Maybe we fix the crime problem by providing wages for people and then they don’t feel like their neighbors might rob them because they are broke as fuck and chalk it up to blacks supporting cops.
That’s not the way finding out black opinion works, legitimate black opinion is canvassed by asking your friends in protest movements and the DSA. The black people you’re talking about are unfortunately poorly informed about black issues.
2 Likes
I mean that’s true but it kind of proves my point: the slogan “abolish the police” is counterproductive, self-defeating propaganda. If taken literally it’s wildly unpopular, and enough people (understandably) take it literally so it’s just confusing and means very different things to different people. It’s like the exact opposite of Medicare for All.
3 Likes
Correction, I should have said that the black people in Keeed’s poll are just poorly informed on issues in general.
1 Like
OK. But there’s widespread support for reforming policing. Support even for defunding police, I think, if it’s framed as letting the police focus on their core mission and giving better funding and training of non-police for stuff like child welfare and mental health crisis point of contact. But as far as wanting to actually have the police, to be able to dial 911 and have the police probably respond to your issue? That’s almost universally a popular idea, among whites, Latinos, blacks, Asians, Republicans, Democrats, whoever. Shit you can get Sean Hannity to agree to giving police better and more frequent training in de-escalation and to reduce cop’s involvement in stuff like mental health calls. Why not start there, since it has broad support?
To return to something closer to the topic, I just managed to dig up a really good article i read a while back (written by abolitionists) about police traffic enforcement, using Alberqueque as the example.
Traffic stops are the most common cause of contact between police and the community and a number of shootings have come about via these stops. The “discretion” police have to enforce or not enforce traffic laws and to search vehicles after making a stop is an obvious vector for racist policing and studies confirm it is unequally applied. There are currently initiatives underway in Berkeley and Philadelphia to stop police traffic enforcement (in the case of Philly, the idea is to create a specialist unarmed traffic enforcement force). Similar proposals are under consideration in parts of Maryland and Massachusetts. Those are the ones I’m aware of.
This isn’t reformism of the “give them body cameras and make them promise to be nice” variety, it’s direct reduction of the responsibilities of police and limitation of their contact with the community. Incremental abolition, if you want to think of it that way. This sort of thing has the advantage that it’s not necessary to completely transform the US economy and social fabric before making a start on it, also that it’s popular (the initiative was approved by Philly voters last year) as opposed to extremely unpopular.
4 Likes
“But we’re also eating our own itt”
No one is eating anyone. I’ve argued with @suzzer99 itt and if it weren’t for the Rona I could drive over to his house and drink a disgusting ultra-low carb beer right now if I wanted to.
5 Likes
Wonder how that would be. What traffic stops will they eschew? Taillight, DWI?
https://twitter.com/Kakarotto07/status/1304979011345494016?s=19
https://twitter.com/DustinD62720774/status/1304987597001818112?s=19
https://twitter.com/malefujoshi/status/1304994102845386752?s=19
1 Like
Continuing on in our series of things liberals often don’t know about BLM… and often don’t care to find out:
Not only is BLM not the “head” of the G.Floyd uprisings… they aren’t the “head” of the contemporary civil rights movement either (although it may seem like they are because of the generic use of the hashtag). Instead, they are a member of a much larger coalition: the Movement for Black Lives.
And here’s the “About” page from their official website: ABOUT US - M4BL.
WHO WE ARE
We are Abolitionist
We believe that prisons, police and all other institutions that inflict violence on Black people must be abolished and replaced by institutions that value and affirm the flourishing of Black lives…
We build kinship with one another:
We draw from political lessons, grow in our leadership, and expanding our base to build a stronger movement.
We are anti-capitalist:
We believe and understand that Black people will never achieve liberation under the current global racialized capitalist system.
That must be the highest likes:strawman ratio I have ever seen
The „too“ is implied.
The bolded is neither implied nor defined in any way.
It’s a watchword not a ‘definition’. SMH… like M4A doesn’t ‘define’ what Medicare is, “where’s the beef” doesn’t ‘define’ what a hamburger is, “meat is murder” doesn’t ‘define’ what meat or murder is (and literally doesn’t even make sense).
As for not being implied… well I’d submit that’s a “you” thing.
It seems there are two ways our fellow UnStuckers react to “abolish the police” for the time…
-
Long time UnStuckers, who don’t have a reputation for being trolls, and posting “abolish”. They are posting links to actual and real activist organization which have been around for decades. Now I don’t know exactly what they mean by “abolish”. But from the above, it’s obviously implied that these UnStuckers & IRL activists are not advocating for The Purge meets Mad Max. Maybe I could learn more if I checked out those linkees.
-
I can look up ‘abolish’ in the dictionary. I don’t need to learn any more, or check out any linkees. By definition ‘abolish’ means The Purge meets Mad Max. Who’s going to answer 911 ???/?
How much longer until a liberal suggests voting for police officers
1 Like
SMH having to explain how words work to adults.
There’s two parts here. First: “as we know them”, second: “safe & sane”.
The first part, “as we know them”, is most certainly implied. The first part is just a simple elaboration, exactly like tacking “too” onto BLM.
For the 5yos lurking out there: If we abolish the police we would have necessarily abolished the "police as we know them*. If we “abolish the police as we know them” we would have necessarily abolished the police. Just like tacking “too” onto the end of BLM… tacking “as we know them” onto the end of ATP doesn’t literally add any meaning. The sets {thingees referenced by BLM} == {thingees referenced by BLMT), and {thingees referenced by ATP} == {thingees referenced by ATPAWKT}.
So why do some peeps suggest using the long winded and redundant working as a way to talk through others fears of mere watchwords like BLM & ATP. This is why…
-
Some liberals literally are genuinely confused. When they hear BLM they imagine something along the lines of “only black lives matter”. When they hear ATP they imagine something along the lines of The Purge meets Mad Max. They just need a little help visualizing things, and the extraneous & redundant verbiage tacked on the end quite often does the trick.
-
Also common is finding a liberal who is antagonistic to BLM, BLMT, ATP, ATPAWNT etc/etc. They have their reasons… or there are reasons they think that way would be more accurate. Obviously I would think this is quite often a subconscious rejection of the bigger issues.
Anyways, their ‘arguments’, so to speak, are of the form of concern trolling. To me, I wouldn’t call it actual ‘concern trolling’ unless I had reason to believe they were consciously acting in bad faith… and as I mentioned, obviously most of the antagonism is subconscious/etc.
Regardless, the ‘argument’ is the same. The reason to bring up BLMT & ATPAWKT with this buncha folks is to get them to “commit”. Almost always they split one of two ways…
- The “Messagista Brigade”: I’m all about supporting black folk and against police brutality. But I think the radicals are hurting their own causes. If the watchwords would just change to BLMT y/o ATPAWKT they wouldn’t alienate so many white folks.
These fools aren’t interested in policy issues at all. They imagine themselves as Mad-Men gurus, and delight in second guessing IRL activists on the interwebs. BLM polls badly, ATP polls worse !!!1!
- The “where’s the proposals” gang. This bunch won’t stand still without a detailed blueprint of the future presented for their approval. But… any suggestion of how an unknowable future could maybe possibly pan out is gleefully nit-picked. Who’s going to answer 911 ???/?
You’re also a liberal and police aren’t elected. Otherwise, solid gotcha.
I suggest voting for police officers, requiring that they live in their jurisdiction (tiny areas like neighborhoods), and they can only serve one term (at least not consecutive terms).