Okay, you're making the claim that most bad police outcomes start with issues that would be better addressed by social services. Why don't you start by backing that up with statistics or something other than your fervent belief that it is so.
But even if we send social services out to handle social services calls, all that means is that the police will be freed up to crack a different set of skulls. If we should NOT expect that, I'd like to know why not.
"And try to see how your reply sounds like "I don't want improvement if it isn't perfect!""
No, that's just you deliberately misreading me so that you don't actually have to examine your own stances critically. You should be vetting your stances without any outside input, but here we are.
Absolutes are always wrong (especially this one!)Every anarchist would suggest no law enforcement, the idea that you can't trust people with power is kinda our shtick.
My arguments go like this (Because anarchists talk about their politics like vegans about their diet):
1. Power can be abused. (And this is bad.)1.1. People suck at not abusing power (in the long term).1.2. People suck at determining who is going to abuse power.2. Power structures are like crystals: They grow bigger and bigger until they crush everything or shatter. (Both are bad.)2.1 Harm scales with power structure size faster than linearly.2.1.1. Conclusion: We should shatter them as often as possible, accepting the limited short term harm in exchange for never getting crushed by massive crystals (dictatorships, fascism, etc.)
"Don’t make us banhammer the cartoon"Seriously?The last time I heard that way of thinking was when I was in elementary school, I think it was a stereotypical villain in a cartoon saying it, because it is such a stereo-typically villainous thing to say.
I know you're upset, and for good reason, but you're better than this.
By shaving off the other tasks, we reduce their claims to being necessary. Once we've reduced them to a single task we can then either set up a specialized department to take over that task too, or just automate it away.
Leave them traffic stops as last task for example, they seem to enjoy those. That way they won't resist because they get to keep doing the fun and profitable parts. Once that is all they are doing, put up traffic cameras and write tickets remotely. Presto, problem solved, police abolished. No fresh apples ruined by putting them in barrels of rotten apples, just clean new barrels for all sorts of fruit (without always resorting to apples).
The thing is: We need fruit, but we don't need apples specifically. The apples are poisoned with their rot, we need to step away from using apples for a while.
I guess you're technically right that getting rid of the police gets rid of police brutality. But you are very vague on what you would replace them with that would be any better, to deal with matters that are not resolvable via social services. A man beating his wife might benefit from counseling in the long term, but in the moment, protecting the woman is a job for the police.
The reason I am vague is because this is not something that can be solved with a single idea I thought about for 5 seconds, it needs to be a group effort based on a wide consensus amongst the people of the specific society with this issue. I'm not American so I don't get a vote in how exactly the new fruit barrels are organised and what their tasks are. All I can do is give tips and help keep the conversation going.
That scenario requires someone with permission to use violence, but that doesn't have to be an apple, and it most certainly doesn't have to be an apple from a rotten barrel.
As an example of a group that is allowed to commit violence (in their case only against property) we have firemen. They have a violence mandate (within specific limits) and yet they are not police. Something similar can be set up for domestic violence situations. But it will be in a clean barrel (= culture, infrastructure, and organisational structure) and no apples (=cops) should be allowed to apply, because the risk of a rotten apple is too great.
The apples can take one of the many jobs that don't give them power. Baker, garbageman, electrician, programmer, to name but a few of the many many options that don't include asymmetrical power relationships.
Forgive my apparent cartoon villainy. I was just annoyed with the "I will continue belaboring a point no matter how often we ask you to stop." We do supposedly have rules about "continuing personal disagreements from one thread to another, needling another reader every time they make a comment " But too often the comments here can get toxic at best or just aggressively tedious. Maybe the rules are written too vaguely and people assume they're engaging in friendly banter. But making your point once, with a minimum of snideness, and moving on could make things more pleasant for everyone.
I object. I believe we need more positive interactions between police and the outstanding citizens that we all know and love. Yes the police need to demilitarize, yes they need to weed out the "few bad apples", yes much reform is needed. They also aren't equipped to handle every first responder 911 call that they are dispatched to. Imagine being in your early 20's and sent to deal with someone on a psychotic break with a pistol and handcuffs. I guess I'm just trying to say that it's easy to vilify all cops rather than reach out an olive branch and hope we can all recognize each other as neighbors.
I missed where someone "called out" Stephen. I saw criticism from a reader who readily acknowledged they hadn't watched the video, and based their objections primarily on the headline, which they also acknowledge was over the top. Like Wonkette headlines often are.
OK, I'm going to step in, way too late, and ask you to cut this crap out. You're calling Stephen a literal abuser here because he made a comment that was more or less equal to rolling his eyes and saying "oh, that cartoon again."
Get some perspective, please.
And specifically, as Stephen noted in another reply, the policy is not "don't piss us off" but item #7, asking people to please not keep hammering away at an argument and dredging up old disputes from previous threads.
— Dok Zoom, Yr Friendly Neighborhood Comments Moderator
Yeah, I am as guilty of that as the next guy, it is very hard not to carry your frustration with you to the next comment.The lack of body language online really messes with my sense of proportionality :shrug:
I'm just seeing this now so maybe this will be considered "hammering away" but I didn't call Stephen a literal abuser. I said that he was using abuser framing and he did.
"Don’t make us banhammer the cartoon."
Read that shit.
Does Wonkette want to be the kind of site that bans political cartoons about police violence just because it sends a writer into his feelings?
Wonkette's commenter guidelines could probably use an update where they spell out a list of who and what posters aren't allowed to criticize.
there's a different between "Cops don't do anything" (your headline and video) and "there's real problems with policing."
Cops don’t do anything wasn’t the actual headline. The headline was more in line with “there are real problems with policing,” the biggest perhaps is the police don’t do what people assume they do.
There’s a problem when the racism, brutality, and abuse exist in greater numbers than the positive outcomes that most people want from law enforcement.
The corruption is that the police minimize the racism, brutality , and abuse (good luck finding cops who even believe they exist) and over sell the heroics
Okay, you're making the claim that most bad police outcomes start with issues that would be better addressed by social services. Why don't you start by backing that up with statistics or something other than your fervent belief that it is so.
But even if we send social services out to handle social services calls, all that means is that the police will be freed up to crack a different set of skulls. If we should NOT expect that, I'd like to know why not.
"And try to see how your reply sounds like "I don't want improvement if it isn't perfect!""
No, that's just you deliberately misreading me so that you don't actually have to examine your own stances critically. You should be vetting your stances without any outside input, but here we are.
Absolutes are always wrong (especially this one!)Every anarchist would suggest no law enforcement, the idea that you can't trust people with power is kinda our shtick.
My arguments go like this (Because anarchists talk about their politics like vegans about their diet):
1. Power can be abused. (And this is bad.)1.1. People suck at not abusing power (in the long term).1.2. People suck at determining who is going to abuse power.2. Power structures are like crystals: They grow bigger and bigger until they crush everything or shatter. (Both are bad.)2.1 Harm scales with power structure size faster than linearly.2.1.1. Conclusion: We should shatter them as often as possible, accepting the limited short term harm in exchange for never getting crushed by massive crystals (dictatorships, fascism, etc.)
I think Stephen means that in addition to people, money, and tech; there are other factors like culture and organisational structure.
"Don’t make us banhammer the cartoon"Seriously?The last time I heard that way of thinking was when I was in elementary school, I think it was a stereotypical villain in a cartoon saying it, because it is such a stereo-typically villainous thing to say.
I know you're upset, and for good reason, but you're better than this.
By shaving off the other tasks, we reduce their claims to being necessary. Once we've reduced them to a single task we can then either set up a specialized department to take over that task too, or just automate it away.
Leave them traffic stops as last task for example, they seem to enjoy those. That way they won't resist because they get to keep doing the fun and profitable parts. Once that is all they are doing, put up traffic cameras and write tickets remotely. Presto, problem solved, police abolished. No fresh apples ruined by putting them in barrels of rotten apples, just clean new barrels for all sorts of fruit (without always resorting to apples).
The thing is: We need fruit, but we don't need apples specifically. The apples are poisoned with their rot, we need to step away from using apples for a while.
I guess you're technically right that getting rid of the police gets rid of police brutality. But you are very vague on what you would replace them with that would be any better, to deal with matters that are not resolvable via social services. A man beating his wife might benefit from counseling in the long term, but in the moment, protecting the woman is a job for the police.
The reason I am vague is because this is not something that can be solved with a single idea I thought about for 5 seconds, it needs to be a group effort based on a wide consensus amongst the people of the specific society with this issue. I'm not American so I don't get a vote in how exactly the new fruit barrels are organised and what their tasks are. All I can do is give tips and help keep the conversation going.
That scenario requires someone with permission to use violence, but that doesn't have to be an apple, and it most certainly doesn't have to be an apple from a rotten barrel.
As an example of a group that is allowed to commit violence (in their case only against property) we have firemen. They have a violence mandate (within specific limits) and yet they are not police. Something similar can be set up for domestic violence situations. But it will be in a clean barrel (= culture, infrastructure, and organisational structure) and no apples (=cops) should be allowed to apply, because the risk of a rotten apple is too great.
The apples can take one of the many jobs that don't give them power. Baker, garbageman, electrician, programmer, to name but a few of the many many options that don't include asymmetrical power relationships.
Forgive my apparent cartoon villainy. I was just annoyed with the "I will continue belaboring a point no matter how often we ask you to stop." We do supposedly have rules about "continuing personal disagreements from one thread to another, needling another reader every time they make a comment " But too often the comments here can get toxic at best or just aggressively tedious. Maybe the rules are written too vaguely and people assume they're engaging in friendly banter. But making your point once, with a minimum of snideness, and moving on could make things more pleasant for everyone.
I object. I believe we need more positive interactions between police and the outstanding citizens that we all know and love. Yes the police need to demilitarize, yes they need to weed out the "few bad apples", yes much reform is needed. They also aren't equipped to handle every first responder 911 call that they are dispatched to. Imagine being in your early 20's and sent to deal with someone on a psychotic break with a pistol and handcuffs. I guess I'm just trying to say that it's easy to vilify all cops rather than reach out an olive branch and hope we can all recognize each other as neighbors.
I missed where someone "called out" Stephen. I saw criticism from a reader who readily acknowledged they hadn't watched the video, and based their objections primarily on the headline, which they also acknowledge was over the top. Like Wonkette headlines often are.
OK, I'm going to step in, way too late, and ask you to cut this crap out. You're calling Stephen a literal abuser here because he made a comment that was more or less equal to rolling his eyes and saying "oh, that cartoon again."
Get some perspective, please.
And specifically, as Stephen noted in another reply, the policy is not "don't piss us off" but item #7, asking people to please not keep hammering away at an argument and dredging up old disputes from previous threads.
— Dok Zoom, Yr Friendly Neighborhood Comments Moderator
Already forgiven and forgotten :)
Yeah, I am as guilty of that as the next guy, it is very hard not to carry your frustration with you to the next comment.The lack of body language online really messes with my sense of proportionality :shrug:
I'm just seeing this now so maybe this will be considered "hammering away" but I didn't call Stephen a literal abuser. I said that he was using abuser framing and he did.
"Don’t make us banhammer the cartoon."
Read that shit.
Does Wonkette want to be the kind of site that bans political cartoons about police violence just because it sends a writer into his feelings?
Wonkette's commenter guidelines could probably use an update where they spell out a list of who and what posters aren't allowed to criticize.
Yeah, I mean, that's my job.
there's a different between "Cops don't do anything" (your headline and video) and "there's real problems with policing."
Cops don’t do anything wasn’t the actual headline. The headline was more in line with “there are real problems with policing,” the biggest perhaps is the police don’t do what people assume they do.
There’s a problem when the racism, brutality, and abuse exist in greater numbers than the positive outcomes that most people want from law enforcement.
The corruption is that the police minimize the racism, brutality , and abuse (good luck finding cops who even believe they exist) and over sell the heroics
weregild?