Something I should say more often

[OngBonga]

Hash tag silence is violence

[MadMojoMonkey]

You keep saying the movement is exclusive, but that doesn't mesh with the pictures and videos from all over the country (and world) of protests filled with people of all colors, and a significant amount of white people are included in those protests.

How is it they're being included and you're not?


Did you watch the video I posted at the start of this conversation?

Have you looked for voices that are actively trying to include you (and me)?


If you're not aware that your opinion is common and has been heard and responded to with positive voices, here's a series of links which were presented below that WheezyWaiter video I posted.
[EDIT] I trimmed down to the one link that I know a little about, so as not to cloud the thread with so many that it discourages the clicking on any of them [/EDIT]


Here's one that speaks to my own bias as a scientist.
Campaign Zero https://www.joincampaignzero.org

Campaign Zero is actively collecting data to better define the problem with concrete facts. It's collecting data on what reforms have been implemented over the past years, and attempts to quantify the efficacy of various reforms to determine which are the most effective ones to invest in.


The exclusion you feel is not representative of the greater movement as a whole. I don't understand why you're letting voices who are clearly delivering a message of (a new implementation of) segregation to obfuscate the greater call for all people to learn the history, learn the facts of the present, and help create a better future.

[wufwugy]

You keep saying the movement is exclusive, but that doesn't mesh with the pictures and videos from all over the country (and world) of protests filled with people of all colors, and a significant amount of white people are included in those protests.

How is it they're being included and you're not?


Did you watch the video I posted at the start of this conversation?

Have you looked for voices that are actively trying to include you (and me)?


If you're not aware that your opinion is common and has been heard and responded to with positive voices, here's a series of links which were presented below that WheezyWaiter video I posted.


Here's one that speaks to my own bias as a scientist.
Campaign Zero https://www.joincampaignzero.org

Campaign Zero is actively collecting data to better define the problem with concrete facts. It's collecting data on what reforms have been implemented over the past years, and attempts to quantify the efficacy of various reforms to determine which are the most effective ones to invest in.


The exclusion you feel is not representative of the greater movement as a whole. I don't understand why you're letting voices who are clearly delivering a message of (a new implementation of) segregation to obfuscate the greater call for all people to learn the history, learn the facts of the present, and help create a better future.

I'm more a supporter of the movement as designed by black thinkers, which existed long before BLM. The contemporary tool of the movement, BLM, leaves much to be desired.

But I am down as hell with the black liberation movement. That shit ain't about "equal treatment", like people think BLM is about. It's about the progeny of enslaved Africans being free from the law and power system created by the slavers. They were forced against their will into this system, and that's why their movement is legitimate.

I am so so so down with that. They're right and it's hugely libertarian. And I ALSO want to point out that I too am forced against my will into this system too. The system in some ways treats us different, but that's no reason to say my freedom from the system is not important.

Black liberation is right. They're forced against their will into legal and power structure that does not represent them.

I'm forced against my will into a legal and power structure that doesn't represent me too. I want in on black liberation. But as long as it remains about black liberation instead of human liberation, I can't be a part of it. And millions will fight against it when they would otherwise embrace it.

[OngBonga]

But as long as it remains about black liberation instead of human liberation, I can't be a part of it. And millions will fight against it when they would otherwise embrace it.

^ this

[wufwugy]

^ this

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wuf
What motivates you to say this isn't about equal treatment?
What specifically has lead you to believe this?

[wufwugy]

What motivates you to say this isn't about equal treatment?

The contemporary version could very well be about equal treatment within the system.

The historical roots are about extraction from the system that African slaves never consented to.

[wufwugy]

system that African slaves never consented to.

That's the soft way of putting it too.

The language was once far more colorful. But the core idea is still one of being unjustly and forcefully integrated into a social/political/power system they did not consent to.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's the soft way of putting it too.

The language was once far more colorful. But the core idea is still one of being unjustly and forcefully integrated into a social/political/power system they did not consent to.

Isn't the whole point of the protests that they are demanding to be an equal part of the same social/political/power system that they are affected by?

[wufwugy]

Isn't the whole point of the protests that they are demanding to be an equal part of the same social/political/power system that they are affected by?

We seem to be talking past each other.

The current rendition (mid-lower tier BLM action) appears to have the primary stated goal of equal treatment. (though they are confused, but that's a different matter).

The historical and philosophical core (which is what I love about black liberation) is about the progeny of African slaves making their own system instead of being forced into the slavers system.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What motivates you to say this isn't about equal treatment?

The contemporary version could very well be about equal treatment within the system.

That does not answer my question.

I'm asking you about what motivates you. If all you have to answer is a hollow speculation, then that seems a very low bar, given the criticisms you're posting on the matter.

The historical roots are about extraction from the system that African slaves never consented to.

This is a non-sequitur which does not answer my question, either.


Can you answer with anything more concrete than this?



This is the important part of the question, anyway:
"What specifically has lead you to believe this?"

[wufwugy]

In related news: information silos are cuhraaaaaazy.

One silo I go to only shows data/videos of rioters kicking peoples' asses, black business owners losing their stores, thugs burning shit down, cops handling shit properly, one-way race violence.

But a different silo I go to only shows data/videos of legitimate protestors being manhandled by cops, peaceful protests that inspire, cops ruining shit, and the-other-way race violence.

And other silos I sometimes check out have their own bent on data/information.

It's so crazy that if one gets his information and data from one set of sources, that person is egregiously uninformed. But it makes sense for why people can disagree with others so hard.

Example: I've seen tons of videos of rioters putting beatdowns on innocent people. A guy I work with has seen none of them, but he's instead seen tons of videos of cops putting the beatdown unjustly (some of which I hadn't yet seen).

[wufwugy]

Not only does the information silo leave one uninformed, but it creates his opinion.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Not only does the information silo leave one uninformed, but it creates his opinion.

Agreed.

If we don't actively search for intelligent opposing viewpoints, we are choosing an echo-chamber that only preserves our ignorance.


I very much appreciate your perspective on these issues, wuf. Though I don't understand where you're coming from, I am trying to learn it.

[wufwugy]

Agreed.

If we don't actively search for intelligent opposing viewpoints, we are choosing an echo-chamber that only preserves our ignorance.


I very much appreciate your perspective on these issues, wuf. Though I don't understand where you're coming from, I am trying to learn it.

[CoccoBill]

I'm pretty sure BLM isn't about overthrowing the government, creating a new black nation in America nor moving back to Africa. I think it's about reforms that would treat blacks equally under the law. I don't think you can just pick the words of one guy a little further down history, and claim that's what everything is really about. The reforms that would improve things for blacks today, as MMM has already said many times, are ones that would help everyone, regardless of color.

For an outside observer, what you're saying in a nutshell is "yeah I hear ya, but I ain't doing shit unless it helps me".

[wufwugy]

I'm pretty sure BLM isn't about overthrowing the government, creating a new black nation in America nor moving back to Africa. I think it's about reforms that would treat blacks equally under the law. I don't think you can just pick the words of one guy a little further down history, and claim that's what everything is really about. The reforms that would improve things for blacks today, as MMM has already said many times, are ones that would help everyone, regardless of color.

For an outside observer, what you're saying in a nutshell is "yeah I hear ya, but I ain't doing shit unless it helps me".

I jumped in to express my favorite thing related to BLM: the philosophical component of black liberation from slavers' system. But you're a 100% right that isn't in the rank and file of BLM and contemporary discourse has lost a good deal of that. That stuff is more predecessor to BLM, but as you can see it's still deeply embedded.

I'll avoid discussing BLM in more contemporary terms because that's where I start disagreeing with them. Their actions make sense to me through the lens of black liberation, but through the lens of equal treatment -- they make less sense.

I like the protesting, in general Beyond that, I can't morally get behind automatic accusation of racism, the poor martyr choices, and the statistics ignorance.

[MadMojoMonkey]

and the statistics ignorance.

I asked once before for your statistical source to help make sense of what you claimed being at odds with what is different that what I could find here.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

I ask again. Please share your statistics and their sources.

How can we not be statistics ignorant if you wont share your statisticsthis with us?

[OngBonga]

I'm pretty sure BLM isn't about overthrowing the government...

Then it is doomed to fail. The government, whoever that might be, will just make superficial concessions to placate the mob, while under the surface nothing actually changes.

They need to do more than otherthrow the government. They need to then replace it with something better. Unless that's the goal, what's the point?

[OngBonga]

For an outside observer, what you're saying in a nutshell is

I don't think that's what wuf is saying, that's simply how you've interpreted it.

There's two points to what wuf is saying.
BLM are saying "we don't give a toss about whites, this is only about us",
and lots of regular white people, not necessarily wuf, are perhaps responding "yeah I hear ya, but I ain't doing shit unless it helps me".

If the message was "fuck the system" then it would be much more powerful because it would be much less divisive. It's the system that's racist, right? Overthrow it. You're not going to do that if you exclude the largest demographic in the country.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think that's what wuf is saying, that's simply how you've interpreted it.

There's two points to what wuf is saying.
BLM are saying "we don't give a toss about whites, this is only about us",

Wait, so the oppressed aren't expressing concern for their oppressors? How inconsiderate of them.

and lots of regular white people, not necessarily wuf, are perhaps responding "yeah I hear ya, but I ain't doing shit unless it helps me".

A just society is better for everyone, even the people who aren't getting murdered by the police. Not sure why that's so hard for some people to grasp.

If the message was "fuck the system" then it would be much more powerful because it would be much less divisive. It's the system that's racist, right? Overthrow it. You're not going to do that if you exclude the largest demographic in the country.

The system needs to be changed so that it's not racist. You don't need an entirely new system for that, you need to change how the system operates. It's not even that complicated: 1) individual police need to be held responsible for breaking the law, not given a pass because the victim belongs to a minority; and 2) the police as an institution need to train people properly so they don't default to the use of excessive. If you do those two things, 90% of the problems with cops abusing their power would be solved.

[CoccoBill]

I don't think that's what wuf is saying, that's simply how you've interpreted it.

Or rather, that's how I think people not familiar with him would probably interpret it, hence the "For an outside observer".

BLM are saying "we don't give a toss about whites, this is only about us"

I don't think that's what they are saying, that's simply how you/wuf have interpreted it.

If the message was "fuck the system" then it would be much more powerful because it would be much less divisive. It's the system that's racist, right? Overthrow it. You're not going to do that if you exclude the largest demographic in the country.

Possibly, but from what I've seen that's not what they are saying. Why would the majority want to overthrow a system that works perfectly fine for them? 73% or something in the US are white.

[Poopadoop]

Possibly, but from what I've seen that's not what they are saying. Why would the majority want to overthrow a system that works perfectly fine for them? 73% or something in the US are white.

It doesn't work fine for them though, that's an illusion. If you live in a society that mistreats certain people, the whole society suffers as a result.

The widespread demonstrations are a simple case in point - it costs money to police those things, not to mention reparing all the damage caused.

But more generally, having a minority of the population holding ill will towards the majority does not make for a happy society.

[OngBonga]

Or rather, that's how I think people not familiar with him would probably interpret it, hence the "For an outside observer".

Perhaps that's fair, idk because I'm not an outside observer. But wuf's tone didn't seem confrontational or defensive, so I'm not so sure.

I don't think that's what they are saying, that's simply how you/wuf have interpreted it.

Well it's the message they seem to be sending out by ignoring the fact that police brutality is a problem for everyone. White people are seen as the oppressors, not the system.

Why would the majority want to overthrow a system that works perfectly fine for them? 73% or something in the US are white.

I think this is the point BLM are missing. It doesn't work perfectly for the 73% or whatever. It works perfectly for the 1%.

The system is rotten. Everyone knows it. Lots of people would like to see a different kind of politics, and a different kind of economics. Focusing on racism is missing the bigger picture and perhaps missing a historical opportunity.

[CoccoBill]

The system is rotten. Everyone knows it. Lots of people would like to see a different kind of politics, and a different kind of economics. Focusing on racism is missing the bigger picture and perhaps missing a historical opportunity.

I think that's quite close to a nirvana fallacy. Just because there isn't a perfect solution that fixes all problems, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix the problems that we can. Improvement is still improvement. MMM has spammed that website with pretty solid suggestions for a few times already. And frankly, I don't see neither you nor wuf parading the streets trying to incite a revolution as a better solution to BLM. It is far easier to sit at home and complain that the fire department is putting out the fire all wrong.

[OngBonga]

Police in the US at least are routinely acquitted of using excessive force against black people, even when there's clear video evidence of them doing it, going back to Rodney King, and eyewitness evidence going back even further. So when I say they have to be held responsible, I mean by the courts.

Well the court has clearly deemed the use of force to not be excessive, or have found another way to dismiss the case. What change can we make here? Put all cases before a jury? That might work.

You can ban certain maneuvers like kneeling on someone's neck or choking people, for example, which a number of dept's have done.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that change is coming.

You can also train them to de-escalate situations and use force only as a last resort. Too many of them use it as a first resort.

Do you have evidence that the police are not trained to deescalate?

But mostly, the first point ties to the second. If you show them that if they get out of line it will have serious consequences for them personally, including possible jail time, they'll get the message pretty quick.

I'm pretty sure the first thing I said on this matter was "You know what cops fear more than riots? Jail."

I agree that cops who kill without legal justification should go to jail. That would have an impact. But that alone is not going to change the systematic racism and the division of the masses. It perhaps simply makes events like these riots less likely to happen, which is probably good for the system, because the ideal for them is to surely keep the masses just oppressed enough that they don't complain about it.

[OngBonga]

Wait, so the oppressed aren't expressing concern for their oppressors? How inconsiderate of them.

The point being, of course, that we're all oppressed by the system. Some more than others, certainly, but if you go "well we're oppressed the most so this is about us" then you exclude a large number of people who are also oppressed.

A just society is better for everyone, even the people who aren't getting murdered by the police. Not sure why that's so hard for some people to grasp.

People grasp it. What you fail to grasp is that a "just society" as you put it is not going to happen so long as the system remains in place.

The system needs to be changed so that it's not racist.

This isn't a million miles away from saying the sky needs to be changed so it's not blue. The only difference being we can actually overthrow the system, we can't overthrow the sky. But if you think we can just change certain parts of the system while keeping it in place, I think you're in for a shock. The system wants us divided, so why would they change anything?

You don't need an entirely new system for that

I disagree in the strongest terms. The system is not racist by accident. It's not white people being racist, it's wealthy people keeping the masses divided. How are you going to change that? You probably don't even believe it. How can we change the system when we can't even agree what'#s wrong with the system?

1) individual police need to be held responsible for breaking the law, not given a pass because the victim belongs to a minority

This is technically already the case, the legislation exists. It's just not the case in practice, as they exploit loopholes, fake evidence, plant guns/drugs, whatever they have to do to look out for each other. If they do a good enough job of protecting themselves, how can we prove they did it? This is really easy to say but really difficult to do.

2) the police as an institution need to train people properly so they don't default to the use of excessive. If you do those two things, 90% of the problems with cops abusing their power would be solved.

Again, easier said than done. The police need to be trained how to use a gun, how to defend themselves, how do you "train them properly" so they don't use excessive force? Tell them not to use excessive force?

[Poopadoop]

This is technically already the case, the legislation exists. It's just not the case in practice, as they exploit loopholes, fake evidence, plant guns/drugs, whatever they have to do to look out for each other. If they do a good enough job of protecting themselves, how can we prove they did it? This is really easy to say but really difficult to do.

Police in the US at least are routinely acquitted of using excessive force against black people, even when there's clear video evidence of them doing it, going back to Rodney King, and eyewitness evidence going back even further. So when I say they have to be held responsible, I mean by the courts.

Again, easier said than done. The police need to be trained how to use a gun, how to defend themselves, how do you "train them properly" so they don't use excessive force? Tell them not to use excessive force?

You can ban certain maneuvers like kneeling on someone's neck or choking people, for example, which a number of dept's have done. You can also train them to de-escalate situations and use force only as a last resort. Too many of them use it as a first resort.

But mostly, the first point ties to the second. If you show them that if they get out of line it will have serious consequences for them personally, including possible jail time, they'll get the message pretty quick.

[CoccoBill]

Why isn't excessive use of fatal force by the police, especially towards only a certain minority, an issue in many/most other countries? Maybe there's something to learn in there somewhere.

[OngBonga]

Why isn't excessive use of fatal force by the police, especially towards only a certain minority, an issue in many/most other countries? Maybe there's something to learn in there somewhere.

I guess because many other countries aren't as systematically racist as USA?

Another question might be... why does it take racism in USA to cause a global movement? Why not the countless other examples of racism that goes on around the world? Why is American racism more important?

[Poopadoop]

I guess because many other countries aren't as systematically racist as USA?

Another question might be... why does it take racism in USA to cause a global movement? Why not the countless other examples of racism that goes on around the world? Why is American racism more important?

I think a few things happened to create the perfect shitstorm here.

1. The pandemic causes a lot of angst that is giving people a lot of pent up frustration. It also means a lot of people aren't working and/or haven't been out of the house in weeks, and this is a good excuse to go out. Not saying those are the main reasons they're protesting in such large numbers, but theyr'e contributing factors.

2. There were incidents that occurred in the US leading up to Floyd's murder. Not just a few years back, but more recently with a couple of those Karen videos.

3. This was a particularly stark, brutal and deliberate murder. It wasn't a cop panicking and shooting someone in two seconds, it was a cop taking his time and killing someone over several minutes, knowing he was being filmed doing it, while other cops watched and did nothing, knowing they were being filmed doing nothing. You can sort of excuse someone being scared and shooting someone else (sort of), but this guy was in no danger and had a lot of time to consider his options. And so did his fellow cops. So, this was completely indefensible.

Add 1 ,2, and 3 together and it all kicked off. I think 1) is probably the predominant reason for the demonstrations outside the US though. I'm sure these people believe they're in the right, but if it were 'normal' times I doubt we'd have this worldwide thing going on. Could be wrong though.

[OngBonga]

They all go before a jury in the US afaik. Someone else might know more about this than I.

If they already go up before a jury, then what's happening? The jury is being hand picked? How do you fix that?

I'm sure some of them are, but there's plenty of video evidence that shows that's not their first response, including at the protests themselves. That suggests to me it isn't being given a high enough priority in their training, if any.

Just because they use force in some cases as a first response, that doesn't mean they are not trained to deescalate. The balance clearly isn't right, but I'd be amazed if they actually omit this aspect of the training.

It'd be a pretty damned good start though.

Well again we're probably going to see it happen. I can't see how this guy dodges jail.

[CoccoBill]

I guess because many other countries aren't as systematically racist as USA?

Why aren't they though, what makes them less racist? You've said that the US system is no good and there's no point trying to fix it, what are those things?

Another question might be... why does it take racism in USA to cause a global movement? Why not the countless other examples of racism that goes on around the world? Why is American racism more important?

My personal opinion, probably because it's so overt and egregious in the states, and in a huge contrast to how the US wants to be seen in the world, as a beacon of freedom and individual rights.

[Poopadoop]

https://world.wng.org/2018/03/camden...M8Eg0kWDIjYNHo

[oskar]

Another question might be... why does it take racism in USA to cause a global movement? Why not the countless other examples of racism that goes on around the world? Why is American racism more important?

I gave it a go with Wuf, and I'll try again, but I want you to know, and I have to add that because this doesn't always come across in writing: I am being really condescending right now.

Have you noticed how when people gather behind a cause like "save the pandas" there really aren't any people saying "but why don't you save other bears" because if you then go to: "ok, let's save pandas and grizzly bears" then someone will inevitably come back with "well what about brown bears" and someone else will be like "Grizzly's ate my face!"
You are simultaneously entering a slippery slope and losing people for the main cause you are actually fighting for.

[OngBonga]

The pandemic is definitely an unusual factor and might or might not contribute, I mean it's not out of the question that more people would be out on the streets if health wasn't such a factor. I guess we'll never know.

I don't think the pandemic is why people are on the streets here though. I think there's a fair few people who don't need much encouragement, as we saw when someone got shot by police in London. There's always people who exploit the politics, whether it's anarchists, anticapitalists, the far right, antifa, there's always these people. And then there's a large amount of people who are basically caught up in the politics of it all. I think the bulk of the protesters are well intentioned but misguided.

[OngBonga]

There's a hint in there to one of the huge problems with socialism... unions. In principle, they're a good thing, because they represent the interests of the workers. In practice, their continued existence is all that really matters to them.

There is an important lesson there. To really enforce change, you have to be willing to stand up to powerful bodies who have their own interests. Whether that's unions, lobbyists, investors, whatever.

And what has actually happened here? Have the hardened criminals stopped being criminals? Or have they simply gone somewhere else? If the problem has just gone elsewhere, it's not solved.

But yes, it certainly appears that the police forces across the nation can learn a thing or two from this.

[CoccoBill]

I recommend watching it all the way to the end.

[Poopadoop]

Ong, watch carefully.

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/statu...11232439934980

[OngBonga]

Ong, watch carefully.

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/statu...11232439934980

Clearly she has a British husband and is trolling the shit out of us.

Winning comment -
"Does she have a statue?"

[OngBonga]

Ong, watch carefully.

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/statu...11232439934980

Boston Harbour currently trending on Twitter as the outrage spreads.

[OngBonga]

In principle, I'm an anarchist. I just don't think we're ready for it yet. I think anarchism right now would be worse than fascism. Too many horrible cunts.

[OngBonga]

Iceland is ready for anarchism.

[Poopadoop]

I recommend watching it all the way to the end.

"Won't show in your country."

Is this the same one?

[CoccoBill]

I think that's an old one, the one I linked aired yesterday. See if you can download it: https://www.ssyoutube.com/watch?v=Wf4cea5oObY

[OngBonga]

oskar, let's assume the world is made of lots of panda bears, lots of grizzlies, and a few polar bears. The polar bears set up a system that oppresses both, but the pandas get it worse. So the pandas get all pissy and start saying "panda lives matter", which makes the grizzlies somewhat aware of the problems pandas face, but doesn't really get them on board. Imagine how much more inclusive the message would be if it was "fuck the polar bears". Maybe instead of trying to make the grizzlies feel like they are "privileged" they made them realise they too are oppressed by the polar bears.

The problem is that the pandas blame the grizzlies for their problems, not the polar bears. They are appealing to the guilt of the grizzlies, instead of trying to get rid of the polar bears.

[OngBonga]

Trump -


Biden -

[oskar]

The entire show is worth watching, but here's the clip that makes it stand out: https://twitter.com/weirdwithwords/s...270645761?s=20

[OngBonga]

I couldn't find an image of a panda hugging a grizzly, but I did find this...



There's a metaphor there. If we both jump on him, we might be able to squash him.

[oskar]

The protests are about excessive police violence. The remedy is to defund the police, dismantle police departments, stop the transfer of military equipment to local PD's and make police officers personally accountable by ending qualified immunity. By immediately jumping to putting it all on an untouchable boogeyman you're not actually helping the cause. Instead you're losing focus and making change unattainable. This is a defeatist position and you're doing exactly what I accused you of doing in the first place but in a slightly different framework.

[Poopadoop]

Won't somebody think of the grizzlies???

[OngBonga]

Oskar, why do you care more about racism in America than in, say, Australia? Or Spain? Or Zimbabwe?

[oskar]

Oskar, why do you care more about racism in America than in, say, Australia? Or Spain? Or Zimbabwe?

I don't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

OK OK OK.


Some people are calling to abolish the police, but I don't see any way that will work.


It could be an epic experiment. Maybe I'm wrong that rampant vigilantism would result. Maybe I'm wrong that gangs and other criminal groups would become the ersatz rule of "law."


I don't want to run that experiment, but I can't see that it's ever been tried, so I can appreciate the desire for a bold change.
For me, that goes way too far.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think it's a certainly fair question to ask:

Why do we have enough money to equip our police officers like military personnel, but we don't have enough money to equip doctors like doctors or teachers like teachers?

This gets at the heart of a broken system that criminalizes the symptoms while spreading the disease.

[Poopadoop]

I think it's a certainly fair question to ask:

Why do we have enough money to equip our police officers like military personnel, but we don't have enough money to equip doctors like doctors or teachers like teachers?

This gets at the heart of a broken system that criminalizes the symptoms while spreading the disease.

Exactly, yes. The police mentality of shoot first and ask questions later doesn't help the situation either.

[OngBonga]

I can't actually believe that people are advocating defunding the police. Reforming it, sure, but defunding? If I were a drug dealer I'd be delighted with such policies.

[CoccoBill]

I can't actually believe that people are advocating defunding the police. Reforming it, sure, but defunding? If I were a drug dealer I'd be delighted with such policies.

It means diverting the funds from the police to mental health, social services etc. Currently the police apparently have to do all kinds of stuff on top of policing, and this would free their resources to do a better job in what they're actually supposed to do. On top of it probably being a good idea to have a doctor deal with a mental patient, rather than a sheriff with a cannon.

[Poopadoop]

It means diverting the funds from the police to mental health, social services etc. Currently the police apparently have to do all kinds of stuff on top of policing, and this would free their resources to do a better job in what they're actually supposed to do. On top of it probably being a good idea to have a doctor deal with a mental patient, rather than a sheriff with a cannon.

^ This.

In the US, they send the police to deal with mentally ill people in distress, for which they apparently have no training. The person doesn't listen to their commands, then they often shoot them. In light of that, what is wrong with funding mental health professionals to go out and talk to these people instead of the police?

[oskar]

I can't actually believe that people are advocating defunding the police. Reforming it, sure, but defunding? If I were a drug dealer I'd be delighted with such policies.

You're probably on drugs right now! What the fuck are you talking about?! Who gives a shit if people buy and sell drugs?
The john oliver episode explains it. You should watch that. And if you're at all interested in what these protests are actually about, then also watch the Trevor Noah clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4amCfVbA_c&t=2s

I can't believe anyone could watch the footage from these protests and go: What these PD's needs is a weekend seminar about appropriate force. These departments need to be cleaned out.

[OngBonga]

You're probably on drugs right now! What the fuck are you talking about?! Who gives a shit if people buy and sell drugs?

Way to miss the point. Not just drug dealers, but fraudsters, burglars, people we do give a shit about. Whether we agree with it or not, drug dealers are criminals. Maybe I should've just said if I were a criminal I'd be delighted to see defunding of the police, but I really didn't expect anyone to go "bwaaa you're on drugs".

I can't believe anyone could watch the footage from these protests and go: What these PD's needs is a weekend seminar about appropriate force. These departments need to be cleaned out.

Poop is the one that wants to train them to deescalate. I agree with you, they need to be cleaned out. But reform is what's needed, not abolishment. Anyone who actually says "abolish the police" is either an anarchist or will replace it with something that is essentially a police force.

[oskar]

Way to miss the point. Not just drug dealers, but fraudsters, burglars, people we do give a shit about.

You've got at point there. Without the police, who would you call after your shit gets broken into for someone to type up a 2 page report at 60 letters a minute and file it away? Fraud is handled by the better business bureau or your local equivalent, not the police.

And no, I don't consider drug dealers criminals because it's a bullshit crime that shouldn't exist. Why are you surprised that I find humor in you thinking that drug dealers should be harassed and detained when you directly benefit from their business.

[OngBonga]

You've got at point there. Without the police, who would you call after your shit gets broken into for someone to type up a 2 page report at 60 letters a minute and file it away? Fraud is handled by the better business bureau or your local equivalent, not the police.

And no, I don't consider drug dealers criminals because it's a bullshit crime that shouldn't exist. Why are you surprised that I find humor in you thinking that drug dealers should be harassed and detained when you directly benefit from their business.

Are you actually an anarchist? I'd probably be less inclined to think you're deranged if you are.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The calls for defunding are not calls to abolish the police.

People are asking to reduce the funding of police departments, shrink the police force, and divert those funds to community projects that address the causes of crime and violence. They're calling for greater investment in schools, in mental health services, and community-lead organizations that help to curtail the origins of crime.

They saying that we've had a policy of "criminalizing the symptoms while spreading the disease," which sounds like it's almost if not exactly what you're talking about, ong. Limiting the power of the top % to isolate and vilify people, increasing the ability of people to come together and solve their own problems, not eliminating policing, but reducing it, and redirecting the funds to more effective solutions.

[oskar]

I am for abolishing the police.

I don't think that what you see at these protests is something that just manifested itself last week. They're doing what they've always done because they don't know any different. They create chaos and disorder, they instigate, provoke and escalate situations until they can use excessive force.

What I don't think is that there is a conscious effort by individual policemen to feed the prison industrial complex, but what I do think is that they are selected to do it whether they realize it or not.

I think that whatever good they're doing is massively outweighed by the destruction they're causing. There are different ways to deal with organized crime, and I don't mean DEA because all drugs should be legal. The walk-around-and-harrass-people section of the police needs to be completely abolished.

[Poopadoop]

I am for abolishing the police.

Yeah, we need this instead.

The walk-around-and-harrass-people section of the police needs to be completely abolished.

This much I agree with. The cops should need a proper reason to even approach someone. Not a busted tail light or loitering or being a certain colour.

[oskar]

Yeah, we need this instead.

Oh well, you're right, you can't have a violent mob of short tempered high school dropouts running around acting like they're immune to the rule of law, harassing and intimiating people for no good reason and... WAIT A MINUTE!

[wufwugy]

I am for abolishing the police.

I'm down with this BIG TIME.

It might be the most effective way to de-monopolize law and de-monopolize violence.

Like Obama said, the nation-state is the monopoly on violence.

[Poopadoop]

What good is replacing one mob with another?

[oskar]

What good is replacing one mob with another?

speculative

[Poopadoop]

speculative

Ok, so what happens when there's a murder? Or rape?

[OngBonga]

Ok, so what happens when there's a murder? Or rape?

Community investigates, but their tools aren't things like national databases of fingerprints and DNA, nor a network of different units coordinating with each other, they instead have things like speculation, pitchforks and torches.

[Poopadoop]

Community investigates, but their tools aren't things like national databases of fingerprints and DNA, nor a network of different units coordinating with each other, they instead have things like speculation, pitchforks and torches.

Pretty much, yeah.

[oskar]

Community investigates, but their tools aren't things like national databases of fingerprints and DNA, nor a network of different units coordinating with each other, they instead have things like speculation, pitchforks and torches.

Policemen are magic people who have magic powers that normies don't.

[oskar]

Ok, so what happens when there's a murder? Or rape?

Homicide is a completely different department from the cops that shoot your dog. You can have people who investigate homicide without also paying thugs to harass people for no reason.