|
Jaxyon posted:If you support the slogan and strategy, I don't see the problem? The slogan doesn't work or let me say it doesn't work well. Or well enough. It works in that sense that it invigorates activists and that's a great thing! We need to motivate people to be engaged and sometimes we're even bad at that too! The thing is it only works in relatively well educated coastal cities with governments controlled by left leaning politicians which is also a good thing. The new Los Angeles DA George Gascón - a former cop - doesn't mind it but is that the case across the Country? It's easily misunderstood or easily purposefully misinterpreted particularly by clever racist right-wing authoritarian politicians who use this to beat left leaning politicians in competitive swing states. Remember, Democrats lost seats in the House of Representative. There are other super close elections that could have been won but were lost by just a hair. Jaxyon posted: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. It is impossible and we can't craft some perfect magical phrase. We can try however try to avoid the use of incendiary language that easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. I know that "Police Reform" won't work as left leaning activists wouldn't buy it. Hell, I wouldn't either and lovely centrist politicians could easily use it as cover to do nothing. I also know that "Defund the Police" won't work either. Trying to find something else is the billion dollar question. It is literally it's own goddamn science - hence my earlier mentions of Frank Luntz and George Lakoff. Linguistics isn't some pseudo-science or some pretend bullshit. It's real. In my opinion, I would look at the districts that hold the most vulnerable Republicans and Democrats. Is there something that would communicate the same meaning that activists use when they say "defund" the police to these specific communities while simultaneously can't be easily weaponized by the Republicans yet engages swing voters but not too much they stay home on voting day? I would research that into the goddamn ground and try my damnedest to come up with something better. I'd also try to look at moderate republicans or libertarians types that are against police militarization pealing off traditional dependable republican votes. Again, there's no magical phrase but we have absolutely got to at the very least try come up with something better. Jaxyon posted:At this point, BLM groups are actively mocking your argument as being disingenuous because it's so common among the All Lives Matter types. I am well aware that the earlier advice from Obama wasn't well received especially by many progressives. You are correct that it can also be used to minimize or eliminate reform efforts - it has been done in the past, repeatedly but that isn't always the case. It could be very well be that isn't necessarily always true. The only way to determine that is to dig into the details.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is nonsense. The article itself refutes that comment. I do not believe the article refutes that comment, I believe the opposite. As do many others. fool of sound posted: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. In my opinion, the primary job of activists is to draw attention to a problem then generate "political capital". That could be anything from votes for a specific politician, proposition or even funds for things like advertisements. Now, it's true politicians can and do use language to minimize or even eliminate demands from activists. It could be because deep down their just lovely do nothing politicians, clever racist authoritarians like you have with today Republican Party. It is also a very real possibility the way messaging is being done isn't engaging swing voters or worse being easily spun into something completely different. What is goddamn difficult about simply changing the words we use exactly? I completely agree the law enforcement in this Country is an absolutely tragedy. There's no accountability, racism, sexism, etc. but this is not the way you are going to able to fix it. We have to win elections in stupid imperfect system that spans across hundreds of millions of people and completely different cultures. fool of sound posted: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. The study and science of linguistics is real, not pretend and not bullshit. Frank Luntz (Republican) and George Lakoff (Democrat) do this for living. Again, I am not being facetious. If you believe I am not acting in good faith then let's stop wasting each others time with this discussion. Here's a good video that goes much deeper https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbfNu6WiS0w fool of sound posted:Why the gently caress should I care what some random nobody on a different website thinks? Because the New York Times is one of the worlds oldest and most influential newspapers. No, it's not perfect. Yes, this person is random but I find the arguments presented to be compelling as do many others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:The slogan doesn't work or let me say it doesn't work well. Or well enough.[1] 1) Yes it does. The problems aren't with the phrase they are with American culture. 2) Los Angeles isn't a city controlled by left leaning politicians at all. Gascón is a huge win by the LA activist community who have been pushing BLM and Defund the Police hard. Gascón's election and the passage of Measure J directly undercut the argument you're making. 3) Everything no matter what will be misinterepted by right wing authoritarians who just lie. "Right to Work" is popular because it literally has nothing to do with having a right to work and it's just a flat out lie intended to destroy unions. Police abolition is never going to come from leftists adopting a "Free Oral Sex" slogan that has nothing to do with what they want, nor should they. Trying to work around right wing racists who lie, by crafting the right slogan, is a pointless exercise. quote:It is impossible and we can't craft some perfect magical phrase. We can try however try to avoid the use of incendiary language that easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. You "know" that Defund the Police doesn't work? No you don't. You think it doesn't. quote:I'd also try to look at moderate republicans or libertarians types that are against police militarization pealing off traditional dependable republican votes. Again, there's no magical phrase but we have absolutely got to at the very least try come up with something better. Those people aren't actually against those things in any meaningful way. The past four years should have made that clear. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
The connection between dtp and those electorial losses is tenuous, and I'm being incredibly generous
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
Did Gabriel S just find out about linguistics or what? The idea that linguistics is some unknown thing among leftists when Chomsky has been rolling around for decades is really odd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted: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. Well I don’t know what to tell you to do but ask yourself the question would I go rape and murder people if rape and murder was legalized tomorrow. I’m guessing your answer is probably no. Then why do you think everybody else would do it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Well I don’t know what to tell you to do but ask yourself the question would I go rape and murder people if rape and murder was legalized tomorrow. I’m guessing your answer is probably no. Then why do you think everybody else would do it? Yeah this is one of those question things arguments that really says things about the person making them. It's also extremely common among religious people talking to atheists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
Gabriel you've expended a vast number of words that don't actually address the points anyone else is making; you're stating your disagreement and then reiterating your point, as though that is argument in itself. Your repeated demand that a loosely organized at best movement water down the language they use is a waste of time. Protest movements are loosely organized and aren't responsive to PR demands. Even more strangely you're scolding a thread that is for discussing the structure of a post police (or at least post police reform) justice system for not using the terms that you and a nebulous 'many others' would prefer, as though the thread should care about its own messaging. I think this conversation has thoroughly run its course, unless you want to discuss how politicians, rather than movements, should sell the move to moderates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:1) Yes it does. The problems aren't with the phrase they are with American culture. If you have a way to change the culture so that the phrase is understood, I am all for it! It is however going to much, much easier to change a phrase than a culture. Jaxyon posted:2) Los Angeles isn't a city controlled by left leaning politicians at all. Gascón is a huge win by the LA activist community who have been pushing BLM and Defund the Police hard. Gascón's election and the passage of Measure J directly undercut the argument you're making. I'm sorry, what? Again, the phrase "defund the police" works in places like Los Angeles. I stated that my earlier post. But places like Los Angeles are exception, not the rule. Jaxyon posted:3) Everything no matter what will be misinterepted by fight wing authoritarians who just lie. Of course, politicians can purposely misinterpret it but do you want to make it easy or do you want to make it hard to misinterpret? Donald Trump - a right wing authoritarian - continuously lied about the severity of COVID-19 and it largely cost him the presidential election. Jaxyon posted:Police abolition is never going to come from leftists adopting a "Free Oral Sex" slogan that has nothing to do with what they want, nor should they. Trying to work around right wing racists who lie by crafting the right slogan is a pointless exercise. If police abolitionists want to win elections, whom are competing against right-wing authoritarian then you are going to have to come with something better. Or find an alternative. Jaxyon posted:You "know" that Defund the Police doesn't work?  I don't think it works well especially at the national level. Across in the Country in different cultures. In fact, I think it has the real risk of backfiring. Jaxyon posted:Those people aren't actually against those things in any meaningful way. The past four years should have made that clear. Are you familiar with Radley Balko? He's one of the most prolific and influential libertarians that's criticizing one of the most popular libertarian media outlets. I would suspect that while you might not be able to persuade all of them, left-leaning politicians could probably stand to peel off a few votes. That's important given the margins we've seen in the past especially now that Southern States are becoming competitive. https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1326197701399224320?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:If you have a way to change the culture so that the phrase is understood, I am all for it! It is however going to much, much easier to change a phrase than a culture. The phrase is understood fine. It's not agreed with. Changing the phrase is useless if you're not changing the culture. quote:I'm sorry, what? Again, the phrase "defund the police" works in places like Los Angeles. I stated that my earlier post. But places like Los Angeles are exception, not the rule. What did you misunderstand? LA is not full of leftist politicians. It's extremely full of centrist corporate Dems. The success of activists in LA to push a police defunding agenda and remove Lacey directly undercuts the argument you're making, but you're not familiar enough with LA politics to know you're talking out of your rear end. quote:Of course, politicians can purposely misinterpret it but do you want to make it easy or do you want to make it hard to misinterpret? Doesn't matter at all. The most easy disproven things will be lied about from the right and you're not going to change that with phrasing. DTP isn't misinterpreted. It's understood fine, they simply don't agree with it. They actually think police are underfunded. quote:Donald Trump - a right wing authoritarian - continuously lied about the severity of COVID-19 and it largely cost him the presidential election. He received a huge huge turnout from his voters, who believed his lies. They don't care about the phrasing, they are listening to lies that are repeated over and over and over again in a social media bubble. Until that is penetrated, no cute phrasing is going to work. quote:If police abolitionists want to win elections, whom are competing against right-wing authoritarian then you are going to have to come with something better. Or find an alternative. This is nonsense. The issue is the concept, not the phrasing. quote:I don't think it works well especially at the national level. Across in the Country in different cultures. In fact, I think it has the real risk of backfiring. It doesn't work across the country because different people have different experiences with the police. White people generally aren't targetted for harassment and murder, and majority white areas don't see the problem with police and support them. Phrasing has little to do with that. quote:Are you familiar with Radley Balko? He's one of the most prolific and influential libertarians that's criticizing one of the most popular libertarian media outlets. I would suspect that while you might not be able to persuade all of them, left-leaning politicians could probably stand to peel off a few votes. That's important given the margins we've seen in the past especially now that Southern States are becoming competitive. Are you familiar with Ammon Bundy? He was very saddened to find out that his Libertarian support of BLM and police abolition wasn't backed up by his "libertarian, anti-authoritarian" fandom, because those fuckers largely love the police as long as they're harassing blacks and not them. Libertarians are inconsistent morons who can be counted on to care about class and race before police abolition. You should not be believing them. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Gabriel you've expended a vast number of words that don't actually address the points anyone else is making; you're stating your disagreement and then reiterating your point, as though that is argument in itself. Your repeated demand that a loosely organized at best movement water down the language they use is a waste of time. Protest movements are loosely organized and aren't responsive to PR demands. Even more strangely you're scolding a thread that is for discussing the structure of a post police (or at least post police reform) justice system for not using the terms that you and a nebulous 'many others' would prefer, as though the thread should care about its own messaging. I think this conversation has thoroughly run its course, unless you want to discuss how politicians, rather than movements, should sell the move to moderates. FoS, I appreciate your candor. It is not my intent to "scold" anyone. Police brutality is real, not a joke and I do not mean to be condescending especially over such a sensitive topic. While I disagree that I haven't addressed these points you and others have a right to feel the way to you feel that way I am communicating isn't productive and off-topic. I'll stop this discussion and move on to other topics as you've requested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:If you have a way to change the culture so that the phrase is understood, I am all for it! It is however going to much, much easier to change a phrase than a culture. This is literally responding to a demand to defund the police by saying, "I agree with you, but this is bad messaging. What if we didn't defund the police instead?" This isn't a disagreement over messaging strategy and never was. Some people want the same or more cops and money for cops. Other people want fewer cops or no cops and less money for cops. Whether both of those groups say they dislike police brutality is not relevant to this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:And? The problem is that you're starting from the premise that Democrats would support good things and requiring hard proof otherwise. This is not reasonable. Absent any proof that they support something (and this applies to all politicians, regardless of political party), they should be assumed to not support it. Think of it this way - your argument is essentially claiming that places run by Democrats with terrible police departments are all exceptions. Gabriel S. posted:
I get that this vaguely sounds like it makes sense if you don't think too hard. After all, people in the media and our politicians say this, and people have internalized the idea that Democrats rely on "moderate" votes to win elections (and that support of something like "defunding police" would drive away more of those "moderate" voters than it would win over other voters). The problem is that there is no actual evidence of this. It's motivated reasoning on the part of the politicians/media - it's awfully convenient if the things they oppose would lose elections. Instead, this is the reasoning you should use - good/important things should always be supported absent very strong proof that supporting them will have a a negative impact. "The vague sense that supporting something might have a negative electoral impact" does not meet this bar. This reasoning can be applied to pretty much any political issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yeah this is one of those question things arguments that really says things about the person making them. So what? I mean, leaving aside that it's complete bullshit, and it says no more about him than wanting an alarm is saying something about your propensity to burgle, so what? What if he was saying he'd be emboldened to hurt you in the absence of police? You're going to call him a bad person? Okay. What if he was? Now what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
If someone is saying "well you need police because I am desperate to become a serial killer" they are either lying or should be shot as soon as possible, which would likely happen if they tried to act on it. I would expect they are lying, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
Crespolini posted:So what? I mean, leaving aside that it's complete bullshit, and it says no more about him than wanting an alarm is saying something about your propensity to burgle, so what? What if he was saying he'd be emboldened to hurt you in the absence of police? What kind of smooth brained poo poo is this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Crespolini posted:So what? I mean, leaving aside that it's complete bullshit, and it says no more about him than wanting an alarm is saying something about your propensity to burgle, so what? What if he was saying he'd be emboldened to hurt you in the absence of police? I feel more confident in my ability to protect myself from him with no police. Now what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Well I don’t know what to tell you to do but ask yourself the question would I go rape and murder people if rape and murder was legalized tomorrow. I’m guessing your answer is probably no. Then why do you think everybody else would do it? First, I didn't mention rape. The phrase I used was "do what they like and settle scores," and when I wrote that I was thinking of battery and murder. Second, I don't think "everybody else" would do it. I specifically said "I don't know how big that [wave of violence] would be." I do sincerely believe there are people nursing grudges - justified or not - who don't see acting on them as worth the risk of punishment, but would do so if there was no such threat. I'm not sure how many such people are out there, but I know they are out there. I'm not here arguing against ever abolishing the police. My intent was to concur with The Oldest Man's position of "supporting iterative defunding rather than immediate abolition".
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
"Defund the police", a terrible slogan that will never work:
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
What steps could be taken to abolish police unions? I feel that they’re at or near the root of the evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
Nothing that would not be far more readily applied to literally every other form of union. I also highly doubt that police having unions are the reason the police are scum, rather than the inherent nature of the job of the police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:What steps could be taken to abolish police unions? I feel that they’re at or near the root of the evil. It's a tricky one. There are two big problems: first, it's hard to target them specifically without also busting other public sector unions or otherwise harming labor right. second, police unions are toxic because they're representative of police culture; all police spaces are at least as bad as police unions and are often far worse, and breaking up unions would probably push their labor organization into even more venomous spaces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What kind of smooth brained poo poo is this? Sorry, I didn't recognize your username there or I wouldn't have replied to you. Hope things improve for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:It's a tricky one. There are two big problems: first, it's hard to target them specifically without also busting other public sector unions or otherwise harming labor right. second, police unions are toxic because they're representative of police culture; all police spaces are at least as bad as police unions and are often far worse, and breaking up unions would probably push their labor organization into even more venomous spaces. I don't think it would be particularly complicated to target police unions specifically with legislation since cops have a number of criteria such as law enforcement powers that no one else does on account of no one else is cops, but I agree with the rest of what you're saying. Cop unions and their associated non-profit orgs aren't going to stop being a font of poison because we ban collective bargaining for cops or whatever else. That said though, it would probably be a very good thing solely for the reason that we can take money out of cops' hands more easily if they're unable to collectively bargain, so I'm in favor of banning them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 09:29
|
|
|
I'm reminded of the Disco Elysium conversation about the idea of scab cops. There's a reason you never see them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 09:31
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I don't think it would be particularly complicated to target police unions specifically with legislation since cops have a number of criteria such as law enforcement powers that no one else does on account of no one else is cops, but I agree with the rest of what you're saying. Cop unions and their associated non-profit orgs aren't going to stop being a font of poison because we ban collective bargaining for cops or whatever else. Complaining about police unions is falling into anti-labor framing of problems, as FoS has already said. The issue isn't that they have a union, it's the culture of and surrounding police. Teacher unions would have the same power if we weren't a broken country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
A union is as good as the thing it defends, which for most professions is good because most professions are good or at the least the remit of their unions is trying to advance the workplace rights of their members. But when your workplace rights are that you need the right to kill and maim other workers with impunity because that is what you are paid to do, that isn't a problem with your union, it's a problem with your job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Is specific legislation targeting police unions really necessary? I mean if you've got the political will to write a law aimed directly at the police union then I would think you've got the political will to stand up to them in contract negotiations and weather a strike.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Is specific legislation targeting police unions really necessary? I mean if you've got the political will to write a law aimed directly at the police union then I would think you've got the political will to stand up to them in contract negotiations and weather a strike. Yeah this is also an good point. Not to mention that as things currently stand police officers don't even need to bother striking; in LA right now and NYC last year they just refused to do their jobs while still being paid because there's not even enough will to do anything about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
If your objective is to stop the cops doing their jobs them them voluntarily stopping doing them seems like a plus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Complaining about police unions is falling into anti-labor framing of problems, as FoS has already said. I evaluate the ability of cops to pull down a quarter million dollars a year to be a salient material issue, and frankly, I don't care about the optics of that. Cops are a hostile, occupying army, and all means electoral, legal, and economic must be deployed to break their power in our society. OwlFancier posted:A union is as good as the thing it defends, which for most professions is good because most professions are good or at the least the remit of their unions is trying to advance the workplace rights of their members. But when your workplace rights are that you need the right to kill and maim other workers with impunity because that is what you are paid to do, that isn't a problem with your union, it's a problem with your job. Cop unions actively use collective bargaining to ham-string the ability of civilian authorities to restrict their use of force, deploy chemical weapons, and acquire weapons and training with non-governmental funding. You can't disentangle the cop job from cop unions because cop unions are effectively dictating what the requirements of the cop job are. The "right to kill and maim other workers" isn't some fixed universal truth to cops, it's something cop unions have advocated for and won at the bargaining table and still fight to expand further with each contract negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If your objective is to stop the cops doing their jobs them them voluntarily stopping doing them seems like a plus. Lol true. I seem to remember that in NYC they ended up getting frustrated and going back to work when it became clear the city was functioning fine without them hassling random minorities or arresting people not paying the subway fare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Cop unions actively use collective bargaining to ham-string the ability of civilian authorities to restrict their use of force, deploy chemical weapons, and acquire weapons and training with non-governmental funding. You can't disentangle the cop job from cop unions because cop unions are effectively dictating what the requirements of the cop job are. The "right to kill and maim other workers" isn't some fixed universal truth to cops, it's something cop unions have advocated for and won at the bargaining table and still fight to expand further with each contract negotiation. I mean what I'm getting at is that the nature of the union comes from the nature of the job? Like other unions don't demand chemical weapons for their members, cops do that because that's what cops want because it's what their job is centered around. Unless there is some outside force specifically in cop unions making the cops more evil or whatever that antipathy towards society stems from their functional role as the state sanctioned thugs. The requirements and nature of the job causes them to self-advocate to make it worse for everyone else. And critically, I think, even if you tried to disrupt the formalization of that self organization, I don't think you're going to actually get rid of it, because unions are not the only way self organization and proliferation of ideas happens in a workplace. What a union produces will probably be produced in other ways too if unions are not available, a union is just a more powerful form of it, so if something about cops causes them to want this sort of thing it's still a problem even if you somehow managed to weaken their ability to get a hold of as many tanks as they like. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean what I'm getting at is that the nature of the union comes from the nature of the job? Like other unions don't demand chemical weapons for their members, cops do that because that's what cops want because it's what their job is centered around. Not to go all dialectical on you, but cop unions are a force for making cops more evil just as much as cops are a force for making cop unions more evil. It's a two-way street. The mechanism by which it happens is that having a collective bargaining apparatus for cops means that cops want the ur-cop to run that apparatus, so the most extreme version of a cop gets in as union president, and then he pushes his membership toward ever more extremist stances. quote:And critically, I think, even if you tried to disrupt the formalization of that self organization, I don't think you're going to actually get rid of it, because unions are not the only way self organization and proliferation of ideas happens in a workplace. What a union produces will probably be produced in other ways too if unions are not available, a union is just a more powerful form of it, so if something about cops causes them to want this sort of thing it's still a problem even if you somehow managed to weaken their ability to get a hold of as many tanks as they like. I'm not advocating this as a silver bullet to fix or abolish cops. I'm advocating it as a component of a deep battle strategy to attack cops' power along every possible avenue. Weakening their ability to have as many tanks as they'd like or make as much money they want is an unalloyed good in my opinion. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I evaluate the ability of cops to pull down a quarter million dollars a year to be a salient material issue, and frankly, I don't care about the optics of that. Cops are a hostile, occupying army, and all means electoral, legal, and economic must be deployed to break their power in our society. Ask yourself, does breaking the police union break the collective power of the police in our society? If the union is the important part here, why does no other unionized aspect of public service wield the kind of power that police unions do? Cops are awful and an occupying army/gang, and the union is an expression of it, not a cause of it. Breaking unions will do little to harm cops, but will definitely harm everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Breaking unions will do little to harm cops, but will definitely harm everyone else. Couldn't disagree with you more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Not to go all dialectical on you, but cop unions are a force for making cops more evil just as much as cops are a force for making cop unions more evil. It's a two-way street. The mechanism by which it happens is that having a collective bargaining apparatus for cops means that cops want the ur-cop to run that apparatus, so the most extreme version of a cop gets in as union president, and then he pushes his membership toward ever more extremist stances. If you're going to go dialectical I am going to posit that the material conditions of the work, while a component of an interconnected system, ultimately form the primary and immovable basis for the subsequent cognitive transformation of the work by the superstructure of the union and then I am going to disappear up inside of my own arsehole 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Not to go all dialectical on you, but cop unions are a force for making cops more evil just as much as cops are a force for making cop unions more evil. It's a two-way street. The mechanism by which it happens is that having a collective bargaining apparatus for cops means that cops want the ur-cop to run that apparatus, so the most extreme version of a cop gets in as union president, and then he pushes his membership toward ever more extremist stances. More importantly, let's not forget the goal of the union: to empower the members against their employer. In this case, cops are being empowered against ostensibly democratic oversight, so the apparatus itself, the police union, is actively making things worse just by behaving normally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Couldn't disagree with you more. Why doesn't any other union wield the power that police do, if the union is the part giving them that power? Do you think police can't threaten public officials on their own?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am going to disappear up inside of my own arsehole Sounds like I win 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:19
|
|