This makes no sense, besides ignoring the point. The point was that most people are not dimwitted and do get that in America eventual negotiations almost never gives protesters all what they want.
Again that is like demanding that a hypothetical corrupted law firm hired the pettifoggers again, not to mention assuming that there was no getting rid of the apparatus that protected the bad lawyers.
As for being divisive, what you claim is ironic, Trump and most of the congress Republicans are the most divisive leaders seen in America’s recent history.
That BTW is from June 2, the polls are worse for Trump now.
What Trumpists think is irrelevant in this context. It’s reasonable to assume, based on Trump’s statements, “Don’t be too nice”, that they don’t mind some police brutality as long as it’s aimed at the “other”. Sure, not feeding into Trump’s propaganda is always a nice-to-have. But it’s secondary to the conversation those of us who are on the same side of the issue are having. “Abolish the Police” is divisive rhetoric inside the big tent occupied by those who agree that police reform is urgently needed. Can we just this once not capitulate to our own extremists slogans and make sound policies that will achieve meaningful change? (It’s a rhetorical question.) Right now I’m seeing and hearing rational political and social leaders talking sense instead of calling for abolition. Still a very long way to go but I’m encouraged by the calmer, more pragmatic voices. I hope that you are also encouraged by this and are not still calling for radical labels that promise that which they will not deliver and serve only to further frustrate people desperate to see results.
That part about realizing that calmer more pragmatic voices, where the ones we should listen to and not the radical ones, was my line too since you did not notice. I guess I should be glad that you finally noticed.
But the other point I was making is more valid than assigning a secondary value to it, I will have to notice too that you seem to ignore that I’ve been taking about convincing the ones that are not Trumpists. Again, as I have said in other words, the point here is that the talk from the pragmatic voices is a demonstration that a lot of people that were deeply scared of bad slogans should had worried less. They fell for what I could call fear porn*, most people can get over a bad slogan to realize who are the ones that are doing bad by falling for their own fearful slogans and do real bad things as a result.
There was an attempt these days to make others fall for the fears about the slogan, the point here is that based on the polls, sure there is no wide support to abolish all police departments, but there is no need to fear that Trump is getting a gift, when most people do understand how limited is the reach of the absolutists and realized that the Trumpists and many Republicans are falling for the fear porn but most people are realizing how dumb is that.
A very crazy aside: the name of the pollster cited in that article is really Bernie Porn :eek:
I’m not sure why you keep mentioning Trump and Republicans as if that has anything to do with what I am saying.
Everyone was outraged at the George Floyd thing. Everyone. There would have been broad consensus for a major overhaul bill for strong and lasting police reform. Might even have Nancy on hand in the Rose Garden for an historic signing ceremony.
But instead of accepting the easy win, some on your side have made it racially divisive by continuing the “Black Lives Matter” banner, made ridiculous calls for abolishing and/or defunding the police, have brought the Confederate monument debate back up, and had UVA change its logo over a serpentine design on the sword handle. UVA Changes Athletics Logo Design Linked With Slavery – NBC4 Washington
That is going to cause pushback and it might just be that after the fervor dies down, a few more Confederate monuments get removed, and universities and big corporations get to virtue signal like they always do, the police will go back to doing what they did before. This had the potential for real change.
Nancy’s invitation to the Rose Garden is permanently lost in the mail since the impeachment and the dramatic tearing up of Trump’s SotU address.
More importantly, police reform, removal of confederate monuments and whatever other racists vestiges remain are all on the table for discussion and action. I don’t agree that one takes attention away from the other.
Are you trying to say that a substantive number of supporters for dramatic police reform would quite like to hang on to Confederate monuments as important symbols of southern heritage? Is that the wedge issue here?
Never said you did, I did say that because it is related a lot with the issue at hand.
Like I said, the evidence is that it is really your side the one that overreached in the way the ones condemning are using a very wide brush indeed, and most people (and even corporations) do understand now what “Black Lives Matter” actually means.
It is just unspeakably vile that there are people who would say “I would have fought against police killing unarmed people, but you asked for it in a mean way, so I’ll just have to support the continued killings.”
Those are the people we’re supposed to be courting? We’re supposed to craft our message to entice a person with so little empathy that they will knowingly support police beatings because our slogans hurt their feelings?
I’m going to tell a middle aged black man, whose spent his whole life targeted by LEOs that he needs to dial back his rhetoric because he might insult some white guy who isn’t quite sure that police violence is a problem? Nope.
Besides complaining that the message doesn’t quite suit your tastes, what actual steps have either of you taken to lessen police violence and suppression?
For the more radical folks who truly support abolishing the police, not merely reforming them - they don’t seem to consider that whatever replacement arises for the police will have ***less ***accountability than the current police.
A vigilante group that patrols a neighborhood will NOT be answerable to trials or juries. No matter how faulty or leaky the current system is to hold cops accountable, vigilantes would be even less accountable.
Since the more rational reforms after a specific department has been found to be corrupt still have patrols, the point here about vigilantes looks a bit strawmanish even for the radicals calling for abolition, harm reduction policies do not talk about vigilantes either so, do you have a cite?
This is some serious misrepresentation of what the reports say.
What the reports say is that when more violent crime rates fall, police look for less serious crimes and make arrests they otherwise would not. Police make more drug arrests when more serious crimes have been reduced. When police force is reduced in size, they therefore make less arrests related to less serious crimes, like drug related offenses.
If you want to make the argument that some crimes should be de-scoped from police enforcement, then make it. But what you boldly claimed is far more nuanced than how you presented it.
Disbanding the police entirely remains a fundamentally absurd idea.
Thing is the rich people will have their own private security, bodyguards, live in gated communities, or live in quiet, safe areas. The rest of us will live in lawless areas where every vigilante group will set their own rules. Basically what the CHAZ thing in Seattle is (which right now is quiet and safe but that can change).
Perhaps the Peelian principles - Wikipedia are worth taking a renewed look at. One of the first modern civil police forces was that founded in London by Sir Robert Peel. Thanks to the bitter experiences of the English Civil War in the 17th century, the English were no fonder than we are of empowered thugs kicking in doors, brutalizing people and in general acting like the biggest and best armed gang in town. Yet the old system of night watchmen, constables and if necessary rousing the populace in a “hue and cry” simply didn’t seem to be workable in a 19th century industrializing metropolis. Peel’s task then was to work out how to establish a truly civil police force rather than an occupying army.
This led to the nine Peelian Principles, which even today minorities in the USA wish were completely adhered to and which if they were would largely address most of the problems we’re having.
Unfortunately in the USA, we seem to have inherited police forces that despite some reforms were apparently founded on a combination of big city machine politics, suppression of labor unrest, and keeping minorities and the poor bottled up where “decent” people didn’t have to deal with them.
That would be using someone who opposes meant’s slogan.
I’d say a more apt analogy would be a slogan of “Must Eat Meat!”
Some people object, because they don’t want to have to eat meat, and they insist that the slogan means that that is all they are allowed to eat.
And of course, the vegans only have an incentive to fan the flames.
We have changed laws, we have transformed police practices.
We still have problems with police brutality.
Police culture will change when you don’t have older cops training younger cops on police culture. It doesn’t change because a bureaucrat said so.
Yeah, we already have that though. You don’t think that different neighborhoods are policed in very different ways right now?
That if a cop sees Timmy selling drugs behind the clubhouse, he’ll take the drugs and threaten to tell Timmy’s parents.
Then he sees Trayvon standing on the corner, shakes him down, and when he doesn’t find anything, plants Timmy’s drugs on him and arrests him.
The only difference I see with my proposal is that the members of Trayvon’s community have a voice in how their neighborhood and the people within it are policed, as well as the affluent neighborhoods.
This relies on other police to report the police who refuse to obey the changes and regs.
