7 ms·

That is exactly why it is stupid, if you force people to pick sides they will pick the police. I don't really love them, but I also don't want them gone and wou

That is exactly why it is stupid, if you force people to pick sides they will pick the police. I don't really love them, but I also don't want them gone and would not feel safe with no police. I am super left wing, but if you force me to pick a side I am choosing the police without much thinking. I understand not everyone thinks like this, but if you want to win elections in a two party system you need a broad coalition. You will not find a broad coalition that is willing to pick the side you want here.

crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
You are making life choices without much thinking, by your own admission. You're allowed to do that. Some of us choose more thoughtful paths and recognize 2-party systems as inherently abusive because they're out of alignment with reality, which is inherently nonbinary.
- ctoth 5y ago
  You are making life choices without much consideration of political and electoral reality, by your own admission. You're allowed to do that. Some of us choose more pragmatic paths and recognize that our individual dislike for 2-party systems does ~nothing to change the fact that we actually physically currently live in a 2-party system which is inherently binary. If you want to win elections, build coalitions. If you want to rant about how abusive the current system is, you can do that, but don't expect to actually win anything.
  - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
    I don't allow existing systems to limit my thinking like that. Optimizing a part or feature of a system that doesn't need to exist is an element of dumb design. Pragmatism demands exploring ideas beyond the existing systems, otherwise we'll remain trapped in them.
    - kmonsen 5y ago
      The system can only be changed by the current political parties, so at the very least you need to build a coalition to change the system.
      - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
        That's definitely disempowerment talking. There's nothing stopping anyone from creating an alternative government that meets more needs and is more fun to interact with. If it accomplishes that and people are willing to implement it and it doesn't violate laws by existing, then how does any preexisting system prevent people from switching over to it, aside from locking up people who use the new system? Disruption isn't just for companies.
        kmonsen 5y ago
        I don't even understand what you are talking about. Will this new government control the military/police/taxation? If not then it is just another burden for me. And the old government will still be around so you achieved nothing. I am all for disruption but I really don't know what your plan is. And please understand that disruption is not always good for everyone. A lot of people depend on our current government to survive.
        crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
        I'm trying to point out the system can be changed from the outside. That's it. I'm not trying to tell you how to do it. I'm simply pointing out it's possible.
  - ctoth 5y ago
    Thinking on this more this conversation reminds me of the new programmer who joins the team and then starts advocating we rewrite everything in Rust, when we need to ship in two weeks. Yes, there might be a perfect system. No, we do not live in or possess this perfect system. Any reform, any positive change, needs to be based on where we actually are. Saying this is how things should be does approximately nothing to get us there. Refusing to engage with the current system does nothing to get us there. disparaging the current system does nothing to get us there. The only thing that actually moves the needle is sitting down and fixing things one little bug at a time. It isn't fun or glamorous and there certainly isn't a divisive slogan for it, but that is reality as I know it.
    - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
      It's possible to envision a new systemand map a transition from old to new. Iterative, incremental design is one way change can happen, not the only way.
sli 5y ago
You should instead actually consider the side being offered here instead of seemingly rejecting it over a slogan. Police duties are expensive and stretched pretty thing, and thus they get funding for things that should not be within the purview of policing. A classic example is police response to mental health crises, and the frankly bizarre and spurious justification that creates for outlawing suicide. Far too often, people need help but are sent a militarized police response instead. A retort to this is frequently around the suicidal person being armed and therefore needing armed police, but that seems to me like exactly what you should expect when sending heavily armed wannabe-soldiers to bust down the door of someone who needs a doctor or a therapist. Predictable fear responses are used as justification to continue or even escalate the problem rather than address it systemically.
- ctoth 5y ago
  Hold on so if someone is intending to kill themselves with a gun, so cops that come have guns, the only reason a person has a gun suddenly becomes to defend themselves from the police? What happened to the original gun? Am I just parsing this wrong?
  - relaxing 5y ago
    The original gun probably wasn’t going to be fired at all. A trained responder could talk then down. But throw in a hostile force and you’ve increased the likelihood of a shootout. Also it may not even have been a gun. The police will also treat a knife or a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon and respond with lethal force.
    - kmonsen 5y ago
      I don't think so, if there is a gun the police is coming with guns. That is true even in Norway. Once you start waving around a gun or something that looks like a gun with some threats as well you will be taken seriously. With one very possible consequence that you will be shot. Defund the police is not solving this situation. It could solve a lot of situations more calmly but not this one.
- 5y ago

crawfordcomeaux 5y ago

You are making life choices without much thinking, by your own admission. You're allowed to do that. Some of us choose more thoughtful paths and recognize 2-party systems as inherently abusive because they're out of alignment with reality, which is inherently nonbinary.

ctoth 5y ago
You are making life choices without much consideration of political and electoral reality, by your own admission. You're allowed to do that. Some of us choose more pragmatic paths and recognize that our individual dislike for 2-party systems does ~nothing to change the fact that we actually physically currently live in a 2-party system which is inherently binary. If you want to win elections, build coalitions. If you want to rant about how abusive the current system is, you can do that, but don't expect to actually win anything.
- crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
  I don't allow existing systems to limit my thinking like that. Optimizing a part or feature of a system that doesn't need to exist is an element of dumb design. Pragmatism demands exploring ideas beyond the existing systems, otherwise we'll remain trapped in them.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    The system can only be changed by the current political parties, so at the very least you need to build a coalition to change the system.
    - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
      That's definitely disempowerment talking. There's nothing stopping anyone from creating an alternative government that meets more needs and is more fun to interact with. If it accomplishes that and people are willing to implement it and it doesn't violate laws by existing, then how does any preexisting system prevent people from switching over to it, aside from locking up people who use the new system? Disruption isn't just for companies.
      - kmonsen 5y ago
        I don't even understand what you are talking about. Will this new government control the military/police/taxation? If not then it is just another burden for me. And the old government will still be around so you achieved nothing. I am all for disruption but I really don't know what your plan is. And please understand that disruption is not always good for everyone. A lot of people depend on our current government to survive.
        crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
        I'm trying to point out the system can be changed from the outside. That's it. I'm not trying to tell you how to do it. I'm simply pointing out it's possible.
- ctoth 5y ago
  Thinking on this more this conversation reminds me of the new programmer who joins the team and then starts advocating we rewrite everything in Rust, when we need to ship in two weeks. Yes, there might be a perfect system. No, we do not live in or possess this perfect system. Any reform, any positive change, needs to be based on where we actually are. Saying this is how things should be does approximately nothing to get us there. Refusing to engage with the current system does nothing to get us there. disparaging the current system does nothing to get us there. The only thing that actually moves the needle is sitting down and fixing things one little bug at a time. It isn't fun or glamorous and there certainly isn't a divisive slogan for it, but that is reality as I know it.
  - crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
    It's possible to envision a new systemand map a transition from old to new. Iterative, incremental design is one way change can happen, not the only way.

sli 5y ago

You should instead actually consider the side being offered here instead of seemingly rejecting it over a slogan. Police duties are expensive and stretched pretty thing, and thus they get funding for things that should not be within the purview of policing. A classic example is police response to mental health crises, and the frankly bizarre and spurious justification that creates for outlawing suicide. Far too often, people need help but are sent a militarized police response instead. A retort to this is frequently around the suicidal person being armed and therefore needing armed police, but that seems to me like exactly what you should expect when sending heavily armed wannabe-soldiers to bust down the door of someone who needs a doctor or a therapist. Predictable fear responses are used as justification to continue or even escalate the problem rather than address it systemically.

ctoth 5y ago
Hold on so if someone is intending to kill themselves with a gun, so cops that come have guns, the only reason a person has a gun suddenly becomes to defend themselves from the police? What happened to the original gun? Am I just parsing this wrong?
- relaxing 5y ago
  The original gun probably wasn’t going to be fired at all. A trained responder could talk then down. But throw in a hostile force and you’ve increased the likelihood of a shootout. Also it may not even have been a gun. The police will also treat a knife or a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon and respond with lethal force.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    I don't think so, if there is a gun the police is coming with guns. That is true even in Norway. Once you start waving around a gun or something that looks like a gun with some threats as well you will be taken seriously. With one very possible consequence that you will be shot. Defund the police is not solving this situation. It could solve a lot of situations more calmly but not this one.
5y ago