3 ms·

As someone who has advocated for strong states rights (a position that’s traditionally not held by the progressive left over the last decade) I find these times

As someone who has advocated for strong states rights (a position that’s traditionally not held by the progressive left over the last decade) I find these times to be interesting, and full of ideological dissonance. People are asking for a federal mandate on masks, but at the same time want no federal enforcement of these laws? How about neither? I hate seeing a world where “federal police” come in and squash local protests, and it bugs me that previously state rights advocates are calling for it.

aww_dang 6y ago
This is typical of today's divisive atmosphere. Do you remember the other BLM (Bureau of Land Management) protests in Oregon? I recall outraged partisans demanding federal intervention, while claiming that the ranchers were enjoying special privileges due to their race. I believe they called them "vanilla ISIS". Of course individuals within any movement will vary, but generally speaking, partisans want to use the power of the state against their ideological opponents. When it is used against them, they predictably cry foul.
- NPMaxwell 6y ago
  I think maybe the issue here is that the press did not cover the unidentified federal agents arresting the BLM protesters. The result is that it looks like the treatment of the Portland protesters is different.
- chowells 6y ago
  Do you actually believe that graffiti and a couple small fires rise to the same level of criminality as an armed takeover of federal land? It's fully possible to believe the federal government should put a stop to armed takeovers of federal land and not be involved in graffiti on non-federal property without it being a partisan thing. The problem is that people believe the protests in Portland are violent riots. They aren't. As long as people are manipulated so easily, I guess real policy discussions aren't going to happen.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    I'm not looking for equivalency in that sense. On one hand you have arsonists seeking to destroy federal property. On the other you had armed (not specifically violent) men occupying federal property. One of these men was shot. The equivalence is the partisan hypocrisy. There are several sources citing violence in Portland. Even left leaning sources acknowledge this. When you dismiss someone's view you disagree with as "manipulated", you illustrate the larger point I was making.
zo1 6y ago
I think it's safe to say that political discourse and the possibility of any societal-level discussion (and agreement) has failed. It's the same crap that plagues software development when modelling complex business problems. Political or decision makers never ask explicit questions (like yours), make decisions (laws) on them and then follow through without hesitation. Here we are in 2020 and we've got camps trying to justify how violent protests are a "civil rights" or "free speech" issue instead of just agreeing and everyone saying "yeah - anyone can protest because we agree it's a right, but police can arrest anyone that does violence". We're forever complicating and conflating issues, adding layer upon layer of complexity, instead of simplifying. I think the analogy to software development is quite profound.
treeman79 6y ago
Ban the police crowd is the weirdest thing. No police means maximum freedom quickly followed by complete Anarchy. Then back to some sort of restrictive government.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  If anything, that gives the federal police more power, to come in and fill the void “to ensure domestic tranquility”.
  - defnotashton2 6y ago
    There is no void. The movements still result in that service filled just with a different face. Essentially rebuild with less horizontal expectations and power, creating sister organizations that are scoped to their appropriate need. Maybe that means having a deescalation officer lead to thugs around I'm not sure but it's not have no police force.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Most people aren’t suggesting literally banning the police, but rather either decapitating and reorganising (RUC would be an example) or dissolving and replacing wholesale (Stasi would be an example).
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    I feel like this argument is an example of gaslighting. The people who are calling to defund the police literally mean defunding the police. Presumably the ones that make this call are hoping an ideological paramilitary arm (such as antifa) can fill the power vacuum left behind. Those that want reform are asking for reform. Don’t be gaslit.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      You don't need to presume; just read their platform. They want the police to stop filling the vacuum left by lack of social services (i.e. police currently respond to people mental distress because there are no social workers who currently do that). They want to defund the police and have the money directed to social services so that police stop being a jack of all trades (especially since they are not trained in deescalation). Public education has been defunded for decades, but we still have teachers and public schools, and their charter alternatives - that should be your mental model not abolishment of police.

aww_dang 6y ago

This is typical of today's divisive atmosphere. Do you remember the other BLM (Bureau of Land Management) protests in Oregon? I recall outraged partisans demanding federal intervention, while claiming that the ranchers were enjoying special privileges due to their race. I believe they called them "vanilla ISIS". Of course individuals within any movement will vary, but generally speaking, partisans want to use the power of the state against their ideological opponents. When it is used against them, they predictably cry foul.

NPMaxwell 6y ago
I think maybe the issue here is that the press did not cover the unidentified federal agents arresting the BLM protesters. The result is that it looks like the treatment of the Portland protesters is different.
chowells 6y ago
Do you actually believe that graffiti and a couple small fires rise to the same level of criminality as an armed takeover of federal land? It's fully possible to believe the federal government should put a stop to armed takeovers of federal land and not be involved in graffiti on non-federal property without it being a partisan thing. The problem is that people believe the protests in Portland are violent riots. They aren't. As long as people are manipulated so easily, I guess real policy discussions aren't going to happen.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I'm not looking for equivalency in that sense. On one hand you have arsonists seeking to destroy federal property. On the other you had armed (not specifically violent) men occupying federal property. One of these men was shot. The equivalence is the partisan hypocrisy. There are several sources citing violence in Portland. Even left leaning sources acknowledge this. When you dismiss someone's view you disagree with as "manipulated", you illustrate the larger point I was making.

zo1 6y ago

I think it's safe to say that political discourse and the possibility of any societal-level discussion (and agreement) has failed. It's the same crap that plagues software development when modelling complex business problems. Political or decision makers never ask explicit questions (like yours), make decisions (laws) on them and then follow through without hesitation. Here we are in 2020 and we've got camps trying to justify how violent protests are a "civil rights" or "free speech" issue instead of just agreeing and everyone saying "yeah - anyone can protest because we agree it's a right, but police can arrest anyone that does violence". We're forever complicating and conflating issues, adding layer upon layer of complexity, instead of simplifying. I think the analogy to software development is quite profound.

treeman79 6y ago

Ban the police crowd is the weirdest thing. No police means maximum freedom quickly followed by complete Anarchy. Then back to some sort of restrictive government.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
If anything, that gives the federal police more power, to come in and fill the void “to ensure domestic tranquility”.
- defnotashton2 6y ago
  There is no void. The movements still result in that service filled just with a different face. Essentially rebuild with less horizontal expectations and power, creating sister organizations that are scoped to their appropriate need. Maybe that means having a deescalation officer lead to thugs around I'm not sure but it's not have no police force.
rsynnott 6y ago
Most people aren’t suggesting literally banning the police, but rather either decapitating and reorganising (RUC would be an example) or dissolving and replacing wholesale (Stasi would be an example).
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  I feel like this argument is an example of gaslighting. The people who are calling to defund the police literally mean defunding the police. Presumably the ones that make this call are hoping an ideological paramilitary arm (such as antifa) can fill the power vacuum left behind. Those that want reform are asking for reform. Don’t be gaslit.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    You don't need to presume; just read their platform. They want the police to stop filling the vacuum left by lack of social services (i.e. police currently respond to people mental distress because there are no social workers who currently do that). They want to defund the police and have the money directed to social services so that police stop being a jack of all trades (especially since they are not trained in deescalation). Public education has been defunded for decades, but we still have teachers and public schools, and their charter alternatives - that should be your mental model not abolishment of police.