Posted:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:52 pmby Mirjt
Liberals have long been in favor of police and prison reform, whereas leftists consider police and prison reform to be good but want to go further and are in favor of police and prison abolition. Both the reform movements and abolition movements have been active for decades, but the reform movement is more pallateable to the liberal, neoliberal, and conservative establishment and therefore got more attention. Reformers and abolitionists often both work together on several protests, policies, projects, etc... but their goals are different and sometimes contradictory with one another.
Black Lives Matters has many chapters, some favor reform, others abolition (though abolition seems to be growing right now), but reform and abolition are not only racial issues, social democrats have often been in favor of reform or abolition, socialists (while some are more comfortable with reform) have often favored abolition (especially libertarian socialists, like anarcho-communists), the queer movement historically was in favor of abolition as police and prisons were used to criminalize and police the bodies and lives of the LGBTQIA+ (though the liberal queer movement wants to focus more on marriage to the exclusion of the material aspects of LBQTQIA+ marginalization and oppression), disabled people have long since known the dangers of the prison-industrial-complex and fought against a version of it known as disability institutionalization and mental illness institutionalization, many people have been supporting some aspects of abolition for a while in the form of opposing immigrant detention and ICE as well as the support for easier legal immigration (and citizenship process) or even open borders, etc...
The defund the police movement/tactic was originally abolitionist, who sought to reduce the power of the police and the police state, and redirecting that funding towards social programs to reduce poverty (which will reduce crime), to provide community education (to reduce social attitudes that lead to crime and to help better communities so they don't need to rely on crime), to support diversion programs that keep people out of prisons and in their communities for rehabilitation and the process of restorative and transformative justice, and so on. Reformers realized the potential in that tactic, seeing as their previous reforms did not work and adopted it for themselves as it does not have to necessitate the abolition of the police. As a result you have different versions of the Defund the Police movement, the original version which is most popular among actual leftists including a sizeable portion of the Black Lives Matter movement looks at defunding the police as step one, whereas the versions being pushed by the media are the more tame reformist versions. Vox did an article discussing the various versions of what defunding the police means, but I don't like the article very much because it only covers reformists versions, with one exception and it tried to tone down the policy positions of the abolitionist meaning to sound more ambiguous.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:12 amby Nobel Hobos 2
The Alma Mater wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If you're not even going to try, not even one word, then I'll find someone else who will.
Maybe stop being "for" something you're embarrassed to put into your own words?
I have already explained it in my own words multiple times in the main threads. Since that apparently did not clarify it for you, I aided by directing you to a video where a nice British white man takes 15 minutes to explain it, in the hopes that that is more clear.
OK then, I'll just sit back and watch as you defend "Defund the Police" against The Emerald Legion. Maybe I'll learn something.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:45 amby Liriena
The Emerald Legion wrote:It's a decentralized hate mob,
It's literally the opposite of a hate mob.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:11 amby Slavakino
Stylan wrote:Slavakino wrote:PMC's overrun or Martial Law. Defunding cops is stupid, its only a wet dream for stupid AnCaps or AnComs who don't realise anarchism will ruin their lives
Not related, but your views are the most fucking obnoxious, Internet-era contradictory beliefs ever.
Anyway, yeah anarchism sucks.
Sorry, I'm an authoritarian. I don't agree with stupid libertarian ideals
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:21 amby Nobel Hobos 2
Slavakino wrote:Stylan wrote:Not related, but your views are the most fucking obnoxious, Internet-era contradictory beliefs ever.
Anyway, yeah anarchism sucks.
Sorry, I'm an authoritarian. I don't agree with stupid libertarian ideals
You realize only the last sentence is them agreeing with you?
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:29 amby Slavakino
Liriena wrote:The Emerald Legion wrote:It's a decentralized hate mob,
It's literally the opposite of a hate mob.
It's a decentralized race riot at this damn point
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:32 amby ImperialRussia
Private police from other companies don't seem any better it seems worse than the original police because this private police can just integrate you and your right won't matter to them since there run by companies of the wealthy elite this is you're a criminal caught by private police
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:42 amby Anurial
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So we're hearing a lot of talk about defunding police and putting that money into social services instead. The idea, presumably, is that if these "social services" could somehow address every other possible motive for committing crime in the first place, we wouldn't need as much policing.
Here's the problem with that proposal... since when was anyone any good at predicting anyone else's motives for what they do?
No, really. I recall 2016, when the notion that respondents who claimed they'd vote Clinton if she were the candidate were lying through their teeth were met with "why would they lie"? Doesn't matter. They did. People do what they do for reasons neither you nor I nor the so-called "experts" who got it wrong could ever hope to comperehend. The delusion that if you do not anticipate their motives, such motives cannot exist, feels like a false dichotomy fit to rival "God of the gaps."
So now proposals to defund the police invoke the delusion that they have every possible motive for crime figured out; and they want us to, based on this tenuous reasoning, weaken the one institution known to hold crime back.
My question to them is; what if you're wrong? What is your plan B, if people have reasons for committing crimes that you fail to anticipate, predict, or comprehend, and these reasons are all unleashed? Is a return to policing as it was before possible, or would the change, or at least some of the effects thereof, be permanent? Is there a third option you could jump to from there, that might be relatively safer? If so, what is it?
My alternative? If we think we know why crime happens, then rather than defunding the police, why not address those supposed motives
first, and
then weaken police presence
very slowly and gradually so if it works out badly we can reverse the trend before it's too late?
That's not what defunding the police means. It means social services respond to situations that police aren't even trained to in the first place. Why send a cop to deal with a drunk homeless man for instance. Also, criminology and sociology are the fields of study that aim to seek out the causes of crime. Lastly, defunding the police on a local scale does seem to have been rather effective so far, like in
this town of 170,000.
This appears to just be a misunderstanding of what defunding the police actually means. Most policy proposals are trialled at lower levels of governance beforehand too. This is why Finland funded a study for UBI instead of just implementing it, and why the UK Labour party promised to begin trials for a UBI program in 2019 if they were elected, rather than just implementing it. This is also why people are looking at these already tried and tested changes in the institution of police in towns.
As always with these kinds of threads, I haven't read what comes before my post because it's usually very painful to do so. Therefore, if I've missed some sort of context given or misunderstanding cleared up, I apologise.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:14 amby Dumb Ideologies
Plans for police reform vary a lot and hopefully when it comes to local decisions about what to do some of the crazier edges will get knocked off by the reality of bureaucracy and having to listen to at-length technical matters which tend to bore big-picture radicals away. You're not going to see the police abolished or funding brought back to the real bare bones. You're probably going to get more community-led oversight committees to look into controversial incidents, but in many ways getting people oversight of boring stuff like equipment contracts and how budgets are spent would be more important.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:15 amby The Emerald Legion
Liriena wrote:The Emerald Legion wrote:It's a decentralized hate mob,
It's literally the opposite of a hate mob.
No it's not. Having a different color of skin doesn't change who you are.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:54 amby Thepeopl
Anurial wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So we're hearing a lot of talk about defunding police and putting that money into social services instead. The idea, presumably, is that if these "social services" could somehow address every other possible motive for committing crime in the first place, we wouldn't need as much policing.
Here's the problem with that proposal... since when was anyone any good at predicting anyone else's motives for what they do?
No, really. I recall 2016, when the notion that respondents who claimed they'd vote Clinton if she were the candidate were lying through their teeth were met with "why would they lie"? Doesn't matter. They did. People do what they do for reasons neither you nor I nor the so-called "experts" who got it wrong could ever hope to comperehend. The delusion that if you do not anticipate their motives, such motives cannot exist, feels like a false dichotomy fit to rival "God of the gaps."
So now proposals to defund the police invoke the delusion that they have every possible motive for crime figured out; and they want us to, based on this tenuous reasoning, weaken the one institution known to hold crime back.
My question to them is; what if you're wrong? What is your plan B, if people have reasons for committing crimes that you fail to anticipate, predict, or comprehend, and these reasons are all unleashed? Is a return to policing as it was before possible, or would the change, or at least some of the effects thereof, be permanent? Is there a third option you could jump to from there, that might be relatively safer? If so, what is it?
My alternative? If we think we know why crime happens, then rather than defunding the police, why not address those supposed motives
first, and
then weaken police presence
very slowly and gradually so if it works out badly we can reverse the trend before it's too late?
That's not what defunding the police means. It means social services respond to situations that police aren't even trained to in the first place. Why send a cop to deal with a drunk homeless man for instance. Also, criminology and sociology are the fields of study that aim to seek out the causes of crime. Lastly, defunding the police on a local scale does seem to have been rather effective so far, like in
this town of 170,000.
This appears to just be a misunderstanding of what defunding the police actually means. Most policy proposals are trialled at lower levels of governance beforehand too. This is why Finland funded a study for UBI instead of just implementing it, and why the UK Labour party promised to begin trials for a UBI program in 2019 if they were elected, rather than just implementing it. This is also why people are looking at these already tried and tested changes in the institution of police in towns.
As always with these kinds of threads, I haven't read what comes before my post because it's usually very painful to do so. Therefore, if I've missed some sort of context given or misunderstanding cleared up, I apologise.
^^
More compassion, less jail time.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:16 pmby Slavakino
Thepeopl wrote:Anurial wrote:That's not what defunding the police means. It means social services respond to situations that police aren't even trained to in the first place. Why send a cop to deal with a drunk homeless man for instance. Also, criminology and sociology are the fields of study that aim to seek out the causes of crime. Lastly, defunding the police on a local scale does seem to have been rather effective so far, like in
this town of 170,000.
This appears to just be a misunderstanding of what defunding the police actually means. Most policy proposals are trialled at lower levels of governance beforehand too. This is why Finland funded a study for UBI instead of just implementing it, and why the UK Labour party promised to begin trials for a UBI program in 2019 if they were elected, rather than just implementing it. This is also why people are looking at these already tried and tested changes in the institution of police in towns.
As always with these kinds of threads, I haven't read what comes before my post because it's usually very painful to do so. Therefore, if I've missed some sort of context given or misunderstanding cleared up, I apologise.
^^
More compassion, less jail time.
No. Reform and Labour for prison. They are to have a working life in prison while being reformed. Also, the police should always refer to a baton and martial arts in case of someone disobeying orders instead of always drawing out their gun, they should only draw out their gun in a situation where the suspect has a lethal weapon with them.
Posted:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:06 pmby West Leas Oros 2
Slavakino wrote:Stylan wrote:Not related, but your views are the most fucking obnoxious, Internet-era contradictory beliefs ever.
Anyway, yeah anarchism sucks.
Sorry, I'm an authoritarian. I don't agree with stupid libertarian ideals
Considering Stylan considers themself a “tankie” (apparently), it’s safe to assume they don’t hold “libertarian” beliefs either.
Posted:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:55 pmby Bassoe
Step #1. Disband the police.
Step #2. Inevitable colossal rise in crime.
Step #3. Introduce
the CAREN act, under which crime is less likely to be officially reported due to the risk of ruinous fines and being targeted by
the Two Minute Hate Cancel Culture if the reporter and the judge in the inevitable lawsuit isn't
absolutely sure it was justified.
Step #4. Less officially reported crime, less crime charges.
Step #5. "What crime! You've got no evidence!"
Posted:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:09 pmby Rojava Free State
Roof Koreans. They get the job done.
/thread
Posted:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:09 pmby Stylan
Bassoe wrote:Step #1. Disband the police.
Step #2. Inevitable colossal rise in crime.
Step #3. Introduce
the CAREN act, under which crime is less likely to be officially reported due to the risk of ruinous fines and being targeted by
the Two Minute Hate Cancel Culture if the reporter and the judge in the inevitable lawsuit isn't
absolutely sure it was justified.
Step #4. Less officially reported crime, less crime charges.
Step #5. "What crime! You've got no evidence!"
Disbanding the police has reduced crime in every single city it has been tried in, plus few say we should abolish the police, and almost none advocate for no dispensers of authority.
Posted:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:11 pmby Rojava Free State
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Slavakino wrote:Sorry, I'm an authoritarian. I don't agree with stupid libertarian ideals
Considering Stylan considers themself a “tankie” (apparently), it’s safe to assume they don’t hold “libertarian” beliefs either.
Damn isn't Slavkino an authoritarian leftist too? I think he's Balkan so maybe?
Posted:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:12 pmby Stylan
Slavakino wrote:Stylan wrote:Not related, but your views are the most fucking obnoxious, Internet-era contradictory beliefs ever.
Anyway, yeah anarchism sucks.
Sorry, I'm an authoritarian. I don't agree with stupid libertarian ideals
>me
>a libertarian
lmfao dude
I just think it's funny you call yourself a commie when in reality you're basically just a strasserist, or even worse a social democrat who hates gays and blacks.
Posted:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:39 pmby Slavakino
Stylan wrote:Slavakino wrote:Sorry, I'm an authoritarian. I don't agree with stupid libertarian ideals
>me
>a libertarian
lmfao dude
I just think it's funny you call yourself a commie when in reality you're basically just a strasserist, or even worse a social democrat who hates gays and blacks.
I consider myself a Titoist (or Marxist-Leninist if you wanna go that route) with socially conservative views. I'm not a modern commie, I want my Yugo back. I dislike Stalinists, progressive lefties and these "fake commies" heavily
Posted:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:32 amby Purpelia
Slavakino wrote:Stylan wrote:>me
>a libertarian
lmfao dude
I just think it's funny you call yourself a commie when in reality you're basically just a strasserist, or even worse a social democrat who hates gays and blacks.
I consider myself a Titoist (or Marxist-Leninist if you wanna go that route) with socially conservative views. I'm not a modern commie, I want my Yugo back. I dislike Stalinists, progressive lefties and these "fake commies" heavily
If by fake communists you mean the identiarian left that has usurped our side of the spectrum from the truth which is materialistic AKA class and wealth socialism than I feel your pain. Sadly we are a dying breed as we actually represent a threat to the establishment. Or to put it another way, the rich fund the identitarians and progressives because they will happily see all statues in the world torn down before they give up a cent of their wealth to the poor.
Posted:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:35 amby Baltenstein
Slavakino wrote:Stylan wrote:>me
>a libertarian
lmfao dude
I just think it's funny you call yourself a commie when in reality you're basically just a strasserist, or even worse a social democrat who hates gays and blacks.
I consider myself a Titoist (or Marxist-Leninist if you wanna go that route) with socially conservative views. I'm not a modern commie, I want my Yugo back. I dislike Stalinists, progressive lefties and these "fake commies" heavily
Titoism died when Tito died. It was an artificial construct whose continuing existence depended largely on the personal charisma and force of will of a single person.
Posted:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:42 amby Purpelia
Baltenstein wrote:Slavakino wrote:I consider myself a Titoist (or Marxist-Leninist if you wanna go that route) with socially conservative views. I'm not a modern commie, I want my Yugo back. I dislike Stalinists, progressive lefties and these "fake commies" heavily
Titoism died when Tito died. It was an artificial construct whose continuing existence depended largely on the personal charisma and force of will of a single person.
Historical evidence does not really corroborate that though. Tito died in 1980 and yet his country survived for another decade. Rather, it appears to me that the existence of Yugoslavia was largely predicated on its position as the de facto leader of the third world block which was the nonaligned movement a power block that made sense in the cold war days but basically lost all meaning in a world without two superpowers staring each other down nukes drawn. That is to say, they were politically neutral and head of a powerful block which made both sides of the cold war want to keep them that way as opposed to having them side with the other. Better a non-ally than an enemy as it were. Thus for as long as they did not openly align with either superpower both had an interest in not trying to destabilize the country and cause it to collapse. Which is exactly what the west did as soon as the Soviets were out of the picture.
I mean, let's be real for a moment. What happened down there was not just some random revolution. It was a civil war. And one where the largest nonaligned army in the world with modern equipment and excellent training lost. And when you combine that with how the whole thing was treated by the west at the time there is no way in hell that it was not a foreign sponsored war like those we see in the middle east.