7 ms·

True, Portland, Ore. police department are documented white supremacists and clan sympathizers, and there's not many places bluer than PDX. But my last statemen

True, Portland, Ore. police department are documented white supremacists and clan sympathizers, and there's not many places bluer than PDX. But my last statement is 100% true. There's only one side in the corrupt police debate, regardless of your feelings of "both sides are the same". Show me where the liberal cops standing up for social justice and BLM are hiding, please, I'd love to live in that town.

giantg2 5y ago
It's not about standing up for BLM. It's that there can be corrupt liberal cops, or cops supporting liberal ideals in a corrupt manner. One issue that this can be common with is gun rights - people lawfully carrying/owning a firearm who are harassed by police who support the liberal policies related to gun control. This has been a common thing in Philadelphia.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Stop it with the "both sides." Just stop. We're done with that after Trump's nonsense. There is a stark problem facing the US today, and you're trying to obfuscate it with bullshit talking points.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I'm trying to have a factually correct and thoughtful conversation. My talking points are not bullshit. They are not obfuscating "it". In fact, it's an important part of the conversation - showing that "both sides" should come together to support reforms that are universally protective. The root cause is not one side or the other. The root cause is insufficient oversight and a broken system.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > "both sides" should come together to support reforms that are universally protective When one side doesn't do that, it's not a both sides issue.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        The first half of that quote (omitted) provides important context that is missing here. The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process - the main point that I was trying to make. If we just blame everything on the "other" side, we will drift further apart, get less done, and become weaker as a country. I should also add that we are using simplified stereotypes of the sides here as there is a spectrum of positions and willingness to work together within either side. It seems you are implying that only one of the major parties has proposed justice reforms. Do you have anything to back up that? I seem to remember both parties suggesting varying reforms. I also seem to remember one party rejecting the proposals of the other party just because they didn't go far enough - an all-or-nothing mindset rather than an iterative or collaborative approach. We could come together on the common ground and pass the lesser bill as a step in the right direction while continuing to investigate and debate the finer points involved with the further reaching bill.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        > The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process That is great, but has a requirement: Both sides operating in good faith. That's just not happening now and hasn't happened in many years. We need to deal with that reality or keep suffering dire consequences, including a possible end of democracy.
        giantg2 5y ago
        It can be hard to tell when a side isn't operating in good faith due to differences of perspective and the heavy political rhetoric. If we assume the other side isn't operating in good faith, then we create a situation where neither side will ever trust the other, and the concern for addressing details and edge cases will be gone. This will lead to partisan laws that ignore the needs of a relatively large part of the population. Often times the two major parties want similar end goals, but have different opinions on what the strategy/implementation should look like. I think we can go a level deeper than your prerequisite and say that we should be viewing the proposals of others in a charitable way and assume the best possible meaning - similar to the guideline on this site. Once a side assumes the other isn't acting in good faith (whether right or wrong), then it's already too late for democracy. I don't know what the fix would be, since people continue to vote for the representatives of both sides, and want the things either side fight for. So it seems it would require an undemocratic change, or a complete mindset shift within the population.
  - liaukovv 5y ago
    Second part of your nickname is certainly true

giantg2 5y ago

It's not about standing up for BLM. It's that there can be corrupt liberal cops, or cops supporting liberal ideals in a corrupt manner. One issue that this can be common with is gun rights - people lawfully carrying/owning a firearm who are harassed by police who support the liberal policies related to gun control. This has been a common thing in Philadelphia.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
Stop it with the "both sides." Just stop. We're done with that after Trump's nonsense. There is a stark problem facing the US today, and you're trying to obfuscate it with bullshit talking points.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I'm trying to have a factually correct and thoughtful conversation. My talking points are not bullshit. They are not obfuscating "it". In fact, it's an important part of the conversation - showing that "both sides" should come together to support reforms that are universally protective. The root cause is not one side or the other. The root cause is insufficient oversight and a broken system.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > "both sides" should come together to support reforms that are universally protective When one side doesn't do that, it's not a both sides issue.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      The first half of that quote (omitted) provides important context that is missing here. The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process - the main point that I was trying to make. If we just blame everything on the "other" side, we will drift further apart, get less done, and become weaker as a country. I should also add that we are using simplified stereotypes of the sides here as there is a spectrum of positions and willingness to work together within either side. It seems you are implying that only one of the major parties has proposed justice reforms. Do you have anything to back up that? I seem to remember both parties suggesting varying reforms. I also seem to remember one party rejecting the proposals of the other party just because they didn't go far enough - an all-or-nothing mindset rather than an iterative or collaborative approach. We could come together on the common ground and pass the lesser bill as a step in the right direction while continuing to investigate and debate the finer points involved with the further reaching bill.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process That is great, but has a requirement: Both sides operating in good faith. That's just not happening now and hasn't happened in many years. We need to deal with that reality or keep suffering dire consequences, including a possible end of democracy.
        giantg2 5y ago
        It can be hard to tell when a side isn't operating in good faith due to differences of perspective and the heavy political rhetoric. If we assume the other side isn't operating in good faith, then we create a situation where neither side will ever trust the other, and the concern for addressing details and edge cases will be gone. This will lead to partisan laws that ignore the needs of a relatively large part of the population. Often times the two major parties want similar end goals, but have different opinions on what the strategy/implementation should look like. I think we can go a level deeper than your prerequisite and say that we should be viewing the proposals of others in a charitable way and assume the best possible meaning - similar to the guideline on this site. Once a side assumes the other isn't acting in good faith (whether right or wrong), then it's already too late for democracy. I don't know what the fix would be, since people continue to vote for the representatives of both sides, and want the things either side fight for. So it seems it would require an undemocratic change, or a complete mindset shift within the population.
- liaukovv 5y ago
  Second part of your nickname is certainly true