7 ms·

There’s no elaboration to be had. They just say we should have no cops because it’s the twitter-correct thing to say and move on.

by vlunkr 4y ago

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Nah it's actually because of living most of my life under police terrorism but go ahead. I've lived situations nearly exactly like the one described in the article. These are relatively normal interactions people have with police. Maybe not people like you, but we've been trying to tell y'all for decades. This shit was 1981 and nothing has changed this still happens every day. What are you defending, why?
- quacked 4y ago
  Have you ever actually lived in an area with zero legal enforcement of law?
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    I'm not asking for zero enforcement I'm asking not to have a paramilitary force dedicated to terrorizing poor people.
    - vlunkr 4y ago
      > Maybe let's try "don't have police" instead. Maybe you should work on your phrasing then.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        I think the problem is actually that you can't imagine a world where we have rules and governance without a militarized force which uses violence to enforce those laws, and so when someone suggests getting rid of the police, you assume they want to get rid of the rule of law.
        vlunkr 4y ago
        That's putting lots of words in my mouth. I agree that police reform is desperately needed, but people saying we don't need police are sabotaging their own argument. If they had any nuance at all people might actually listen to them.
        maxbond 4y ago
        Well forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but "I would have listened to your argument if you phrased it differently, you just aren't expressing yourself well" is something people often say when they're being dismissive, and I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. The requests to water down the rhetoric would simply continue until it was diluted down to, "we should do something nonspecific about this problem which may exist."
        NikolaNovak 4y ago
        >>I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. FWIW, anecdata, per my other comment [1]: I and large majority of my friends & family (Canadian lower-case-liberals by and large) all fall into that category. It took us a LOOOOONG time (I mean weeks and months) to give the platform and movement enough benefit of doubt to investigate underlying proposals (and then largely agree with them), after having immediate and strong negative reaction to "defund the police". And most people will not give it benefit of doubt. I literally to this day have conversations with acquaintances of the sort: "No, they're not actually advocating anarchy and everybody fend for themselves! No, I'm serious! Yes, I know that's what the term implies. Hear me out, this is what I think they're saying..." It's a horrible horrible term that does horrible horrible disservice to the intent. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430
        maxbond 4y ago
        Most people won't give you the benefit of the doubt anyway. If you only express ideas that are agreeable, you won't be expressing much at all. If the movement hadn't existed, you wouldn't have had those conversations in the first place. You giving it the benefit of the doubt, and reaching people who were just shy of doing so, _is_ the rhetoric being effective.
    - quacked 4y ago
      Do you believe that some level of violence is required to enforce social order, whether or not it comes from a military force?

There’s no elaboration to be had. They just say we should have no cops because it’s the twitter-correct thing to say and move on.

by vlunkr 4y ago

There’s no elaboration to be had. They just say we should have no cops because it’s the twitter-correct thing to say and move on.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Nah it's actually because of living most of my life under police terrorism but go ahead. I've lived situations nearly exactly like the one described in the article. These are relatively normal interactions people have with police. Maybe not people like you, but we've been trying to tell y'all for decades. This shit was 1981 and nothing has changed this still happens every day. What are you defending, why?

quacked 4y ago
Have you ever actually lived in an area with zero legal enforcement of law?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I'm not asking for zero enforcement I'm asking not to have a paramilitary force dedicated to terrorizing poor people.
  - vlunkr 4y ago
    > Maybe let's try "don't have police" instead. Maybe you should work on your phrasing then.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I think the problem is actually that you can't imagine a world where we have rules and governance without a militarized force which uses violence to enforce those laws, and so when someone suggests getting rid of the police, you assume they want to get rid of the rule of law.
      - vlunkr 4y ago
        That's putting lots of words in my mouth. I agree that police reform is desperately needed, but people saying we don't need police are sabotaging their own argument. If they had any nuance at all people might actually listen to them.
        maxbond 4y ago
        Well forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but "I would have listened to your argument if you phrased it differently, you just aren't expressing yourself well" is something people often say when they're being dismissive, and I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. The requests to water down the rhetoric would simply continue until it was diluted down to, "we should do something nonspecific about this problem which may exist."
        NikolaNovak 4y ago
        >>I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. FWIW, anecdata, per my other comment [1]: I and large majority of my friends & family (Canadian lower-case-liberals by and large) all fall into that category. It took us a LOOOOONG time (I mean weeks and months) to give the platform and movement enough benefit of doubt to investigate underlying proposals (and then largely agree with them), after having immediate and strong negative reaction to "defund the police". And most people will not give it benefit of doubt. I literally to this day have conversations with acquaintances of the sort: "No, they're not actually advocating anarchy and everybody fend for themselves! No, I'm serious! Yes, I know that's what the term implies. Hear me out, this is what I think they're saying..." It's a horrible horrible term that does horrible horrible disservice to the intent. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430
        maxbond 4y ago
        Most people won't give you the benefit of the doubt anyway. If you only express ideas that are agreeable, you won't be expressing much at all. If the movement hadn't existed, you wouldn't have had those conversations in the first place. You giving it the benefit of the doubt, and reaching people who were just shy of doing so, _is_ the rhetoric being effective.
  - quacked 4y ago
    Do you believe that some level of violence is required to enforce social order, whether or not it comes from a military force?