I don't know what makes you feel that way because this isn't true and if activists actually want to make a difference they need to win elections. And not just in liberal coastal cities and states either. Dude you're literally misrepresenting your own policy preferences as a rhetorical device and then blubbering that my position can't win elections when you're called on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:It's not. Police 'reform' has been promised for years and it's invariably toothless. Police departments will have to be forced to adopt new strategies, and the way to do that is to inflict budget and manpower deficiencies via defunding, such that occupation and shock tactics aren't feasible. Reform and defunding aren't the same thing. I completely agree that often reform in the past has been largely toothless and that why everyone is so understandably skeptical of any reform. For the amount of attention defunding the police gets, I am unclear if that amount of attention is warranted. I think it would be infinitely to get rid of our archaic racist-based drug laws, sentencing reform, I want police that break that law to be charged, sentenced and go to jail for the crimes they commit. Get rid of qualified immunity. If it takes a decade for a SCOTUS ruling then we need to work our asses of to put judges on the supreme court that aren't authoritarians. fool of sound posted:Reform and defunding aren't the same thing. No, they aren't the same thing? Reform means to "make change". Defund means to "prevent funding". Defunding the Police is one of my many ways to reform the Police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:05
|
|