Don’t you come in on page 10 all rational and reasonable-like when you haven’t done any of the hard work. :mad:
No one ever thinks I’m either rational or reasonable. 
A lot of Republicans used to feel that way, remember the Tea Party? That’s why we got Trump and why so many mainstream Republicans fell into line behind him.
Of possible relevance to the debate on this subject:
Or as the article goes on to say, the inverse of the “Straw Man” fallacy, adopted by the defender of a position rather than the attacker.
That is an excellent article for this type of debate and it is exactly what is going on. Like the article said, people are stepping from foot to foot with a serious look on their face. On one hand it seems like people are simply saying that “Abolish the Police” means severe restructuring and reform on one foot, then they hop to another foot and are calling for counseling for murderers and really and truly want to abolish the police.
Then we a poster says that is pretty crazy that we need police, they hop to the other foot and talk about reform.
It seems like your party just did that by filibustering Tim Scott’s bill in the Senate. You can’t take a 1/2 win, so you hold out for more.
But to your general point, you underestimate the associational aspect of positions. If I propose that the speed limit in town be raised to 35 mph and in addition that people be allowed to drive drunk, you are going to scratch you head and think that if an idiot proposes legalizing drunk driving that his proposed speed limit raise is probably also a bad idea. Whereas if I simply proposed raising the speed limit, I might have gotten overwhelming support.
Same thing here. Huge majorities for police reform. But when you couple that with tearing down George Washington statues, some people associate the police reforms as being radical as well.
It sounds more like you are telling people what their argument is, and then calling them hypocrites when they disagree with your interpretation.
Sad to say, in spite of all the accusations for it, there is no liberal hive mind, so there is disagreement. Which means that one person may have a different point of view than another. You are making the claim that everyone has to hold to everyone else’s point of view, elsewise they are arguing in bad faith.
So yes, there are some people calling for complete anarchy. They are an extreme minority. Most people are calling for reform, but, since all past reform efforts have failed to achieve the result of decreasing police brutality, and in fact, the police are actively fighting against any form of reform, the reform needs to be pretty drastic, wherein the police are effectively abolished and rebuilt from the needs of the community.
What many of those who are in favor of the status quo are doing is what is called “nutpicking”. That is when you take an extreme point of view, and then demand that everyone work under that point of view, or be called a hypocrite. It doesn’t advance the discussion, and IMHO, that is the entire point of that “tactic” of debate.
If your counter argument is ever, “Well, that’s not what he said.” or, “That’s not how I choose to interpret your argument.” then you are not actually debating with the poster you are responding to, you are either debating someone who is not here, or debating with the voices in your own head. Either way, it’s not responsive or productive in any way.
Now, if you want to debate a reasonable position, my understanding of the consensus position is that “Abolish the police” does mean exactly what it says. It means that community services need to be rebuilt entirely from the ground up. Communities should determine the services that they need in order to protect and serve them. A group of individuals with the authorization to use force and access to arms is a part of that equation, but the police should not be the primary social services that attempt to keep crime down and quality of life up.
3500 character limit…
The other position that I do feel has merit is for people who live in communities that are harmed by the way that they are policed. They truly do feel, and I don’t fault them on this, that having police in their communities causes more harm than it prevents. I don’t know that they are right, but I’m being less and less convinced that they are wrong as more and more stories of police abuse come out. If you are in a community that does not call the police because calling the police usually ends up making the situation worse, then the police are not doing any good.
For that position, they have been told over and over again that their options are to take the policing that is offered, or nothing at all. And some of the members of the community do see that, given that true dichotomy that is offered, they’d rather take nothing at all. That’s where the real thrust of Abolish really comes from. From the police who refuse to do their jobs if they are not allowed to treat the citizens as enemies, to presume they are criminals, and use that as justification for brutality. It really is more of a negotiation tactic than an actual desire for the eventual outcome.
To extend that position, there has been debate that such a position would lend itself to vigilantism, as crime is not properly handled, and therefore there is no justice, which prompts people to take justice into their own hands. While I agree that this is a bad thing, I argue that the current situation doesn’t really properly handle crime either. Someone asked about rape, how we would feel if someone raped our sister. Well, having cops hasn’t prevented rape, and having cops very rarely catches and prosecutes a rapist. So, for those who worry about vigilantism with a lack of justice, why are you not worried about vigilantism with the current lack of justice?
Just saying, having no police is kinda a bad thing, I agree. But these are communities that already do not have a police force serving them, they just have thugs with guns who terrorize the community under the protection of qualified immunity and the blue wall.
.
.
So, if there is argument against any positions that are not based on either of those two, then that is simple nutpicking, and is irrelevant to any discussion. If there is argument that conflates those two points of view, then that is simply sloppy debate, and will also not result in any progress.
A better analogy would be that you think that the limit should be 35, and that guy over there thinks that we should be allowed to drink and drive.
When I point out the reasons that I think it would be safe and productive to raise the limit, you point to the guy over there and calling my proposal a bad idea because he is proposing legalizing driving drunk.
I’m not making this stuff up. There are people who have argued all of these things. However, they are under one mantle “BLM” marching in pretty much every town and demanding, well, something. But depending on who you ask, that something is different.
It is not my fault that BLM hasn’t come out with a proposal or even a list of proposals so that I can look and say, “Yep, agree with that” “Nope, not on board with that, but I am open to persuasion” “A definite no on that” etc. It just seems to be pent up anger, a middle finger to white society, that much of which is very justified. I have no problems with the protests; I would just like a simple answer to the question of what do you, BLM as a group, want? I understand there will be minority positions, but having a group position is step one.
And like I said, quit mixing in other things. The signs that are everyone list a bunch of unrelated issues like climate change, illegal immigration, LGBTQ rights, etc. Don’t bite off too much. Just stick with your issue and let other groups handle the other issues.
Finally, again, I am someone who is probably and could be on your side in this, so it is unproductive to do what some do in this situation which is basically say that if I don’t support BLM right now, with whatever goals that they cannot articulable, with no further questions, then it means I am the Grand Dragon of the KKK. That will push people away faster than anything.
So the entirety of your argument is in fact nutpicking.
It is not anything to do with any of the arguments that are presented here. It has nothing to do with the consensus positions. It only has to do with what is served to you as the most extreme examples.
Your argument is that as long as there is anyone out there that says anything that you find offensive, ambiguous, or unrelated to this specific cause, you will use that as your reason to not support ending police brutality. Well, there will always be someone out there that you can point to that prevents you from being on my “side in this”, so I’m pretty sure that you will always have an excuse to support the status quo.
- What is the consensus position? I haven’t seen it. Do you have a link perhaps? If it is the consensus, then surely I can find it on a BLM website. Or perhaps point me to a post in this thread which you believe contains the consensus position, and also why that is indeed the consensus position and not a different post.
And again, your side comes up with “Abolish the Police” or “Defund the Police” and others are simply stupid if they don’t understand that doesn’t really mean abolish the police. We are supposed to simply guess what that means, even though some people are saying, yeah, we really mean that.
- You are doing exactly what I said in my final paragraph. Since I don’t know what I am being asked to support, then I must simply want to “not support ending police brutality” which is absurd.