|
Vahakyla posted:Quite honestly I feel like you might live on a neighborhood thah is really nice. If you live in a society where the only possible solution to people being noisy is to start a gunfight then that suggests you've got a pretty serious problem with your society and that an escalating arms race between the noisy and the noise elimination army is possibly not a good solution either?
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Also just generally if the only interaction you have with wider society is people constantly telling you to stop doing X Y and Z and using force on you to make you do it, do you think it's surprising that you might become slightly belligerent about that society and start shooting people who come to hassle you? The view of other people as only ever being problems to solve by removal in some fashion is part of the reason you end up in that position to begin with. We currently live in a "stable" situation grounded on mass incarceration and police brutality, pulling down one of the means by which that is upheld will necessitate the change of other parts. Why should people be evicted at all? Why should landlords exist? Why should the cops exist to enforce the landlord's right to exract money from others for nothing? Why should we have so many prisons to hold people for crimes invented to fill prisons, increase police budgets, and satisfy racist rich rear end in a top hat politician's desire to punish "the wrong type"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
You misunderstand, I said that if you remove one of the planks that hold that system up, it becomes a vehicle for the rest of the reforms. If landlords can't evict people because they can't call the cops to do it, suddenly being a landlord becomes a lot less appealing. People can stay in their homes, you have effectively given a massive boon to tenant's rights. You don't need to get rid of landlords to get rid of cops, you get rid of landlord by getting rid of cops. A new stable point is reached by attacking the stability of the old system, you knock the old one down one plank at a time until it falls. The idea of a planned, centrally controlled transition of the foundation of society is extremely ahistorical. Massive changes don't happen in a nice, calm, planned out manner, they happen because the pillars of the old system cannot be sustained any more. People won't accept the cops doing what they do because the cops are one of the most visible horrors of the society we live in, but they are also necessary to uphold the wider horror of that society, so people attack the most visible wrongs and in so doing, they attack the others too. I don't think removing the cops is gonna hurt the working class very much, especially not in relation to the benefits it brings them, so if it makes the situation of the owning classes more untenable, that's not our problem, that's their problem. But we have solutions to that, too. And it involves getting rid of that divide. They're the ones who will require them, not us. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
As a counter counter point it's presumably then possible for people to just shoot bailiffs in the street. But I doubt it would come to that. Rich people like easy money, if landlording becomes difficult money I think they will be more likely to find somewhere else to put it. And I also think people would object quite heavily to armed security gangs for the same reason they object to the cops. Because they're just cops with less legitimacy and we just got rid of cops.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
The police are a significant part of the reason why expanding the positive role of the government in people's lives doesn't happen. Because you don't need to help people when you can just send the cops to beat them up, kill them, or throw them in jail instead. The police are the one size fits all solution to all social problems, in that they remove the parts of social problems that stick out the most without solving them. Thus you achieve a sufficiently orderly, if horrible, society and coincidentally a thriving prison population, which helpfully can also be exploited for profit. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Well, yes, you can extend that argument to the concept of top down governance in general, and anarchists do, for a good reason as far as I'm concerned. But you don't have to go that far to suggest that the problem isn't the police are working badly, the problem is that they are working well. They are doing the job they are best suited to, which is using force on behalf of the government and capital, on people who have very little say in how they are governed and very little money. And that's as designed. Again as I said, the cops are the strong arm of landlords looking to evict or immiserate those who cannot afford property, of cities trying to "solve" their homeless problem by getting rid of the homeless, of prisons looking to keep their populations up, of politicians looking to be "tough on crime", of themselves looking for ways to get their arrest rates up by instigating hostilities and then arresting people for it. And none of this is "corruption", this is all entirely within the legal and social function of the police, much of it has "democratic" backing because the people who vote, or who are able to vote given the legal and practical disenfranchisement of the subjects of police violence, are not interested in building a fairer society because they can just vote for the cops to keep brutalizing people other than them, and their political imaginations are limited to thinking that is the only form of society that is possible. The police, as the strong arm of the state, are inherently suited to employing brutal force on people, their role, their structure, the structure of the society in which they operate, their very nature lends them to this. To classify policing problems as people just "doing policing wrong" I think is an error, police problems largely stem from the police being very good police. They maintain and exercise the capacity to employ force exactly where society wants it to be employed, against the poor and minorities, and they do it very effectively. What you are now seeing is the people on the receiving end of that fighting back against it. And they rightly perceive that there will be no change without kicking out the pillars that hold that system up. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Well, like I do trend more anarcho communist than most other stuff, right-libertarians are dumbasses because they think the problem is just the government and not, like, the whole concept of entrenched hierarchies and massive power imbalances between people in society as a result of money and ownership and poo poo. But I can also think that while the complete abolition of both capitalism and the state is my ideal end goal, it is possible to look at our present society and make changes to it based on the same principles. So, as I said, the police are literally a force projecting organization. They exist to coerce people at the behest of the people in charge. They are literally the goon squad of capital and the state. And because capital and the state have a goon squad they are more inclined to use it rather than find alternative solutions. The axiom is "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" and that applies institutionally too. As I said, the fact that you can control society and keep it orderly (but not good or fair or just) by just killing and beating and locking people up, and the fact that we have a group of people who are very good at killing and beating and locking people up, that creates an inertia. Why look into other ways of doing things, other ways that we could organize our society, other ways society and the government could interact with the poor and minorities? The one we have doesn't murder or beat or lock up the middle and upper classes, so why would they change it? We are reliant on the goodness of their conscience and the charity in their hearts to maybe see fit to committing to some minor reforms, at some point, in the future, if they can go one election cycle without being reminded that there are hordes of poors and minorities waiting just outside the gates to take their nice comfy houses without the strong arm of our beautiful boys in blue to keep them safe. You see where I'm going with that I'm sure. Now I would argue that an unjust society does hurt everyone, that it diminishes the humanity of everyone who participates in it, that it makes them cold and unfeeling and encourages people to come up with philosophical justifications for why, actually, the poor deserve to be poor and the rich deserve to be rich, because accepting that perhaps society is wrong might make you examine where and how you are complicit in it being wrong, or might lead you to feel less than thrilled about your role in it. But it really hurts those at the bottom, which is why the current push for is being spearheded by people who are directly on the receiving end of it. They are intimately acquainted with how bad it is to be there, they are the first to fight back. I do not, fundamentally, think justice is primarily achieved by force, I think generally that once you get to the point where force is employed, especially on the level that the police use it, you are way, way past the point where justice can be achieved and you are at best getting vengeance. Which is cathartic, but you can't run a society on constant vengeance. It is necessary to instead focus on avoiding injustice to begin with. I don't think people commit crimes for no reason, and I don't think that everything that is a crime should be, drugs, sex work etc, but these things are crimes because the police state benefits from them being crimes, because they give the police something to do, the politicians something to campaign on, and the prisons a pretext to hold and enslave people. The existence of a force encourages the use of force. Remove the option and it makes preventing the need for force more appealing. Same logic as disarmament, if everyone's packing heat then you're more likely to see people getting into shootouts, because it's trivial to do so. If you have this big, well funded police force, you're gonna find reasons to use it. And it is gonna try to expand itself as well. It is possible to have elements of a state that do not work that way. Universal healthcare is a good one. It is far harder to use universal healthcare to brutalize people because its nature is pretty different. And if you had fewer people broke from medical debt, maybe you'd need fewer cops to evict people or round up the homeless. But that works the other way too, as long as you can control the human cost of society's failings, why do you need to change society? A system built on brutality and horror is suprisingly sustainable. By removing one of the things that hold it up, namely the people who do the brutalizing, we can attack the rest of the wrongs as well, we expose them and necessitate better solutions. If you want to promote the adoption of positive, helpful interactions between people and the state, then getting rid of the harmful ones is a good idea. Because nobody is going to have any faith in the state when all it does is murder them and then bill them for it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
I don't think it really matters given that 99% of the people who want complete abolition are gonna support massively scaling back the power of the police as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Any sufficient withdrawal of police force is going to necessitate the same kind of introduction of alternate structures to resolve the problems that the police currently paper over, and as that happens you will have a better picture of what problems remain and what solutions can resolve them too. That might result in the creation of a small scale force utilization organization or it might result in more social programs. But both begin with getting rid of the cops as much as possible. Again, the idea of a completely planned out transition to a different structure of society is ahistorical, it doesn't happen. Forestalling change until you have that is not going to do anything other than make a difficult, piecemeal transition take longer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
On an individual level I guess but in terms of practicality I don't think so. I would certainly suggest that radical anarchists are not a majority or even plurality of the population so the best case scenario is probably still gonna have something like a cop that exists somewhere, just heavily scaled back. But it will depend on what else collapses once you get rid of the cops. And how it collapses, which is gonna be hard to predict. But I am pretty confident it would mostly collapse towards the assholes in society.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I think part of my friction in wanting to understand practicalities more is that some posters here have much more faith in adults to resolve disputes peacefully. My biased personal experience doesn't give me as much faith. Cpt_Obvious posted:I think this requires a justification as to why an outside, violent authority is more capable of resolving disputes than the community involved. Especially when that violent authority is incredibly biased against non-white people. This, the police are adults incapable of resolving disputes peacefully, they select for adults who are incapable of resolving disputes peacefully. But in addition to that, you resolve disputes peacefully all the time, if you couldn't then society wouldn't work. The question to ask is why can't we do that more often? And I and others would posit that it is because we live in a society that encourages us to be in heated conflict with each other all the time. And I don't think there is any way you can tone down the intensity of that conflict without resolving the reasons why it exists. And the police are part of that, they encourage people to solve problems by calling in the armed goons, and their existence as an institution obstructs the development of any other possible solution. And they uphold the social structures that lead people to be in conflict in the first place. If you remove them, you create a space for improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
If a conflict of interest exists it exists for a reason, and until you address that reason it's going to constantly trend towards escalating. That's exactly what you see with the current protests, the police want to kill people of colour and people of colour don't want to be killed hence there is conflict. It's not going to go away if you just, like, get the police to agree to a maximum quota of people they can murder racistly. Until you address the fundamental reasons why it happens it's not gonna go away, it's gonna keep ratcheting up and any measures you take to try and calm things down are gonna be overrun by the need of people to live in a worthwhile society. There can be no peace without justice, that's the point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
Sort of, there is violence between people where both of the people are not the police, but that, too, interacts with the police system. The police system is symptomatic and reinforcing of the concept of punitive justice, whereby violence is answered with greater violence. So say someone loses their temper and throws a punch, or even kills someone, is it a good idea to put them in prison for decades? Is the way the prison operates likely to help them even if you have a shorter sentence? Is this a crime that could be "deterred" by higher sentencing? I would suggest no for all of those. Some crimes are just not preventable by heavier policing or other manifestations of carceral justice. But you could try to examine why people lose their temper, is it drinking? Are they drinking because drug laws prohibit less dangerous drugs? Is it because of problems at work? Could those problems be resolved by better working conditions or better pay? Is it because of problems at home? Are those rooted in financial problems? Is it a case of domestic violence? Could the victim have been helped by having more economic freedom and services to let them be independent of the person who assaulted or killed them? What about crimes that the police are absolutely terrible at resolving? Sexual assault, robbery etc. Could they be prevented again by better social programs? All of these questions are inhibited by the existence of the police and the "solution" of ever more harsh punishments for crimes. Because that is the answer the state, the media, and politicians reach for. Because they are all perfectly fine with the problems going unresolved, because they aren't their problems. And consent can be manufactured via those organizations for more and more punitive sentencing, proactive (and racist) police measures like stop and search despite them having zero impact on actual crime rates. And the reason they reach for those solutions is because the cops exist and are equipped to enforce them. It is the easiest, and wrong, solution. No part of it is disconnected, you take the police out of the equation and suddenly you've changed the entire landscape of how we maintain societal cohesion, because if it can't be done by violent suppression, suddenly we need new ways to do it, ways which might even be able to help people. Which might even prevent violence entirely in many cases. As long as the answer to societal violence is greater societal violence by the mandated authorities, then no, there isn't really any violence that sits entirely outside that system. Every instance of it only feeds the call for a greater monopoly of force by the state, but ultimately I do not think you can resolve problems that way, because the entire concept of meeting force with greater retaliation is wrong. Not just ethically but practically too, it doesn't work, it doesn't achieve the effect it's advertised as achieving. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jun 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
I think a lot of the people who thought that was cool got older and bought houses and now are merely human shaped shells powered entirely by anxiety about property values.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
I think the protests are a pretty good example honestly. You've got massive numbers of people who are angry and explicitly refusing police control, and yet they aren't killing each other, they aren't beating each other up, they're helping each other, looking out for each other, their ire is directed pretty clearly towards the instigators of violence in their lives, and it isn't each other. If people were fundamentally violent and not interested in forming bonds with each other you would not see, constantly, all over the world, people organizing together en masse to reject the authority of the cops and their governments. And that's with the state often deliberately trying to spread strife among them. The original civil rights movement is an incredible example of what can be achieved by people on their own even in the face of fearsome aggression by the authorities. I saw the mayor of... I think it was minneapolis? Stand in the middle of a crowd of protests and say he wouldn't defund the cops, and they booed him, and then they cleared a path and told him to leave. Like a thousand angry people around a guy who basically just said "gently caress you" to their entire cause, the guy who is in no small part responsible for their suffering, and they just told him to go away and let him. I do not think people are inherently antisocial.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 06:58
|
|
|
I mean, no the answer isn't different, because I would hope that you would prefer a society whereby school shooting didn't happen, if nothing else specifically because it has been eminently clear that you can't stop them with cops and increased militarization of schools isn't really helping either. The most effective means of stopping school shootings in the US to date has been the quarantine closing schools en masse. If your answer to "how do you deal with school shootings" is "call the other guys with guns to get into a gunfight with the shooter" then you're just demonstrating exactly the problem with cops, which is that they are the answer to every problem, even if they're provably the wrong loving answer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
Precisely, as I said before at length, you will keep answering with that despite it being a demonstrably terrible answer, the cost of which is measured in what, weekly mass shootings? And all you're ever going to suggest is "What about more cops? What about coppier cops? What about if teachers were cops?" You can't solve all, or even the vast majority of problems with cops. Cops isn't a solution now, it's just repeatedly giving the wrong answer to every question.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
Weird then that there are sections of most towns and cities full of middle class people who have all their needs met and who have very little interaction with the cops, then. Must just be inherently better people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
Of course, but this is the police abolition thread, in which we argue that the police are not required to resolve antisocial behaviour, not that antisocial behaviour doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 10:55
|
|
|
What on earth makes you think that crime is "dealt with more harshly" in wealthy areas? I'm pretty sure wealthy areas are not where the police murder loads of people or where most victims of incarceration come from.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:16
|
|
|
Wealthy people don't get their drugs from dealers on their corners, or their sex work. They go to other places or they use different methods. And the fact that they are not generally bothered by the police for it suggests that neither drugs nor sex work are actually a problem and that they exist as a pretext for the police to target the poor and minorities. The wealthy are not punished for many crimes at all, either because the police simply don't bother looking or because if they do get to court, the judge will be lenient with the sentencing. Because there is the tacit understanding that for the right sort of person it is not actually a crime.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
Then what you are saying, then, is that crime in wealthy areas is not punished at all, because it is ignored or driven into poor areas, but not outside the access of the wealthy if they want to partake in "antisocial behaviour". That is literally the opposite of what you just claimed. You realise this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
flashman posted:I said it is the knowledge it will be dealt with more harshly, how exactly do you drive crime into poor areas otherwise? Because the police will come and hassle people for the normal crime of "existing while black in a rich neighbourhood" It is not criminal activity that is punished in wealthy areas, it is poor people existing in them. The police will not attempt to prosecute sex work or drug use in wealthy areas, what they prosecute is doing those things in a class inappropriate way, because as was the initial contention, wealthy people are not subjected to the police, they are assumed to be able to engage in whatever activity they want.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
flashman posted:Wealthy people should not be above the law. Eliminating police will not make this the case though. Wealthy people, however, are above the law, and I suspect you would still rather like to live in their part of town. Which points back to my initial assertion, that the police are clearly not required for a desirable society. And furthermore, that having one's material needs met, is a very significant factor when it comes to eliminating the need for police. If you think that the police improve society, one would assume you would want to live where the police spend the most time, but I do not think that would be the case. I think it's just very strange that in order to fit the idea you seem to have that poor people are just inherently incapable of existing in a civilized fashion, you'd rather that everyone were subjected to brutal policing, rather than looking at the situation and asking why everyone cannot be afforded the freedom from police? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
If you were to keep the general shape of the current justice system, which frankly I'm iffy on, I would suggest again that the model would be the kind of justice that the wealthy are subject to, which is to say the investigators are not out to coerce confessions, the accused is afforded the best quality legal representation without suffering any financial hardship from it, and sentencing should not be with the assumption that the person in question is an irredeemable abomination that needs to be subjected to the harshest punishment possible. I am skeptical that any of that could be achieved without massive changes to how the justice system works though, and its class makeup. I do not trust lawyers, judges, or investigators to not simply assume people are guilty based on race and class and to conspire to imprison people on the flimsiest pretext. There are probably people out there who have studied alternative methods and concepts of justice who would be able to suggest radical alternatives, but personally at this point I wouldn't care if you just burned the whole thing down, I think it kills and harms far more people than individual murderers do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:00
|
|
|
I feel like the concept of trying to establish what happened when there is some kind of wrongdoing is fairly uncontroversial? The problems arise when you have motivations on the part of the person doing that to support a specific outcome, which is related to the wider structure of the justice system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:16
|
|
|
I don't think an investigator is enormously useful without the other stuff around them, and I have a lot of issues with the other stuff around them that affects both their impartiality and the ends to which their information would be put even if they were impartial. Like I don't understand what you're asking. I clearly have a lot of issues with the way the justice system works which I have outlined because I think it has to be considered holistically, I don't know what you mean about "the role of the investigator" isolated from the system they are a part of.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
I am acting under the assumption that if you magically zapped the entire thing away tonight, people would attempt to construct a new system. I am not operating under the assumption that you could maintain a complete inaction on wrongdoing or that no wrongdoing would occur. What I am saying is that I think it is more important to dismantle and disempower the current system because it actively causes a massive amount of harm, and that I don't really care about a plan to replace it because it would be quite hard to construct something more abhorrent. I know that there are people out there with other ideas for how to achieve justice but I am sufficiently motivated simply by a dislike of the present system. I believe that alternatives invariably arise when the status quo is untenable.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
I don't think "fear of consequence" is just "fear that the cops will come after me", there are a vast number of other consequences for being an rear end in a top hat that regulate our behaviour every day, our conscience, the perception of our peer groups, our need to be accepted in society. The concept of justice, or fairness, is not imposed on people from the outside by cops, it's something that underpins how we interact with everybody. And because of that people will generally gravitate towards trying to find ways to achieve that even in exceptional circumstances. Systems of justice are, or should be, an outgrowth of that desire. And a lot of the issue I take with our current one is that I don't think it is. I think it's largely a way to justify being an rear end in a top hat by constructing a social group that "deserves" it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
But even without cops there's still a significant risk of you not getting away with murder. Like people can still suspect you, people can still ostracise you if they suspect you, and especially if they have good reason to suspect you or outright proof. Societies have managed to discourage murder without the modern police force. Unless you know some extremely weird would be serial killers I guess. The main thing that stops people murdering isn't the cops, it's that people don't want to murder, for the most part. There's a lot of elements, internal and social, that discourage it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:42
|
|
|
That too, even with the cops, there's like a 40% chance you'll get away with murder in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:But isn’t that the point of a law enforcement arm? People can suspect the wrong person all the time. Without that law enforcement arm, it’s really just vigilante justice. And by the way, the two people I mention - their motivation would be seen as sympathetic by any reasonable person. So in that circumstance...is anyone really going to care? Would people turn a blind eye? Absolutely. Is that better than the current system? I’d argue no. What makes it not vigilante justice with the cops? Why are the cops not gonna suspect the wrong person based on race or class and then make the evidence fit or force a confession? What motivation do they have not to do that? I also would point this out again: Cpt_Obvious posted:The problem is that the state demands poverty. In order for the wealthy to acquire their absurd wealth, that money has to be extracted from somewhere. Specifically, it is extracted from extremely low wages combined with reduced public services through legal and illegal tax evasion. Inevitably, those hurt most by these systems will rebel through crime or riots, and that's why you need police. Why would I think they prevent crime? They create crime. Many crimes literally exist because of the need to enforce inequality in society and the cops do that by targeting people for made up crimes that should not be crimes. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:48
|
|
|
As I said, I think people would construct a system to deal with things like murder, literally every society in history has done that. But I do not think a 60% conviction rate (not necessarily accurate, mind you, it just means somebody got the blame for it) is a good enough justification for, like, the entire rest of the wrongs with the justice system. I think that without the police and their role in creating inequality and strife in society, we could figure out a way to deal with murderers and perhaps have far fewer of them to deal with, and we also wouldn't have the massive amount of suffering the justice system causes. Your choice is not everything as it is now, or no laws or customs everyone kill everyone for fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
I would ask why you feel so convinced that ours is the best of all possible systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
It is perhaps helpful to remember that the police are deployed to break strikes and suppress poor white political power too. The police are not your friend unless you're middle class and white.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Getting rid of the cops, who know only how to kill, beat, eat hot chip and lie. And replacing them with organizations that do what people wish the cops did, doesn't seem that unremarkable imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:What guarantee do you have of this? I mean, you're basically asking "how can humans do anything good together" which, uh, I dunno they usually figure something out?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
Or rather more significantly, right now the consistent trend is that rich, white communities defend themselves from poor, black communities by sending people to do violence on them, and that's called the police force.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Again, I think everyone acknowledges this. I don't think that is the question, I think the question is "would it be better for more people" Saying that we can't address the numerous built in problems with the cops because someone, somewhere, might be worse off, I think is wrong. People everywhere are suffering now in clearly visible ways, and I think that it is important that their problems be solved by directly getting rid of the thing that causes them, which is cops. Koalas March posted:I think this is more accurate tbh Yes, I should probably have put "defend" in very big scare quotes there cos it's not really very defensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/ayyy_vuh/status/1271528378449920006 Beginning to like the sound of this no cops idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 00:59
|
|