7 ms·

It's a conversation starter. It's definitely sparked a lot of meaningful dialogues about the state of policing in the US and how to make it better for all invol

It's a conversation starter. It's definitely sparked a lot of meaningful dialogues about the state of policing in the US and how to make it better for all involved.

LegitShady 6y ago
I believe it's a conversation ender rather than starter. When people are throwing around a abolishing the police and using violent riots to push it that ends conversation rather than starts it.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  It hasn't seemed to stop you from reading and even engaging with this conversation. I would think it's doing it's job as a slogan just fine. Of course you shouldn't forget the context of these "violent" riots were brought out of police violence, an on-going conversation in large part still because of the actions taken by protestors.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    Hey this is me engaging with you saying everyone who holds that opinion is wrong and I'd vote the other way because won't be held hostage at the whim of mobs based on the color of people's skin. That's not me having a conversation. That's me telling you this is actively harmful for whatever it is you're trying to talk about, because there is nothing to talk about anymore. By allowing these riots to continue the local and state governments have abandoned the rule of law and have thus made the law unimportant. Similarly those pushing political agendas through violent riots are terrorists and those who support them are enabling terrorism. This isn't me having a conversation about your issue this is me telling you that your issue doesn't matter because resorting to violence and demanding those who are supposed to abate violence be abolished You've ended any converation possible. Whatever you think it's doing it's not communicating anything except "accede or we will riot" and my response to that is violence begets violence be prepared to have things escalate instead of causing legitimate conversations. It's a conversation like being held up is a conversation.
    - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
      Lot to unpack in this response for sure. If you _personally_ feel you're being held up by this "mob based on the color of people's skin" I'm sorry you feel that way, but it shows a severe lack of of understanding when it comes to policing and how that affects communities of color. If the police followed the "Rule of Law" there wouldn't be a disproportionate amount of Black men who face violence from the police. Should "bad cops" be held accountable? Or is everything fair game when "enforcing the law"? Similarly, "accede or we will riot" is precisely the logical progression from "we've asked nicely to not kill us". Do you expect Americans to simply watch their family, friends and neighbors being extra-judicially killed? It's this inability to empathize with a population, and an uncritical view of those who enforce the law that will lead to non-action, leading to more riots.
      - LegitShady 6y ago
        >If the police followed the "Rule of Law" there wouldn't be a disproportionate amount of Black men who face violence from the police. Should "bad cops" be held accountable? Or is everything fair game when "enforcing the law"? For sure. but not with violent riots. >Similarly, "accede or we will riot" is precisely the logical progression from "we've asked nicely to not kill us". No, its terrorism. I have no problem with protests, but violent riots to push police reform are political violence, something I think leads to only more violence. >Do you expect Americans to simply watch their family, friends and neighbors being extra-judicially killed? No. But I expect people who perpetuate violence for political aims to keep perpetuating violence for political aims. I don't think its acceptable unless they're ready to receive political violence in kind. >It's this inability to empathize with a population, No. I empathize, but my empathy sits behind the knowledge that the rule of law and state monopoly of force must be maintained or all will devolve into tribal war. >and an uncritical view of those who enforce the law that will lead to non-action, leading to more riots. Choosing to commit political violence is a choice the rioters make. If the options are abolish the police or get riots, my reaction is "call in the national guard". There are plenty of people to empathize with, and I don't think political violence is worth any empathy. Justifying political violence is a precursor to real civil war.

It's a conversation starter. It's definitely sparked a lot of meaningful dialogues about the state of policing in the US and how to make it better for all involved.

LegitShady 6y ago

I believe it's a conversation ender rather than starter. When people are throwing around a abolishing the police and using violent riots to push it that ends conversation rather than starts it.

GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
It hasn't seemed to stop you from reading and even engaging with this conversation. I would think it's doing it's job as a slogan just fine. Of course you shouldn't forget the context of these "violent" riots were brought out of police violence, an on-going conversation in large part still because of the actions taken by protestors.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  Hey this is me engaging with you saying everyone who holds that opinion is wrong and I'd vote the other way because won't be held hostage at the whim of mobs based on the color of people's skin. That's not me having a conversation. That's me telling you this is actively harmful for whatever it is you're trying to talk about, because there is nothing to talk about anymore. By allowing these riots to continue the local and state governments have abandoned the rule of law and have thus made the law unimportant. Similarly those pushing political agendas through violent riots are terrorists and those who support them are enabling terrorism. This isn't me having a conversation about your issue this is me telling you that your issue doesn't matter because resorting to violence and demanding those who are supposed to abate violence be abolished You've ended any converation possible. Whatever you think it's doing it's not communicating anything except "accede or we will riot" and my response to that is violence begets violence be prepared to have things escalate instead of causing legitimate conversations. It's a conversation like being held up is a conversation.
  - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
    Lot to unpack in this response for sure. If you _personally_ feel you're being held up by this "mob based on the color of people's skin" I'm sorry you feel that way, but it shows a severe lack of of understanding when it comes to policing and how that affects communities of color. If the police followed the "Rule of Law" there wouldn't be a disproportionate amount of Black men who face violence from the police. Should "bad cops" be held accountable? Or is everything fair game when "enforcing the law"? Similarly, "accede or we will riot" is precisely the logical progression from "we've asked nicely to not kill us". Do you expect Americans to simply watch their family, friends and neighbors being extra-judicially killed? It's this inability to empathize with a population, and an uncritical view of those who enforce the law that will lead to non-action, leading to more riots.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      >If the police followed the "Rule of Law" there wouldn't be a disproportionate amount of Black men who face violence from the police. Should "bad cops" be held accountable? Or is everything fair game when "enforcing the law"? For sure. but not with violent riots. >Similarly, "accede or we will riot" is precisely the logical progression from "we've asked nicely to not kill us". No, its terrorism. I have no problem with protests, but violent riots to push police reform are political violence, something I think leads to only more violence. >Do you expect Americans to simply watch their family, friends and neighbors being extra-judicially killed? No. But I expect people who perpetuate violence for political aims to keep perpetuating violence for political aims. I don't think its acceptable unless they're ready to receive political violence in kind. >It's this inability to empathize with a population, No. I empathize, but my empathy sits behind the knowledge that the rule of law and state monopoly of force must be maintained or all will devolve into tribal war. >and an uncritical view of those who enforce the law that will lead to non-action, leading to more riots. Choosing to commit political violence is a choice the rioters make. If the options are abolish the police or get riots, my reaction is "call in the national guard". There are plenty of people to empathize with, and I don't think political violence is worth any empathy. Justifying political violence is a precursor to real civil war.