|
Gabriel S. posted:I completely agree that often reform in the past has been largely toothless and that why everyone is so understandably skeptical of any reform. Defund this disingenuous bullshit
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
fool of sound posted: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. Not following you here but are you saying that "defund the police" is not a slogan but a method in which change can be achieved? Because "defund the police" has absolutely been used as a slogan especially during the police brutality protests earlier this summer. I don't see why these things are somehow mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Defund this disingenuous bullshit Words are important. When you deliver a message, it has to be understood by your audience. Republicans managed to remove the Estate Tax by simply re-naming it to the Death Tax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
People say defund the police because that is exactly what they want to happen. They don't want 'reform' because it's well known that means 'do something ineffectual'. Pretending this is just a matter of optics is stupid, cut it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:My own reason for supporting iterative defunding rather than immediate abolition is that I believe saying "ok no more cops" at a shot will ... I also think that instant abolition would lead to a wave of violence from non-police as people decide it's open season and they can do what they like and settle scores without fear of punishment or imprisonment. I know that "oh, prison's not a deterrent" is a popular sentiment, but it is (at least for some people), it's just not a 100% effective deterrent. That said, I don't know how big that wave would be. Maybe it'd just be a one-time blip, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I also think that instant abolition would lead to a wave of violence from non-police as people decide it's open season and they can do what they like and settle scores without fear of punishment or imprisonment. I know that "oh, prison's not a deterrent" is a popular sentiment, but it is (at least for some people), it's just not a 100% effective deterrent. Agreed, I just have a feeling that a big part of that wave would be from the ex-cops, for multiple reasons (capacity/equipment/training to do it, revenge/spite, ready organizationally and culturally to dehumanize and do violence to others, incentive by way of being able to victimize people they already hate who have seizable liquid assets that they're not able to keep fully for themselves now but could post-abolition for a short window of time, and used to operating as an extractive force).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:They don't want 'reform' because it's well known that means 'do something ineffectual'. Again, I don't disagree that has been show in the past repeatedly. fool of sound posted:Pretending this is just a matter of optics is stupid, cut it out. Please read this article, along with the comments in it's entirety. Activism needs to deliver results. Obama’s Curious Cautiousness If you are specifically instructing me to end this conversation? If so, I will stop. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Please read this article, along with the comments in it's entirety. Activism needs to deliver results. Obama’s Curious Cautiousness Activism is delivering results. Specifically with "defund the police" as both a slogan and strategy. If you support the slogan and strategy, I don't see the problem? If you support the strategy and not the slogan, then you need to make a better argument as to what the problem with the slogan is and what a better one would be. Mostly the criticisms boil down to "Americans are heavily indoctrinated with police propaganda so that slogans don't necessarily penetrate", and that's not going to be a thing that is fixable with The Perfect Marketing Slogan. At this point, BLM groups are actively mocking your argument as being disingenuous because it's so common among the All Lives Matter types.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
I'll await FoS reply before going any further. If this discussion isn't allowed then I'm not interested in continuing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Pretending this is just a matter of optics is stupid, cut it out. This quite clearly is not saying that and you seem to be using it as an excuse to not engage to people who don't understand your confusion. He wasn't threadbanning you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
Okay, then what is it saying? Cut it out, to me, means stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Okay, then what is it saying? Cut it out, to me, means stop. Yes, stop making a bad and disingenuous argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'll await FoS reply before going any further. If this discussion isn't allowed then I'm not interested in continuing it. Answer other peoples' questions, but in a productive way. Gabriel S. posted:Please read this article, along with the comments in it's entirety. Activism needs to deliver results. Obama’s Curious Cautiousness The article doesn't say anything that supports your position that activists need to be the ones to take the first step towards compromise, in fact it very much says the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
Jaxyon, I believe everyone here is posting in good faith and I do not have a reason to think otherwise. I do not think activists are not approaching this properly which is confusing to me as many of the folks that I respect due to their vision, success, leadership, etc. such as AOC and Bernie. That's why I brought this up in the first place to try to see if I can get a better understanding. This argument is used by many, many other people and I'd suspect it includes some that even you respect and admire. If you think I'm seriously being disingenuous then it is not useful to continue this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Answer other peoples' questions, but in a productive way. FoS, I am trying. fool of sound posted:The article doesn't say anything that supports your position that activists need to be the ones to take the first step towards compromise, in fact it very much says the opposite. I don't know how you are getting the impression that my position is that activists need to be the ones that take the step towards compromise because isn't necessarily my position. You are correct that the article doesn't support my position but the comments in the article show there is seriously legitimate issue with the way activists are communicating. These comments explain the exact same frustration I have with progressive activists and hopefully in way that makes sense to the people here in this conversation because it seems my earlier examples weren't sufficient. Here's one of the ones I find to be excellent, quote:Words matter. A lot. The estate tax is one of the very best taxes around, but Republicans successfully rebranded it as a “death tax“ and killed it. That was smart politics, for them. Critical studies professors gave us the term “white privilege“ and street activists gave us “defund the police“. Those phrases drove white voters into a corner of identity politics, and they voted in record numbers for Trump, and down ballot drowned us in a red wave. Activists love to come up with provocative phrases. Smart politicians come up with winning language. Obama’s a smart politician. Can we give him another shot at coming up with the language, rather than provoking people whose support we would like? Edit - I am going to bed, I'll check this later tomorrow. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
This is nonsense. The article itself refutes that comment. The job of activists is not to sell the focus grouped, declared version of their demands to disinterested moderates. Demands from politicians that they do so is a cowardly and cynical punt; they're refusing to engage without needing to put forward a position on the subject. The comment you posted is just more of the same respectability nonsense that you've been arguing all along. Its neither evidence nor an extension of your argument. Why the gently caress should I care what some random nobody on a different website thinks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Let me test the waters on a different sort of pragmatist argument, but from explicit pro defund/abolish position. To preface this, I think much of the activist [and now fairly mainstream media/corporate] view on police violence against unarmed people, black brown white or purple, is overblown given the data. I think the subsequent response (rise in crime, property destruction and intimidation of outside media at protests) is just wrong. I won't tolerate personally it from left/liberals because I wouldn't tolerate it from the right. As much as people want to make this the next civil rights issue it's just not in my opinion, sorry not sorry. But I don't understand the widespread resistance defunding the police nor why it's a national issue. One of the most tedious aspects of following US politics from a left/liberal perspective is that nothing really happens. Nearly ever big goal requires federal action which is hindered by the electoral college and the senate. Even state level action is hindered by fact their population isn't significant enough to directly affect nation level policy (e.g., state level single payer) or their policies could drive individual/business flight (e.g., excessive taxation). Police reform/defend/abolish is different because it's largely a decision at the the municipal level and there are some very blue cities. I'm not confident at all on whether these policy proposals will be a success or failure. But there are very clear metrics on how we can judge whether these policies are a success or failure. Does petty and/or violent crime go up? Are more police and/or their non-police replacements killed on the job? Does it result in population/capital leaving for other areas? Do taxpayers save money? There are only so many opportunities where left/liberal policies can be put to the test and there's also a control group (municipalities under status quo) to compare against. Left/liberal politicians in these areas need to have the brass balls to unequivocally support these positions if only because there are only so many opportunities for change. Put their political aspirations and personal reputation on the line by saying they're confident these metrics will improve or they'll resign/not run for future office. From my perspective part of the deal of living in an explicitly progressive state/city is there's going to be some "radical" policies to contend with. Some will be good, some will be bad, but someplace has to be the guinea pig to move the discussion forward otherwise we're all stuck in a hellish stagnation that leads to nowhere good. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 06:40
|
|
|
Local politicians have been actively threatened and literally arrested by police for proposing even token oversight, btw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:12
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Local politicians have been actively threatened and literally arrested by police for proposing even token oversight, btw. And local politicians have also had protesters/activists come to their residences and harass/threaten them. I really, really hate both. If you're humble enough to not believe you have 100% foresight on the outcome of every policy change then this all is a terribly rotten precedent to set. Only path forward I see is politicians running explicitly on what they will vote for on this issue, no more no less, and then see the outcomes of those policies. If you don't live in NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland, etc. where these police reforms could pass I can't imagine giving the slightest gently caress about it one way or the other. Conservatives gain just as much politically from its failure as leftists/liberals will from its success.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I also think that instant abolition would lead to a wave of violence from non-police as people decide it's open season and they can do what they like and settle scores without fear of punishment or imprisonment. I know that "oh, prison's not a deterrent" is a popular sentiment, but it is (at least for some people), it's just not a 100% effective deterrent. Prison has no deterrent effect. It doesn’t matter if some people are afraid of going to prison. To truly be a deterrent it has to deter an otherwise motivated offender. Scores of studies to analyze this problem and concluded that there’s no specific or general effects of imprisonment that deters crime. intuitively this can be explained by the fact that most crimes are a spur of the moment phenomenon where are logical consideration of consequences doesn’t play a meaningful role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:And local politicians have also had protesters/activists come to their residences and harass/threaten them. I really, really hate both. If you're humble enough to not believe you have 100% foresight on the outcome of every policy change then this all is a terribly rotten precedent to set. These things are not equal. You are buying into racist, right wing framing designed to ensure zero progress and continued violence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 08:24
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:These things are not equal. Did not say they were equal. I think they're both bad. Don't know what any of this has to do with my post btw. what's point here Ghost Leviathan posted:Local politicians have been actively threatened and literally arrested by police for proposing even token oversight, btw.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 08:39
|
|
|
People who are not safe in their homes are right to protest outside those of politicians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 08:48
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:People who are not safe in their homes are right to protest outside those of politicians. The comfort of privileged rich assholes has always been equated to the lives of Black and indigenous people and complaints about protests outside government officials' homes are no different. People whined about a protest outside our mayor's house even though she already has a permanent, 24/7 state security detail from her former job as one of Barack Obama's US attorney bagmen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 09:18
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:And local politicians have also had protesters/activists come to their residences and harass/threaten them. I really, really hate both. I mean, on one hand police beat, maim, and torture protesters. On the other, the protesters can sometimes be mean. Really I hate them both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 09:36
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I mean, on one hand police beat, maim, and torture protesters. Yes that's about right (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 09:58
|
|
|
You are literally 'I can't tell the difference!' between 'Jews Will Not Replace Us' and 'Black Lives Matter'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
I'm not drawing equivalence, I'm just deliberately avoiding drawing a distinction, and that's different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Prison has no deterrent effect. It doesn’t matter if some people are afraid of going to prison. To truly be a deterrent it has to deter an otherwise motivated offender. Scores of studies to analyze this problem and concluded that there’s no specific or general effects of imprisonment that deters crime. intuitively this can be explained by the fact that most crimes are a spur of the moment phenomenon where are logical consideration of consequences doesn’t play a meaningful role. Are you saying that if the threat of imprisonment vanished tomorrow, nobody would do anything that they would not already do? I have a hard time believing this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Probably a lot more people would shoplift and squat, both of which are praxis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
I wonder if there's a group of people who have been rapidly escalating their criming and constantly complain loudly and in public about the minimal restraints placed on their right to do violence and steal poo poo who might go absolutely buck wild in the aftermath of police abolition Ed: if anyone has a more updated version of this chart, please post. I've seen stats that this trend is continuing to accelerate but not visualizations of same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Probably a lot more people would shoplift and squat, both of which are praxis. A bunch of empty houses on my street are owned by one landlord who's using them to jack up his rents, I'd have the lock off in about ten seconds, and then the rest of them so other people could move in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Probably a lot more people would shoplift and squat, both of which are praxis. I also can't believe there aren't a bunch of domestic abusers who would go after their ex-partners if not for the threat of punishment. Like, sure, I can believe that things would settle down to an equilibrium, and possibly even to a lower rate of violence than what we experience today. But I have a really hard time believing that instant police abolition would not result in at least some additional instances of non-cop violence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I also can't believe there aren't a bunch of domestic abusers who would go after their ex-partners if not for the threat of punishment. It doesn't stop cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I also can't believe there aren't a bunch of domestic abusers who would go after their ex-partners if not for the threat of punishment. This is just the cops e: gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Dumper Humper posted:It doesn't stop cops. Well sure, because cops know they won't be punished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
It also doesn't stop domestic abusers who know the cops will side with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Generally the argument is that the justice system as it stands is structurally very unsuitable for dealing with domestic abuse, and other crimes or things that aren't crimes but are still wrong, so as you need a different sort of system anyway, saying that you have to preserve the system we have is a bit silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Police are often actively an obstacle to domestic abusers receiving justice. Just as they are for rapists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
It's also like, it is structurally incapable of dealing with wrongs that happen in private and do not necessarily leave physical evidence, because it can only punish, and to punish people you need (or should need) material evidence. You need a whole new system to deal with stuff like that decently, one that frees people to act unilaterally and centers emancipating them from their situation without any gatekeeping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:16
|
|