3 ms·

Surely the amount of police violence is less today than say, the early 1900s, when outright lynching was practically sponsored by the police? You deny that ther

Surely the amount of police violence is less today than say, the early 1900s, when outright lynching was practically sponsored by the police? You deny that there has been any progress?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
marcinzm 6y ago
Society as a whole has changed and I'd argue police have changed less than the rest of society. Given the videos from the last few days it's clear that the police see themselves as immune to consequences even in the age of social media, cell phone cameras and widespread public opposition.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Sure, I agree to that absolutely. But how you get from "the police needs radical reform" to "we don't need police, abolish them" is a mystery to me.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    If I want a $200k salary I don't start the negotiations at $200k, I start them at $250k knowing that I will be argued down. Likewise, the fear of a radical approach drives those in power to actually implement a productive moderate approach. If all you have is the moderate approach than those in power will implement nothing of substance.
  - komali2 6y ago
    > "we don't need police, abolish them I think it's important to not conflate this movement with the defund movement, which merely points at the for example 6 billion dollar NYPD budget and says "is this really necessary?" Furthermore, the "abolish" movement comes with its own subtleties, that don't necessarily mean "all cops gone tomorrow." An easy exercise to illustrate this to yourself: you can imagine that an alt-right 2a gunsrights activist wearing milita patches, body armor, and holding a rifle, while chanting "abolish the police," has a very different idea in their head of what that means from a liberal social-democrat holding a "black lives matter" sign and chanting "abolish the police," can't you? Here's a good article: https://bostonreview.net/law-justice/derecka-purnell-what-does-police-abolition-mean https://bostonreview.net/law-justice/derecka-purnell-what-do...

Surely the amount of police violence is less today than say, the early 1900s, when outright lynching was practically sponsored by the police? You deny that there has been any progress?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

marcinzm 6y ago

Society as a whole has changed and I'd argue police have changed less than the rest of society. Given the videos from the last few days it's clear that the police see themselves as immune to consequences even in the age of social media, cell phone cameras and widespread public opposition.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Sure, I agree to that absolutely. But how you get from "the police needs radical reform" to "we don't need police, abolish them" is a mystery to me.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  If I want a $200k salary I don't start the negotiations at $200k, I start them at $250k knowing that I will be argued down. Likewise, the fear of a radical approach drives those in power to actually implement a productive moderate approach. If all you have is the moderate approach than those in power will implement nothing of substance.
- komali2 6y ago
  > "we don't need police, abolish them I think it's important to not conflate this movement with the defund movement, which merely points at the for example 6 billion dollar NYPD budget and says "is this really necessary?" Furthermore, the "abolish" movement comes with its own subtleties, that don't necessarily mean "all cops gone tomorrow." An easy exercise to illustrate this to yourself: you can imagine that an alt-right 2a gunsrights activist wearing milita patches, body armor, and holding a rifle, while chanting "abolish the police," has a very different idea in their head of what that means from a liberal social-democrat holding a "black lives matter" sign and chanting "abolish the police," can't you? Here's a good article: https://bostonreview.net/law-justice/derecka-purnell-what-does-police-abolition-mean https://bostonreview.net/law-justice/derecka-purnell-what-do...