3 ms·
My interpretation of the above is that you have friends who support dismantling or at least re-building the police as an institution, and that you see this as a
by _bxg1 6y ago
My interpretation of the above is that you have friends who support dismantling or at least re-building the police as an institution, and that you see this as a threat to your safety and you're getting into conflict over the matter. With that assumption, I would say:
a) Take a step back and ask yourself how much your safety is really being threatened by others' opinions on these matters. Also, as an exercise, consider the degree of un-safety that millions have been experiencing for many years which resulted in the current conflict. Even if you don't agree with your friends' conclusions, I'd bet you can at least sympathize with the root of the issue.
b) Relationships are maintained through tolerance. I maintain a good relationship with my parents despite having a polar-opposite political viewpoint, by putting what I know of them as people ahead of the words of their professed, abstract ideology. The two are not the same thing. Leaving some wiggle-room there is key to reducing conflict, which is key to maintaining lasting relationships. You have to be able to agree to disagree sometimes.
- stonogo 6y agoMy interpretation was that the OP has friends who oppose increased accountability or demilitarizion of the police, and that they saw this as a threat to safety. How would that interpretation modify your answers?
- _bxg1 6y agoIt would depend on where the friends' views are rooted. If the friend is saying "My uncle is a cop who's never done anything wrong and he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the ones causing trouble", I could actively sympathize with that. If the friend is saying "I still think it's only a few bad cops and that the protesters are causing more trouble overall than the cops", I would tend to think that person was misinformed and maybe try to share new information with them if I thought it would make a difference, but I would also leave it be if I had to for the sake of the friendship (this is my situation with my parents). If the friend is saying "Strong-man governments are great, people should bow down and stop trying to hold the police accountable, they shouldn't have to be accountable to anybody", then that would tell me something about the person's moral center and I don't see myself wanting to remain friends with that kind of person at all.
- hashkb 6y agoI also read it this way; but rereading OP it's unclear.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pieterk 6y agoThe question is more "who is going to reform the police, and how?". I trust my friends, but not the organizations they support. Have you have ever been held up by a corrupt officer? One that is not wearing a badge or uniform. Or one that can be bribed? Acceptable, only outside of American police jurisdiction. Inside America, the law ought to keep you safe. Cherish your institutions, enforce the law. Do stop injustice and discrimination. The law should not speak about race. Which in the most populous areas is passé anyway. Cities are mixed. If you look at any photo of the protests, you'll see voters from all walks of life. You won't see the >75 population protesting. But they might be on facebook, some of them. Perhaps like your parents. I wish you all love and understanding. Unfortunately for them however, among the most successful facebookers are populists. That's what the algorithm stimulated. The loud voices that want to burn the American Dream down to the ground, worldwide. We'll see less of it for a while, but humans are stronger than bots, and facebook is not going to resist making bn's. Just break up the damn corporation.