Do we even need police?

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

This might come as a shock to you that I haven't looked at the first half of this thread, but I haven't and therefore shall commit the cardinal sin of asking: such as?

It will eliminate the existence of policing as a job in which racists and sadists can carry out their will, and the people will no longer have to suffer under the brutality of these servants of capital.

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

I haven't heard a single non-American example of police abuse of powers or anything in this thread that would prove that the police absolutely need to be abolished. That's like saying we should abolish China because "well it's all bad right now and historically so it'll never change." It's like you guys forgot about reformism and have just gone to dogmatic revolutionary fervor. It's illogical and irrational.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

i think law enforcement is need for a safe state (to ensure domestic tranquility, one might even say), but reforms must take place to end police brutality

While I fully understand your feelings that law enforcement can create a safe state (and order), I want to emphasise that police have never been effective in creating "law and order". Reforms themselves cannot end brutality and other abuse such as assault or failure to enforce laws equally- although they may be effective in reducing them, I don't see anything significant enough gaining political support anywhere (and such extensive reforms might as well be replaced by abolition).

The interests of the (bourgeoise) state and citizens also differ, but that's a post I'll write when my keyboard is cooperating.

I'd like to see evidence that proves that abolition is the only way. So far, what's been thrown around is essentially "the police are bad" with data to back it up, which lends credibility to reforms but not to abolition.

But the police can't catch all of those criminals, so clearly it's better to just throw in the towel and catch none of those criminals...

We've been catching criminals for as long as we've had laws, maybe instead of just catching people and then doing something horrible to them we look at why they're doing crimes in the first place and deal with that. Instead of going to a lot of effort hunting down thieves and beating them up and throwing them in prison, we could probably just find out what it is they want that's motivating them to steal and just give that to them. If someone is stealing to fuel a drug habit, let's just set them up with an addiction counsellor and give them free drugs.

That sounds like evidence that our justice system needs to be reformed to rehabilitate as opposed to punish. Again, this isn't an argument that proves the police should be abolished.

All of you saying "someone has to stop the serial killers!", yes someone will have to stop the serial killers and I suppose by doing that job you could say that person is police but that does not mean we cannot abolish police/law enforcement as an institution and start over.

The police are a seriously harmful institution throughout most of the world, especially in America where many people are more afraid of cops than gangsters and where calling 911 when someone has a mental health makes it more likely that they'll die.

Really the examples seem to be just America. This might be more impactful if there were actual non-American examples (and by that I particularly mean European examples).

If we're going to abolish law enforcement and then start over with... an institution of law enforcement, isn't that just reforming the police with extra steps? There seems to be no point in abolishing the police if you're just going to have an institution that performs similar functions to the police take over.

And for later posts beyond the ones I quoted: As long as there are other people on this planet, there will always be someone with more than everyone else, even if by a little. Full equality is impossible simply because concepts like power and influence are things that, no matter how hard you try, can never be erased. There will always be people who manipulate and control others, and therefore there will always be someone with power over other individuals.

[Cordel One]

It will eliminate the existence of policing as a job in which racists and sadists can carry out their will, and the people will no longer have to suffer under the brutality of these servants of capital.

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

I haven't heard a single non-American example of police abuse of powers or anything in this thread that would prove that the police absolutely need to be abolished. That's like saying we should abolish China because "well it's all bad right now and historically so it'll never change." It's like you guys forgot about reformism and have just gone to dogmatic revolutionary fervor. It's illogical and irrational.

While I often bring up the US because it's a notorious example, it really is everywhere. Below are a ton of links:

https://apnews.com/article/europe-polan ... 939ff00146
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/06/swed ... ism-racism
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48345089
https://www.france24.com/en/france/2020 ... -brutality
https://academic.oup.com/ssjj/article-a ... edFrom=PDF
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016 ... ity-record
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/01/eth ... r-violence
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.5453318
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/worl ... tests.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/worl ... istan.html
https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2020/07 ... -violence/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved ... in-rwanda/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/06/19/c ... esters-and
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... -protests/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... -revealed/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/worl ... ality.html

They're servants of capital everywhere.

[Myledia]

In some enviroments, like Myledia (for example) it is not necessary:)

[Sanghyeok]

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

Cordel's comment about police serving as protectors of the state's interests is correct no matter where you are.

[Nolo gap]

the reason we NEED police is because of idiots who equate aggressive inconsiderateness with freedom and deny that the dominance of aggressiveness is the opposite of civilization.

[Adamede]

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

Cordel's comment about police serving as protectors of the state's interests is correct no matter where you are.

Indeed. Doesn’t mean that getting rid of the police is the solution.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

I haven't heard a single non-American example of police abuse of powers or anything in this thread that would prove that the police absolutely need to be abolished. That's like saying we should abolish China because "well it's all bad right now and historically so it'll never change." It's like you guys forgot about reformism and have just gone to dogmatic revolutionary fervor. It's illogical and irrational.

While I often bring up the US because it's a notorious example, it really is everywhere. Below are a ton of links:

https://apnews.com/article/europe-polan ... 939ff00146
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/06/swed ... ism-racism
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48345089
https://www.france24.com/en/france/2020 ... -brutality
https://academic.oup.com/ssjj/article-a ... edFrom=PDF
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016 ... ity-record
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/01/eth ... r-violence
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.5453318
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/worl ... tests.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/worl ... istan.html
https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2020/07 ... -violence/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved ... in-rwanda/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/06/19/c ... esters-and
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... -protests/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... -revealed/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/worl ... ality.html

They're servants of capital everywhere.

Half of those countries are nations without the best human rights record...

The other half is fair game though. Man, law enforcement as an institution needs serious reform to crack down on all of this nonsense abuse. Governments of the world need to reign in on their police forces and get their affairs in order.

That doesn't mean it needs to be abolished entirely, just reformed to where these abuses would actually be punished and wouldn't happen.

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

Cordel's comment about police serving as protectors of the state's interests is correct no matter where you are.

I was reacting to his comment on the police being racists and sadists (something that sounds rather America-centric), why would I dispute something which is the goal of a police force? Obviously the point of the police is to enforce a nation's laws, and inevitably that leads them to protecting state interests in "upholding" those laws. After all, it's in the state's interests that their laws actually mean something, for good or bad.

[Cordel One]

While I often bring up the US because it's a notorious example, it really is everywhere. Below are a ton of links:

https://apnews.com/article/europe-polan ... 939ff00146
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/06/swed ... ism-racism
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48345089
https://www.france24.com/en/france/2020 ... -brutality
https://academic.oup.com/ssjj/article-a ... edFrom=PDF
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016 ... ity-record
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/01/eth ... r-violence
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.5453318
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/worl ... tests.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/worl ... istan.html
https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2020/07 ... -violence/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved ... in-rwanda/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/06/19/c ... esters-and
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... -protests/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... -revealed/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/worl ... ality.html

They're servants of capital everywhere.

Half of those countries are nations without the best human rights record...

The other half is fair game though. Man, law enforcement as an institution needs serious reform to crack down on all of this nonsense abuse. Governments of the world need to reign in on their police forces and get their affairs in order.

That doesn't mean it needs to be abolished entirely, just reformed to where these abuses would actually be punished and wouldn't happen.

If this problem could be solved with reform it wouldn't be found in every nation on the face of the earth. Something more needs to be done.

Cordel's comment about police serving as protectors of the state's interests is correct no matter where you are.

I was reacting to his comment on the police being racists and sadists (something that sounds rather America-centric), why would I dispute something which is the goal of a police force? Obviously the point of the police is to enforce a nation's laws, and inevitably that leads them to protecting state interests in "upholding" those laws. After all, it's in the state's interests that their laws actually mean something, for good or bad.

It is a massive problem in the US, but again it's not exclusive to it.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

Cordel's comment about police serving as protectors of the state's interests is correct no matter where you are.

Yes. However in a ethnostate like Israel the interests of an average Jewish person is not that different from the interests of the Jewish state.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

It will eliminate the existence of policing as a job in which racists and sadists can carry out their will, and the people will no longer have to suffer under the brutality of these servants of capital.

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

I haven't heard a single non-American example of police abuse of powers or anything in this thread that would prove that the police absolutely need to be abolished. That's like saying we should abolish China because "well it's all bad right now and historically so it'll never change." It's like you guys forgot about reformism and have just gone to dogmatic revolutionary fervor. It's illogical and irrational.

Most people think humans are either white, black or Hispanic and nothing exists outside Americas. The existence of Germany is baffling and the existence of Japan unthinkable. There are plenty of people in the States who have never heard of Tokyo.

I generally do not even bother to reason with any flavor of white-blackists because they do not bother to understand nouns in examples I use. After all no matter which side they are on Armenians, Turks and Gujarati Indians are just mythological tribes to them that don’t even exist..

I know what I’m doing when advocating for abolishing China since I know very well that my ideas of reform are so radical (even more radical than Liu’s Cathaysianism which is actually traditionalist) that it is very unlikely to happen democratically or at all. Since Sangleyia does not sound very likely (since even Sangleyia does require some social unity just like Israel) and that China does historically and currently encourage neighbors to hate and report each other to the state there is only one solution left for ethnic Chinese: emigration & outmarrying.

[SD_Film Artists]

Something tells me this "abolish police" crowd is incredibly America-centric in their arguments, relying on things that seemingly only happen in America.

I haven't heard a single non-American example of police abuse of powers or anything in this thread that would prove that the police absolutely need to be abolished. That's like saying we should abolish China because "well it's all bad right now and historically so it'll never change." It's like you guys forgot about reformism and have just gone to dogmatic revolutionary fervor. It's illogical and irrational.

Most people think humans are either white, black or Hispanic and nothing exists outside Americas. The existence of Germany is baffling and the existence of Japan unthinkable. There are plenty of people in the States who have never heard of Tokyo.

I generally do not even bother to reason with any flavor of white-blackists because they do not bother to understand nouns in examples I use. After all no matter which side they are on Armenians, Turks and Gujarati Indians are just mythological tribes to them that don’t even exist..

That is something I dislike being imported from America; everything being about black vs white. A person from Cardiff visiting New York wouldn't be from Cardiff or Welsh, they'd be 'white'.

Half of those countries are nations without the best human rights record...

The other half is fair game though. Man, law enforcement as an institution needs serious reform to crack down on all of this nonsense abuse. Governments of the world need to reign in on their police forces and get their affairs in order.

That doesn't mean it needs to be abolished entirely, just reformed to where these abuses would actually be punished and wouldn't happen.

If this problem could be solved with reform it wouldn't be found in every nation on the face of the earth. Something more needs to be done.

Something which is elusive after 31 pages.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Most people think humans are either white, black or Hispanic and nothing exists outside Americas. The existence of Germany is baffling and the existence of Japan unthinkable. There are plenty of people in the States who have never heard of Tokyo.

I generally do not even bother to reason with any flavor of white-blackists because they do not bother to understand nouns in examples I use. After all no matter which side they are on Armenians, Turks and Gujarati Indians are just mythological tribes to them that don’t even exist..

That is something I dislike being inported from America; everything being about black vs white. A person from Cardiff visiting New York wouldn't be from Cardiff or Welsh, they'd be 'white'.

Yup. Not only is it unable to capture most human interactions it also promotes narrow and very faulted understanding of reality. For example it does not explain the existence of dedicated mercantile, mercenary and nomadic groups. It also makes tribal issues domestic & moralistic as opposed to a part of the complex international balance of power. For example what is pan-Slavism? It is not about a group of Serbs protesting “Slav lives matter!” Instead it is to a significant extant an important part of Russian international politics. Similarly pan-Germanism was about Berlin, Zionism Jerusalem, Pan-Turkism Istanbul/Ankara and pan-Asianism Tokyo.

It will be very funny to try to apply white-blackism to Nagorno-Karabakh, Vukovar or South Dobruja for example. Say, Vukovar. Shall Vukovar be in Croatia or Serbia? Shall Shusha be returned to Artsakh? Shall ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have Azeri passports? Shall Edirne be ceded to Greece or Bulgaria? Shall Thessaloniki be ceded to Bulgaria or Turkey? These are typical Old World problems and I don’t think white-blackists are aware of the existence of these places at all.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

That is something I dislike being inported from America; everything being about black vs white. A person from Cardiff visiting New York wouldn't be from Cardiff or Welsh, they'd be 'white'.

Yup. Not only is it unable to capture most human interactions it also promotes narrow and very faulted understanding of reality. For example it does not explain the existence of dedicated mercantile, mercenary and nomadic groups. It also makes tribal issues domestic & moralistic as opposed to a part of the complex international balance of power. For example what is pan-Slavism? It is not about a group of Serbs protesting “Slav lives matter!” Instead it is to a significant extant an important part of Russian international politics. Similarly pan-Germanism was about Berlin, Zionism Jerusalem, Pan-Turkism Istanbul/Ankara and pan-Asianism Tokyo.

It will be very funny to try to apply white-blackism to Nagorno-Karabakh, Vukovar or South Dobruja for example. Say, Vukovar. Shall Vukovar be in Croatia or Serbia? Shall Shusha be returned to Artsakh? Shall ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have Azeri passports? Shall Edirne be ceded to Greece or Bulgaria? Shall Thessaloniki be ceded to Bulgaria or Turkey? These are typical Old World problems and I don’t think white-blackists are aware of the existence of these places at all.

YEAH SLAVS!
*Clears throat*
Yeah, generalizing white people ignores that each ethnicity is different, and there were historical conflicts amongst them. There was discrimination in the US against immigrants from Ireland and from Eastern and Southern Europe.

[Sanghyeok]

Cordel's comment about police serving as protectors of the state's interests is correct no matter where you are.

Yes. However in a ethnostate like Israel the interests of an average Jewish person is not that different from the interests of the Jewish state.

Not really. The interests of the average Jewish person will still differ from the Jewish state's (or at least those elites leading the Jewish state). I doubt the average Jewish person living in Israel has much to benefit from deregulation of corporations or controlling Palestine, for example.

[Muralos]

Yup. Not only is it unable to capture most human interactions it also promotes narrow and very faulted understanding of reality. For example it does not explain the existence of dedicated mercantile, mercenary and nomadic groups. It also makes tribal issues domestic & moralistic as opposed to a part of the complex international balance of power. For example what is pan-Slavism? It is not about a group of Serbs protesting “Slav lives matter!” Instead it is to a significant extant an important part of Russian international politics. Similarly pan-Germanism was about Berlin, Zionism Jerusalem, Pan-Turkism Istanbul/Ankara and pan-Asianism Tokyo.

It will be very funny to try to apply white-blackism to Nagorno-Karabakh, Vukovar or South Dobruja for example. Say, Vukovar. Shall Vukovar be in Croatia or Serbia? Shall Shusha be returned to Artsakh? Shall ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have Azeri passports? Shall Edirne be ceded to Greece or Bulgaria? Shall Thessaloniki be ceded to Bulgaria or Turkey? These are typical Old World problems and I don’t think white-blackists are aware of the existence of these places at all.

YEAH SLAVS!
*Clears throat*
Yeah, generalizing white people ignores that each ethnicity is different, and there were historical conflicts amongst them. There was discrimination in the US against immigrants from Ireland and from Eastern and Southern Europe.

But... of course the concept of "whiteness" doesn't explain the struggles that exist between ethnic groups outside of the United States, and yes there was discrimination in the U.S. against immigrants from Ireland (or really, anyone who wasn't from England, as far as I remember). However, in the U.S. at least, these identities today have been subsumed under the category of "white" for most intents and purposes. Here, to appear white grants you a degree of immunity, respect, etc. from a lot of people.

Counter to N-e G's hypothesis: There is a lot of awareness among those you might call "white-blackists" for the struggle in Nagorno-Kharabakh, if only due to the conflict last year and the dissemination of information about it. Caring about the disparity between white and black Americans doesn't mean that you have no clue that other conflicts exist. At times, I find generalities like this frustrating.

[Sanghyeok]

Yup. Not only is it unable to capture most human interactions it also promotes narrow and very faulted understanding of reality. For example it does not explain the existence of dedicated mercantile, mercenary and nomadic groups. It also makes tribal issues domestic & moralistic as opposed to a part of the complex international balance of power. For example what is pan-Slavism? It is not about a group of Serbs protesting “Slav lives matter!” Instead it is to a significant extant an important part of Russian international politics. Similarly pan-Germanism was about Berlin, Zionism Jerusalem, Pan-Turkism Istanbul/Ankara and pan-Asianism Tokyo.

It will be very funny to try to apply white-blackism to Nagorno-Karabakh, Vukovar or South Dobruja for example. Say, Vukovar. Shall Vukovar be in Croatia or Serbia? Shall Shusha be returned to Artsakh? Shall ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have Azeri passports? Shall Edirne be ceded to Greece or Bulgaria? Shall Thessaloniki be ceded to Bulgaria or Turkey? These are typical Old World problems and I don’t think white-blackists are aware of the existence of these places at all.

YEAH SLAVS!
*Clears throat*
Yeah, generalizing white people ignores that each ethnicity is different, and there were historical conflicts amongst them. There was discrimination in the US against immigrants from Ireland and from Eastern and Southern Europe.

While you're correct that there was discrimination against Eastern and Southern Europeans, in discussion of the present day they are clearly considered "white" and enjoy certain advantages by being white. Another reason why race itself is a fluid category shaped by society, but I digress.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

YEAH SLAVS!
*Clears throat*
Yeah, generalizing white people ignores that each ethnicity is different, and there were historical conflicts amongst them. There was discrimination in the US against immigrants from Ireland and from Eastern and Southern Europe.

While you're correct that there was discrimination against Eastern and Southern Europeans, in discussion of the present day they are clearly considered "white" and enjoy certain advantages by being white. Another reason why race itself is a fluid category shaped by society, but I digress.

I'm not from Eastern Europe, but I don't think being occupied by the USSR was always advantageous. Stalin's policy caused the Ukrainian famine in 1932-1933, which killed millions; tanks were used to crush uprising in the Prague Spring; Poland struggled, too, but the Solidarity movement was successful. Not all people who are white lived privileged lives, though I'm not denying the relative wealth in western Europe and the US.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Yes. However in a ethnostate like Israel the interests of an average Jewish person is not that different from the interests of the Jewish state.

Not really. The interests of the average Jewish person will still differ from the Jewish state's (or at least those elites leading the Jewish state). I doubt the average Jewish person living in Israel has much to benefit from deregulation of corporations or controlling Palestine, for example.

It’s pretty interesting but Israel itself is not that free market-based. It is clearly a social democracy.

As for controlling Palestine it doesn’t actually happen. However if Arabs are allowed to overwhelm Israel they will massacre Jewish people just like what certain people did in the 1947-1948 war. So in this aspect the interests of the Jewish state and the average Jewish person in Israel do agree.

Israel does have its own issues, especially the corrupt Netanyahu leadership. I hope he gets overthrown and replaced by a less corrupt and staunch Zionist.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

YEAH SLAVS!
*Clears throat*
Yeah, generalizing white people ignores that each ethnicity is different, and there were historical conflicts amongst them. There was discrimination in the US against immigrants from Ireland and from Eastern and Southern Europe.

While you're correct that there was discrimination against Eastern and Southern Europeans, in discussion of the present day they are clearly considered "white" and enjoy certain advantages by being white. Another reason why race itself is a fluid category shaped by society, but I digress.

Yup. Having good racial brothers (Germanics) definitely does matter. It even benefits those who do not even get along with them that much such as Iranians and Arabs.

However why do you want to fight against that? It is something to take advantage of. In fact you benefit from it yourself. For example now you should understand why a strong Japan is so important to me. A strong Japan is even good for Filipinos abroad regardless of how large the cultural difference between the two countries is. Without Japan what exactly do you think the reputation of Mongoloids would have been? Japan is why people have to admit that we are humans, not non-human animals.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

YEAH SLAVS!
*Clears throat*
Yeah, generalizing white people ignores that each ethnicity is different, and there were historical conflicts amongst them. There was discrimination in the US against immigrants from Ireland and from Eastern and Southern Europe.

But... of course the concept of "whiteness" doesn't explain the struggles that exist between ethnic groups outside of the United States, and yes there was discrimination in the U.S. against immigrants from Ireland (or really, anyone who wasn't from England, as far as I remember). However, in the U.S. at least, these identities today have been subsumed under the category of "white" for most intents and purposes. Here, to appear white grants you a degree of immunity, respect, etc. from a lot of people.

Counter to N-e G's hypothesis: There is a lot of awareness among those you might call "white-blackists" for the struggle in Nagorno-Kharabakh, if only due to the conflict last year and the dissemination of information about it. Caring about the disparity between white and black Americans doesn't mean that you have no clue that other conflicts exist. At times, I find generalities like this frustrating.

Then what do they have to say about other issues on this planet? Does it really make any sense to say that Armenians are more “privileged” than Azeris or the other way around? Azeris are richer in terms of GDP per capita, has a larger population, has a dictatorship, is Muslim and pro-American & pro-Turkish. Armenians are more influential in the diaspora, has a smaller population, has a fragile but working democracy, is Christian of an unusual sect & pro-Russian and pro-French.

Have you guys figured out the oppression dynamics yet? Are Armenians guilty of racism against Azeris who look just like them for refusing to live in Azerbaijan? Are Azeris guilty of racism against Armenians for not allowing ethnic Armenians to visit the country. Of course actual Armenians and Azeris do not even give a shit about that (or coexistence, so nope don’t try to desegregate schools in Azerbaijan or whatever). Instead they just mutually ethnically cleanse, separate and remain hostile to each other just like Serbs and Croats or Greeks and Turks.

[Ifreann]

They are the law-abiding people. That's the point. To solve the problems that lead to the crime before the crime happens.

I meant the people who weren't going to commit crimes in the first place, the ones who don't need to be bribed by the state. Though yes, if you insist on arguing over semantics both those groups are technically law-abiding.

Maybe I'm stretching here, but it seems like your problem with the approach I'm outlining is that you believe there are some people who are essentially immoral, as in immoral in their essence in some inherent way, regardless of their actual behaviour to date, and so to you it looks like I'm proposing to reward wicked people for their wickedness. Well, if I am, so what? If there are some people who just have evil in their souls or whatever then I am fine with paying them to stay at home and worship Satan. Better that than having them out hurting people.

Dodging the question with a crass generalisation.

If you want to treat this as an economic problem, an issue of monetary cost, then I'm afraid you will have to justify the rather substantial expenditure of money on police forces.

Infact like Ademede noticed this whole 30 page thread has been mostly question-dodging and circular arguments. It's not that I disagree with the alternative, it's that there's no alternative proposed at all other than some vague anti-police agenda where criminals have no culpability.

Well what does having culpability even mean? What does it have to do with the police?

That's good. Hopefully it will cancel-out things like equating people with mental health issues to the Capitol rioters, which was touted in this thread earlier. This is offensive to people with mental health issues and it also gives an excuse to people who were criminaly at fault on Wednesday.

Indeed, fascism and bigotry are not mental illnesses, and mentally ill people are far more often the victims of crime than the perpetrators. But I'm talking about providing mental healthcare because I was talking about finding out what criminals want that's motivating them to do crimes and just giving them that before they do crimes, but in the case of some crimes that would obviously not be an option. We can't provide victims for a serial killer to stop them from going out and kidnapping victims, for the people who want things that would be inherently harmful to someone else to provide we would instead have to find a way to help them manage and control those feelings.

What? If people aren't being hurt in bank robberies, and aren't being hurt by the police, what does it matter if greed is increased? What does that even mean?

What do you mean?

I mean that I don't know what you mean when you talk about the amount of greed as if that in something important to consider, or even a thing you can have amounts of.

I was talking about how society can reduce crime without need for the police, so I thought you'd be glad. As for 'people getting hurt in banks' you're going to have to explain further if you wish for me to comment on random words in your head. Did you mean to quote somebody else?

I don't know how to more clearly express that my concern is people's safety and well-being. Maybe you don't understand that because you aren't reading it properly. I wasn't talking about people getting hurt in banks, I was talking about people getting hurt in bank robberies. Remember how we were talking about bank robberies? See, the primary thing I think is bad about bank robberies is that they're dangerous to the people caught up in them. I think it's bad when people get hurt.

An inherently ineffective approach. You need crimes to keep happening so that the police can arrest those responsible and thus achieve their deterrence. The incentive for the police is to allow and possibly even encourage crime, so that they have someone to make an example of.

That sounds like the same logic of doctors being bad because they need disease to exist; or it might be, I'm honestly not sure where this even came from. Again I can't comment in what's in your head.

It's perfectly simple. If you are deterring crime by having the police arrest criminals, then what happens when there are no criminals to arrest? The police cannot carry out their deterrence mission. The police thus need crime to keep happening. The logic here isn't "The police are bad because [the stuff I just said]", it's "Using the arrest of criminals to deter crime is a bad idea because [the stuff I just said]".

Anyway, I find that a police car in my home town is a nice sign of security even if they're not actively chasing someone. That's why 'bobbies on the beat' are a popular concept compared with police officers who are tied to a desk with red tape.

The bank robbery did happen, so the police failed to prevent the bank robbery.

I know, that's why I talked about them successfully arresting the rare people who are the exceptions to what is otherwise a very good deterrence. That's literally what I was explaining. Again what are you even trying to say? That we should get rid of police because they're not a 100% deterrence?

You posed a question, "Yet despite bank robberies being rare and the police catching the few who did try, the police are still a failure in your book because... They didn't pay the thieves enough to kindly desist from their actions?", and I answered it. I don't know what you find so confusing about that.

I don't understand why you are so opposed to solving people's problems before they turn to crime.

It'll be useful if you actually described what that entails rather than giving some vague spiel about criminals requireing payment to be convinced not to murder. Oh is this like reverse-hitmen?

I have described what that entails, and you clearly understand it well enough to dismissively misrepresent it as "criminals requireing payment to be convinced not to murder". This kind of shit is pretty boring to deal with, so it'd be great if you could not.

---

We've been catching criminals for as long as we've had laws, maybe instead of just catching people and then doing something horrible to them we look at why they're doing crimes in the first place and deal with that. Instead of going to a lot of effort hunting down thieves and beating them up and throwing them in prison, we could probably just find out what it is they want that's motivating them to steal and just give that to them. If someone is stealing to fuel a drug habit, let's just set them up with an addiction counsellor and give them free drugs.

That sounds like evidence that our justice system needs to be reformed to rehabilitate as opposed to punish. Again, this isn't an argument that proves the police should be abolished.

Actually it is an argument for abolishing the police, because if we change our approach to anti-social behaviour away from the carceral punitive system then we won't need the people whose job is to deliver people in chains to that system for incarceration.

[Muralos]

But... of course the concept of "whiteness" doesn't explain the struggles that exist between ethnic groups outside of the United States, and yes there was discrimination in the U.S. against immigrants from Ireland (or really, anyone who wasn't from England, as far as I remember). However, in the U.S. at least, these identities today have been subsumed under the category of "white" for most intents and purposes. Here, to appear white grants you a degree of immunity, respect, etc. from a lot of people.

Counter to N-e G's hypothesis: There is a lot of awareness among those you might call "white-blackists" for the struggle in Nagorno-Kharabakh, if only due to the conflict last year and the dissemination of information about it. Caring about the disparity between white and black Americans doesn't mean that you have no clue that other conflicts exist. At times, I find generalities like this frustrating.

Then what do they have to say about other issues on this planet? Does it really make any sense to say that Armenians are more “privileged” than Azeris or the other way around? Azeris are richer in terms of GDP per capita, has a larger population, has a dictatorship, is Muslim and pro-American & pro-Turkish. Armenians are more influential in the diaspora, has a smaller population, has a fragile but working democracy, is Christian of an unusual sect & pro-Russian and pro-French.

Have you guys figured out the oppression dynamics yet? Are Armenians guilty of racism against Azeris who look just like them for refusing to live in Azerbaijan? Are Azeris guilty of racism against Armenians for not allowing ethnic Armenians to visit the country. Of course actual Armenians and Azeris do not even give a shit about that (or coexistence, so nope don’t try to desegregate schools in Azerbaijan or whatever). Instead they just mutually ethnically cleanse, separate and remain hostile to each other just like Serbs and Croats or Greeks and Turks.

Please, please, please it’s just a U.S.-centric perspective; it makes sense in the U.S., and most Americans passionate about these issues have not been extending their frameworks beyond the issues faced in the country. If that reflects an ignorance about the world, this American apologizes... but it does appear to reflect how things are in the country.

Are you saying that your understanding of race/ethnic relations should apply to the U.S. and groups must be opposed to each other (if not hostile) in the ways you’ve described... and Americans are ignorant for thinking otherwise? Then, I’m afraid I can’t discuss with you much further on the subject. This kind of hostility is not what Americans were promised, and it’s pretty antithetical to what many Americans want.

(edit: and you are American, it appears, so I am doubly curious about what you think is going on in the country)

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Then what do they have to say about other issues on this planet? Does it really make any sense to say that Armenians are more “privileged” than Azeris or the other way around? Azeris are richer in terms of GDP per capita, has a larger population, has a dictatorship, is Muslim and pro-American & pro-Turkish. Armenians are more influential in the diaspora, has a smaller population, has a fragile but working democracy, is Christian of an unusual sect & pro-Russian and pro-French.

Have you guys figured out the oppression dynamics yet? Are Armenians guilty of racism against Azeris who look just like them for refusing to live in Azerbaijan? Are Azeris guilty of racism against Armenians for not allowing ethnic Armenians to visit the country. Of course actual Armenians and Azeris do not even give a shit about that (or coexistence, so nope don’t try to desegregate schools in Azerbaijan or whatever). Instead they just mutually ethnically cleanse, separate and remain hostile to each other just like Serbs and Croats or Greeks and Turks.

Please, please, please it’s just a U.S.-centric perspective; it makes sense in the U.S., and most Americans passionate about these issues have not been extending their frameworks beyond the issues faced in the country. If that reflects an ignorance about the world, this American apologizes... but it does appear to reflect how things are in the country.

Are you saying that your understanding of race/ethnic relations should apply to the U.S. and groups must be opposed to each other (if not hostile) in the ways you’ve described... and Americans are ignorant for thinking otherwise? Then, I’m afraid I can’t discuss with you much further on the subject. This kind of hostility is not what Americans were promised, and it’s pretty antithetical to what many Americans want.

(edit: and you are American, it appears, so I am doubly curious about what you think is going on in the country)

Well, what’s funny is that the Old World and its more complex social dynamics aren’t actually irrelevant to America. It’s just that they are usually ignored by mainstream social advocates on both sides. Ironically the far-right actually has better understanding of it compared to Social Justice advocates even though their understanding is seriously distorted since they believe in a Jewish conspiracy and certainly consider Ashkenazim to be stronger than white gentiles per capita.

My understanding of race/ethnic relations is from a kind of Jewish point of view though I’m not Jewish. Hence I don’t have any faith in tribal peace. Massacres and even genocides are common and unavoidable. What matters is survival, not fairness since tribal fairness is not even possible nor is it necessary for survival.

[Muralos]

Please, please, please it’s just a U.S.-centric perspective; it makes sense in the U.S., and most Americans passionate about these issues have not been extending their frameworks beyond the issues faced in the country. If that reflects an ignorance about the world, this American apologizes... but it does appear to reflect how things are in the country.

Are you saying that your understanding of race/ethnic relations should apply to the U.S. and groups must be opposed to each other (if not hostile) in the ways you’ve described... and Americans are ignorant for thinking otherwise? Then, I’m afraid I can’t discuss with you much further on the subject. This kind of hostility is not what Americans were promised, and it’s pretty antithetical to what many Americans want.

(edit: and you are American, it appears, so I am doubly curious about what you think is going on in the country)

Well, what’s funny is that the Old World and its more complex social dynamics aren’t actually irrelevant to America. It’s just that they are usually ignored by mainstream social advocates on both sides. Ironically the far-right actually has better understanding of it compared to Social Justice advocates even though their understanding is seriously distorted since they believe in a Jewish conspiracy and certainly consider Ashkenazim to be stronger than white gentiles per capita.

Interesting take; yeah, it’s clear you write/think a lot in terms of these Old World dynamics. When reading some of your posts, I almost feel like I’m reading a world history textbook rather than a commentary on present-day issues...?! This discussion seems like an offshoot of the original discussion, though, so I’m going to stop here.