Abolish the police vs reform the police has practical implications right now. Dems love to throw money at the police and imagine they will behave well if only they have enough diversity training and four year degrees. Instead defund them. Cut their budgets. Cut their ranks. Take away their weapons. Give them less power. Move in that direction.
It’s the same kind of intellectual laziness as in the landlord thread. Like calling for the abolition of something because it makes you feel righteous, even though it has about a 0.000001% possibility of ever happening.
And the same [redacteds] are saying it can’t be done just like M4A and every single thing that will make the world a better place.
This is infuriating. And I know, I know, internet tough guy, but this dude is old af and would be pretty easy to tackle and hold down until authorities got there. Esp if he touched my daughter.
No, I disagree and hope I didnt come off that way.I think there is something there and generally I am very in favor of restorative justice vs punitive. I just can’t really envision a world where some kind of police force doesn’t exist - and it seems I am not alone, even with people in the “abolish the police” movement/ideology.
How many countries have guaranteed healthcare?
How many countries have no domestic police departments?
An ideal world would have no need for police. Right? Obviously it isn’t possible to get all the way there but maybe we should work towards that world rather than just throwing our hands up and accepting the combination of militarized police and racial/socioeconomic inequality that is causing the problem. That is going to require radical change to the status quo not just simply a few new regulations or something.
jmakin, I wasn’t calling you intellectually lazy. I was agreeing with you.
Who is doing that here?
No i know, I’m just saying i dont think “abolish the police” is intellectually lazy. I think the system is fundamentally broken on every level and wanting to tear it down is perfectly rational. I think we all just disagree on the how, or have differing expectations of human behavior that don’t align with our personal experiences and beliefs.
It’s a discussion worth having, which is why i’m confused the pro “abolish the police” people dont seem to want to have it.
Team USA VORP (Value Over Replacement Police) = -10
Ok.
I watched the local news coverage and they had an interview with the guy who filmed it, who is also young, probably late teens. I don’t think the young girl’s parents were there, she was out with two older teens/young adults. I can see why they didn’t try to take the cyclist on themselves.
Maybe no one? But it sure seems like to me disarming the police is about as much of a fantasy as abolishing them. So when I see a bunch of people scolding other posters about their lack of pragmatism, to me that seems like some just want to make reforms within our current police construct. Which has been tried already and been a giant failure.
Get the cops out of schools and stop making every damn park ranger and the like a sworn officer. It didn’t use to be like that.
I think you’ve egregiously misinterpreted my post.
His post was like a left-wing version of “It’s not my fault you’re ignorant because you won’t watch the YouTubz.”
Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization. Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers, Work in Essex County, Page 98, right? Yeah I read that too.