|
Denazify the police.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Where the gently caress are all the pig apologists in this thread who think abolition is too extreme and we can reform the cops? They literally stood aside during a fascist coup and started taking selfies with them. I don't see how having no police today would have made things any better. The entire problem today was because the cops didn't do anything. Surely the solution here is to have trained, appropriate law enforcement to protect election officials? If what you mean by abolition is completely destroy the system of cops we have now, and then create a new, different system of law enforcement, sure. But yeah I think the entire problem today is that the existing cops basically went "uhhh yeah go in I guess". I guess you can walk away from that thinking that there may as well not be cops at all, but I don't see how that's the long-term solution rather than appropriate, trained law enforcement who you know, can stop a loving coup attempt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I don't see how having no police today would have made things any better. The entire problem today was because the cops didn't do anything. Appropriate trained law enforcement will not stop a fascist coup. They became LEOs because they're fascists, they are enforcing fascist laws, they're abetted by fascist prosecutors, and your position is that we simply need to make black into white, the sky into the ground, and wet into dry and then cops would have stopped this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
But I'll tell you what, we tried it your way and the cops took selfies with the fascists. Let's do an experiment, try abolishing the cops, and then we can vote on which we like better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:But I'll tell you what, we tried it your way and the cops took selfies with the fascists. Let's do an experiment, try abolishing the cops, and then we can vote on which we like better. If there was no resistance today to anything the protestors have done, including any coming resistance from the military etc, how is that a better outcome? Or, rephrased in a different way, what would your ideal response to be to the coup attempt today?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I don't see how having no police today would have made things any better. The entire problem today was because the cops didn't do anything. I see we are back at the part where you have decided that no police means no law enforcement, despite pages and pages of this thread telling you that isn't he case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:what would your ideal response to be to the coup attempt today? Ah, we're back to handwringing liberal perfectionism even as the cops step aside for the coup attempt. Lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I see we are back at the part where you have decided that no police means no law enforcement, despite pages and pages of this thread telling you that isn't he case. "If what you mean by abolition is completely destroy the system of cops we have now, and then create a new, different system of law enforcement, sure." Please quote what I said if you want to have a debate in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Ah, we're back to handwringing liberal perfectionism even as the cops step aside for the coup attempt. Lovely. I'm genuinely asking, I'm interested. Clearly the response from cops today was a disaster (and I should add, racist), and I personally have views on what could have made it work, which I've described earlier in the thread. I'm legitimately interested to hear your take. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I'm genuinely asking, I'm interested. Clearly the response from cops today was a disaster, and I personally have views on what could have made it work, which I've described earlier in the thread. I'm legitimately interested to hear your take. For one thing, if everyone wasn't teetering on the edge of poverty and homelessness this whole thing would never have happened. I'm actually curious as to what your plan is though, considering that cops are the best paid public servants in America.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:For one thing, if everyone wasn't teetering on the edge of poverty and homelessness this whole thing would never have happened. I've described my thoughts on law enforcement earlier in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
I think it's worth discussing the ideal style and methods for law enforcement or a replacement for the same responding a situation like this. I think we can all agree that a society needs a way to prevent fascists from forcibly taking over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I've described my thoughts on law enforcement earlier in the thread. Oh ok, so which part, specifically, would have prevented them from siding with fascists in an attempt to overthrow the government?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I think it's worth discussing the ideal style and methods for law enforcement or a replacement for the same responding a situation like this. I think we can all agree that a society needs a way to prevent fascists from forcibly taking over. I think so too. Cpt_Obvious posted:Oh ok, so which part, specifically, would have prevented them from siding with fascists in an attempt to overthrow the government? Well, in my ideal scenario you wouldn't have cops protecting state landmarks like the capitol, you would have a separate security force that has no ties to any type of public law enforcement apparatus. And you'd also have a separate, trained force to deal with more specific violent threats like the one we saw today. That would make it much easier to ensure higher standards of training, security clearances, oversight, etc. I think that's a pretty reasonable solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:"If what you mean by abolition is completely destroy the system of cops we have now, and then create a new, different system of law enforcement, sure." Sure: CelestialScribe posted:I don't see how having no police today would have made things any better. The entire problem today was because the cops didn't do anything. No police today would have meant there was another group trained to handle riots in place, that was not the police. The second sentence here, in your post, that you typed, implies that "nobody would have done anything" if not for the police. There's no way you can square that with understanding that other systems of trained responders can exist without being police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Police barely responded to this. https://twitter.com/atKiara/status/1346936743849824263?s=19 They've killed people for much less than any of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No police today would have meant there was another group trained to handle riots in place, that was not the police. Sorry, I think I've made things confusing with my terminology. I agree that the police as they exist now should not exist. I do believe that a separate, specific system of law enforcement should exist to counter threats like today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I think so too. What you are describing already exists: The Secret Service and the National Guard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Sorry, I think I've made things confusing with my terminology. No, you didn't confuse your terminology. You said this: CelestialScribe posted:I don't see how having no police today would have made things any better. The entire problem today was because the cops didn't do anything. Everyone in this thread for pages upon pages has told you they want to replace the police with a seperate, better system of law enforcement. You are replying to people who used, specifically, the police as they are today, not a future law enforcement office. To which you said "I don't see how that would be any better" and now you say "oh actually I meant the thing that would be better, sorry my terms messed up"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What you are describing already exists: The Secret Service and the National Guard. Cool, so do we agree that a better solution would be to have the national guard permanently protecting the capitol to prevent situations like this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Sorry, I think I've made things confusing with my terminology. Good idea: more cops. Wait, poo poo that might have been tried already quote:The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories. It answers to Congress, not the President of the United States, and is the only full-service federal law enforcement agency responsible to the legislative branch of the Federal Government of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Everyone in this thread for pages upon pages has told you they want to replace the police with a seperate, better system of law enforcement. Most! Not all. But most. quote:You are replying to people who used, specifically, the police as they are today, not a future law enforcement office. What I mean to say is, the cops, as lovely as they were today, did make some arrests today, and did prevent some violence from happening, even though the total sum of their efforts was bad. So I agree that the cops should not exist, but I don't see how having nothing would be better. The reason I get confused sometimes in this thread or frustrated is because so many of you say "abolish the cops, abolish the cops, abolish the cops", but you never say anything like, "the national guard would have done a better job today". So like forgive me, but very few people here are actually offering solutions. You're just saying "cops suck and they sucked today", which is true. So, offer a solution for what you'd have done instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Good idea: more cops. Wait, poo poo that might have been tried already Cool, so again, what do you suggest?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Most! Not all. But most. Nobody said do nothing. You know this. quote:The reason I get confused sometimes in this thread or frustrated is because so many of you say "abolish the cops, abolish the cops, abolish the cops", but you never say anything like, "the national guard would have done a better job today". You're not confused, and people have talked solutions with you. You just pretend none of that happens every time the discussion starts up again. It's clear what you're doing, I'm done with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Cool, so again, what do you suggest? quote:The legacy of revolutionary justice in the US is an inherently political phenomenon, as it has always been situated in reprisals against the State, the slave-holding planter class, capitalists and their institutions, and the broader forces of bondage, from colonial to patriarchal oppression. It is impossible to speak about resolving social conflicts in the US without addressing the agents of the State and reactionary, racist forces, and their consistent use of terror to maintain their social and political position. The details will intentionally vary from people to people and place to place. The EZLN do things a bit differently than the Rojava; some other autonomous municipalities in Mexico not under EZLN control differently still (ie, Cherán is locally controlled by a municipal democracy but recognizes the authority of the Mexican national government has something more akin to a municipal militia with responsibility for detaining or stopping the violent but otherwise without law enforcement powers). When attacked, these communities' defense militias take up arms and fight. None of these groups are anywhere near perfect. But they do illustrate community defense and peacekeeping done by and for the community rather than enforcing an unjust quiet on an exploited population, and how those same communities can and will fight back militarily against corporate, criminal, or fascist aggression when necessary. The common thread is that an armed force of authoritarians tasked to enforce a law that is built to facilitate exploitation upon the exploited does not create justice or public safety. It can't, because that's not what the law is for and the mission of using force to uphold that law carries the exploitation with it. And ultimately that force won't even uphold that law at all when it's inconvenient to its own interests, which are ultimately the fascistic interests of an occupying military power. The broader point here is that it is not up to me to tell each and every community how they should keep their own justice. The EZLN, Rojava, places like Cherán are just examples of horizontally organized defense and community justice, not a template that should be copied and pasted to others. I'm not here to provide such a template, since enforcing a model of justice on a community is the opposite of what I'm about. I'm here to point at the cops we have, and say, "These guys need to loving go."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:The broader point here is that it is not up to me to tell each and every community how they should keep their own justice. The EZLN, Rojava, places like Cherán are just examples of horizontally organized defense and community justice, not a template that should be copied and pasted to others. I'm not here to provide such a template, since enforcing a model of justice on a community is the opposite of what I'm about. I'm here to point at the cops we have, and say, "These guys need to loving go." Great, except this thread is explicitly about providing solutions and debating different ideas about law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Great, except this thread is explicitly about providing solutions and debating different ideas about law enforcement. WTF are you even going on about? Oldest man provided an excellent rundown of alternatives to policing. The least you could do is respond in such a way that proves you actually read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Great, except this thread is explicitly about providing solutions and debating different ideas about law enforcement. If this kind of posting is allowed in this thread I'm done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
The thread has to have room for 'this is how a society without police deals with bad actors'. What you posted is an extremely interesting and in-depth look at that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
NGL, the Tekmil sounds likes a Festivus ritual crossed with an AA meeting. It seems like it exists strictly to enforce ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The thread has to have room for 'this is how a society without police deals with bad actors'. It sure does, but CS has been talked to about how does a society without police deal with bad actors mulitple times this thread, and is attempting to derail the thread by sealioning repeatedly. Check Yuzenn's post history in this thread for examples if you'd like, as well as Mat Cauthon's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
In the UK there's a saying "there is no such thing as a fascist march, only police marches" it comes from Albert Meltzer "I moved in the early Seventies to a Greenwich council flat, and was there when a widely-advertised fascist march took place, passing a few streets away in Lewisham which had a high proportion of Black residents, As usual, it was more a police demonstration guarding bussed-in fascists marching between their lines."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
CS I'd like you to read and respond to the essay Oldest Man posted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
I think two things: 1. I agree that more neighbourhood based dispute resolution is a good thing and would solve a lot of problems. 2. Extending that model to more serious crimes like murder is ridiculous and foolish. I agree that rehabilitative justice is preferable but just saying “well we will turn that person into a better one” as a general rule without some type of force is foolish. The reason I brush up against this is because I want the state administering justice, because I do not trust my neighbours. I know people in my neighbourhood who would absolutely wage violence on others if they knew they had no consequences to face from the police. Removing those consequences and then putting them in the hands of the community seems rife with all sorts of problems. I also think this model is unrealistic given the complex state of the world and the existence of nations, states etc. there shouldn’t be a thousand different approaches to handling murder in the same state, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:The reason I brush up against this is because I want the state administering justice, because I do not trust my neighbours. I know people in my neighbourhood who would absolutely wage violence on others if they knew they had no consequences to face from the police. Removing those consequences and then putting them in the hands of the community seems rife with all sorts of problems. You want an effectively unaccountable and armed higher power to enforce rules on the community because you trust them to leave you an alive and whole person, if you ever have to be bothered with them at all. It sounds like you don't, really, ever have to do deal with them personally since you are referring to them constantly as a sort of nebulous deterrent against speculative harm rather than an invasive force of armed fascists that kill certain people for sport which is the actual harm. That's a luxury reserved for a few specific people in this country. And, by no coincidence, you trust those rules that are being enforced to be good enough to you that you can go about your day without being criminalized for the things that you have to do to stay alive, stay in your home, and put food on your plate. So it's no wonder that you just want the cops to be perhaps a little nicer, be a little less trigger happy, be a little less free with the swastika memes on the facebook, because at the end of the day you're minimizing the bad outcomes of an exploitative taking machine in which you are a beneficiary rather than a wear part. If you fail to care sufficiently about the people being murdered by the cops, beaten by the cops, having all their poo poo taken from them by the cops, forced from their homes by the cops, or raped by the cops - oh well. And if you can't engineer those bad things out of the taking machine with less lethal weapons and unconscious bias training and banning chokeholds and civilian oversight boards and cops watching other cops and all the other failed strategies to take the exploitation out of the violent enforcement of a fundamentally exploitative system that will be forever trotted out again and again in an endless Sisyphean journey up Mount A Few Bad Apples - oh well. So the fact that systems like the ones used in Cheran and by the Rojava do work elsewhere and that you prefer the heap of corpses spit out from the tail end of our system to the possibility that you might not be sufficiently advantaged in another and casually wave your hand at other possibilities as "rife with all sorts of problems" and "ridiculous" and "foolish" is pretty understandable. It's just another "oh well."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 07:50
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:You want an effectively unaccountable and armed higher power to enforce rules on the community because you trust them to leave you an alive and whole person, if you ever have to be bothered with them at all. It sounds like you don't, really, ever have to do deal with them personally since you are referring to them constantly as a sort of nebulous deterrent against speculative harm rather than an invasive force of armed fascists that kill certain people for sport which is the actual harm. That's a luxury reserved for a few specific people in this country. And, by no coincidence, you trust those rules that are being enforced to be good enough to you that you can go about your day without being criminalized for the things that you have to do to stay alive, stay in your home, and put food on your plate. I’m not dealing with this post because you clearly haven’t read what I’ve suggested be done with law enforcement much earlier in the thread, and you’ve misrepresented my views here. So do that, then come back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 09:26
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Conflict Resolution in a Revolutionary Society is this put forth as a social model consistent with a multicultural society where communities of people with diametrically different moral and religious outlooks on life are expected to coexist (mainly by leveraging the atomicity of economic life in industrial societies - so that when one goes to a job, buys groceries, goes to the hairdresser, etc., one mainly engages in alienated commodity exchange and not reinforcement of one's place in a network of social relationships)? is it consistent with a liberal society where a central code of individual rights is expected to supervene over local community norms of justice? is it a dispositional individualist model envisioned to only apply as a model of societies composed of anarchists who individually favour this mode of conflict resolution, or is it a structural model that holds that institutional change (in e.g. policing) is itself the moral/political/ethical good? it is certainly an anarchist model, not only in the abolition of police but also in the abolition of legislative process (hence criticism-self-criticism as the main way to identify social wrongs and appropriate weregild) (this is earnestly asked; I have seen anarchist models answer "no, and that's a good thing" to both questions - some anarchoprimitivists can argue that dense multicultural life can only exist due to state oppression; localists can argue that societies larger than the local community are imaginary communities that don't exist and whose sense of justice shouldn't supervene on actual local communities. Mainly I am curious on your take.) ronya fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 09:32
|
|
|
ronya posted:is this put forth as a social model consistent with a multicultural society where communities of people with diametrically different moral and religious outlooks on life are expected to coexist (mainly by leveraging the atomicity of economic life in industrial societies - so that when one goes to a job, buys groceries, goes to the hairdresser, etc., one mainly engages in alienated commodity exchange and not reinforcement of one's place in a network of social relationships)? The reason why I brought up three examples is because they're very different from each other in interpretation of what community control of the justice system and policing looks like. IE, Rojava has a federalized court and police system, it's just operated from a set of local control principles that are pretty alien to anyone who understands policing to be a top-down function. The EZLN doesn't have that at all - its affiliated municipalities are organized more like a federation of soviets (even though, yes, they're not actually that and they're not communists). Cheran is a single town that governs itself with neighborhood-scale moots and has a locally controlled public safety group as well as a militia (primarily to defend the area against cartel logging), but is not otherwise anarchist or socialist in any way. These areas are also already multicultural to different degrees. It's a popular statist canard that only top down control can force (and force is the operative word) people with different demographic or cultural or ethnic affiliations to Get Along (at gunpoint), but the economically advantaged in liberal society are constantly stoking up those tensions both at home and abroad to make people easier to divide and exploit. Ethnic, cultural, and religious differences and animus are not magically solved by localism but it's a lot easier to manage them when you are not being fed into an extractive meat-grinder in which you must shove some other group into the gears so that yours can avoid going into them a little longer. quote:is it consistent with a liberal society where a central code of individual rights is expected to supervene over local community norms of justice? Liberal statist societies are all about that universal code of individual rights in the abstract, but absolutely don't give a poo poo about it in practice except as another cudgel to hand to the economically advantaged. Liberals will cite communities in which chauvinist norms and oppression exist as a reason to eliminate community control, but the entire liberal statist system is an exploitative and extractive one, so it's taking the possibility of local oppression (which might, shockingly, oppress someone who is currently white and affluent) and replacing it with the certainty of universal oppression (but it's just poor people and Black people and colonized people so that's ok). And once you have instituted a system of centralized oppression, you will have people employed to operate that system of oppression. And once you have those people, they will build their own culture of violence against the oppressed and come to realize that the law they enforce is a selective law in practice and that they are beneficiaries of that selectivity more than anyone. And they will gravitate toward authoritarian and fascist ideologies (and those with those ideologies already will seek to be employed as enforcers) which condone the violence they do and reinforce their privileges. And the more exploitation that is required to sustain the system, the more violence that is required to enable the exploitation, and the more culturally violent and detached from the rest of society the cops will become, as they have to apply ever more blood by the bucketful to lubricate the gears of the taking machinery. In other words, I believe in the universality of affirmative individual rights, but those don't exist in practice in a centralized system of law enforcement. A community-controlled system doesn't guarantee them but does not automatically and totally preclude them and is therefore a step in the right direction. quote:is it a dispositional individualist model envisioned to only apply as a model of societies composed of anarchists who individually favour this mode of conflict resolution, or is it a structural model that holds that institutional change (in e.g. policing) is itself the moral/political/ethical good? The latter is a necessary step on the road to creating the former, but it's also a free-standing good of its own. You don't need to be bought in to anarchist ideals to look at a place like Cheran and see that the people there achieved an immediate and sustained good by abolishing their cops, ejecting the federal police, and taking up the work of justice and defense for themselves. quote:it is certainly an anarchist model, not only in the abolition of police but also in the abolition of legislative process (hence criticism-self-criticism as the main way to identify social wrongs and appropriate weregild) Ultimately abolition of the legislative process would also be a good thing since it centralizes decisionmaking in the hands of a few who will inevitably serve narrow interests that will abrogate the positive freedoms of many others, but you don't need to have Full Anarchism Now to realize immediate benefits from shutting down the specific and egregious parts of the death machine today and if a process or system is causing less large-scale sustained and inherent harm, it's reasonable that people are going to expend less energy on getting rid of it because it doesn't fit with some utopian ideal. If I lived in a place where the cops weren't gorging themselves on the economic output of the disadvantaged and didn't kill brutalize people every day, I'd probably spend less time thinking about how to abolish them than other things like the wage system or commodified housing or private property that also cause systemic harm to varying degrees in different places. Some (extremely white and terminally online) self-described anarchists criticized the EZLN because they didn't do all of the those things immediately, but why should they? Abolishing exploitative and coercive systems is a tool to allow people to attain positive, affirmative freedoms, not a checklist of things to tear down before you can get your anarchist membership club card. Anarchoprimitivists treat not only the state but all of society as the latter - just a bunch of poo poo we need to tear down to get to some idealized individualist paradise without the corrupting influences of industry and medicine and not dying of a superficial wound you got from stepping on a rock. You might as well put up a sign demanding fully automated luxury space communism, in my opinion. That'd be about as useful to oppressed people in their day to day lives and it should surprise no one that anarchoprimitivism and fully automated luxury space communism are both the ideological province of sheltered white people. So to sum that up, a non-exploitative world requires the abolition of the cops, but the abolition of the cops is good on its own merits whether you see that being a necessary step toward a horizontally organized society or simply the mechanism you need to employ to not get shot in your own bed or sent to real-life jail for not doing your online math homework because you happened to be Black, and if you believe in the former then you must support the struggle of the latter unconditionally. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Shot:quote:The people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday are getting support from the president of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police lodge. Chaser: https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1347327314363904006
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:you clearly haven’t read what I’ve suggested be done with law enforcement much earlier in the thread There's no way this isn't deliberate trolling, the irony is way to thick. You constantly seem to forget everything said to you here. If sincere, quote yourself instead of forcing each reader to separately try to sort all your old posts. This q and a is way too smart for me, but I'm gonna reread it a few more times because it's super interesting. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jan 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 02:46
|
|
