3 ms·
Because it's tribal propaganda that adds nothing to the discussion. There are a myriad of plausible reasons not to want to defund the police, but Robotbeat is p
by edbob 6y ago
Because it's tribal propaganda that adds nothing to the discussion. There are a myriad of plausible reasons not to want to defund the police, but Robotbeat is parroting the party line that there are no possible legitimate reasons and that only racists can hold that opinion.
- Robotbeat 6y agoExcept that wasn’t my argument. I was merely answering the question about why this factoid (Black people buying more guns) isn’t considered vindication of conservatives. There are tons of ways to support reform of police (or otherwise vindication of the fact that government/police overreach is a problem) that don’t involve “defunding” the police, and yet conservatives chose to circle the wagons and defend the government overreach instead. That denies them the moral high ground necessary to claim that vindication. And huge respect, by the way, for conservatives like Romney that stood on principle instead of fighting the culture war.
- edbob 6y ago> There are tons of ways to support reform of police (or otherwise vindication of the fact that government/police overreach is a problem) that don’t involve “defunding” the police While this is technically true, in practice support for BLM is virtually synonymous with support for defunding the police. That's why your implication: "don't support BLM -> totally discredited" is so divisive, because in the real world it means "don't support defunding police -> totally discredited". It should also be noted that the BLM corporation funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Democratic Party through ActBlue [0], so you are actually requiring conservatives to support the Democratic Party in order not to be discredited. Progressive politicians always frame their specific policy goals as a righteous moral crusade, and always manipulate the narrative to make it seem like the the only people who could possibly think differently are "some of the worst people in the world". It's tribal bullshit designed to shut down any real discussion about whether the policies actually address the needs they are claimed to address, or whether they do more harm than good overall. People have different opinions on policy for many reasons, some good, some bad. They shouldn't have to constantly fall in line behind the latest partisan movement to be seen as having legitimate opinions. To clarify: I'm using the word "discredited" because the question you proposed "So the question is, is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences." taken with your arguments seem to amount to seeing conservativism as basically bullshit. You've framed your comment as responding to a question, but akarma's comment doesn't actually ask any questions, and you kind of took over the framing with your response. I'm responding to your comment, not the line of questioning that you have been talking about (since I don't see any question for you to respond to, was the comment edited?) [1] https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019 https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019