While it's true that SER's article doesn't mention DTP, several commenters do, and SER is a fan of DTP even though it's more feckless than the plans he's criticizing, so I thought I'd go there.
colorado is actually doing what the rest of the country should do. every cop has a body camera, footage is released immediately after an incident of force. cops can be sued, other cops who stand by and watch also get in trouble. this isn't really a federal issue anyway, since the laws cops are breaking are mostly state laws. it's also hard for cities to do much since the mayor and the city police are so intertwined, but governors can actually do something. hopefully at least all the blue states will follow colorado's lead.
Except that SER is complaining that the Democrats accepted something that the Republicans agreed to. He's not complaining about the part where Republicans backed out later - which wasn't entirely surprising - but about the Democrats agreeing to the best agreement available at the time.
I mean, it helps if you represent DTP accurately, such as recognizing that it's a protest slogan and not a full-fledged policy proposal. Details are going to differ, especially once politicians who are beholden to police unions try to offer their own spin. Any random article isn't going to encapsulate what the goals of protestors are.
DTF (or the more accurate slogan that predated it, Abolish the Police), at least to me, has always been about getting rid of the police force entirely, and building a new policing force from the ground up that doesn't have racism, brutality, and immunity built into its DNA. It stems from the idea that it's lunacy to keep paying for a violent, racist, and frankly ineffectively police force, when we could just build a public security force that ISN'T all of those things and pay for that instead.
It's also about acknowledging that it's literally impossible to reform the police, as the past 50+ years have shown.
Part of that discussion has been acknowledging there are specific situations where sending the police in is counterproductive and often results in escalation, and suggesting that social workers could play a more effective role in those cases. I kind of see you blowing that particular part of the discussion out of proportion whenever this comes up, and while I don't think you're doing so maliciously, it might be helpful to be more mindful of the full scope of what's actually being proposed?
I’m also not a proponent of defund the police as a slogan. My point has always been that the police oppose even basic reforms, so it’s not like they would be receptive to anything if it was marketed better.
But generally, people who argue about the slogan do so to shift accountability for Democratic political losses rather than address actual police violence.
The “best-case” scenario was that the GOP would agree to a watered-down reform that did nothing to address actual issues and when more Black people wound up hashtags, Republicans could just shrug and say we tried.
McConnell for instance makes a stand at never getting GOP’s hands dirty on something that they can’t sell to their constituents. It’s why they are a full NO on voting rights. (Democrats assume the GOP will negotiate like they do and accept even some concessions if they get most of what they want. The GOP refuses.)
There’s also the reality that the negotiations were a sham from the start designed to distract Democrats from anything effective.
Let's start with Dems. They fail every time in negotiating these GQPers. They start where they want to end up at, instead of going for the GOLD then negotiate where they want to be.By starting where you want to be at the end, the other side has nothing to lose but put demands out there to see if you how you juggle yourself down. Now Dems got very little of what that initially wanted in the first place.I remember how President Obama's team negotiated themselves out of Public Option, and other Democratic things during Affordable Care Act trying to get conservative Dems and Republicans to buy into ACA. Republicans, not a one voted for it yet Dems allowed their poison pill amendments to stay in. President Obama signed ACA into law May 2010.During the 2010 congressional election Republicans ran a national campaign against Obama/all the Dems/ACA poison pills they put in, and they won the US House and many state legislatures/Governors across the country.So no, Dems don't know how to negotiate. Just watch them today fumbling all over themselves.
See, this is what it's always like arguing bout DTP: when someone points out the flaws in DTP (most notably how limited its scope is), its supporters insist that DTP means something completely different. It's a perpetual game of Calvinball.
Credit to you that you at least acknowledge that racist police are the big problem to solve. Most DTP fans think that the police are victims more than the root of the problem; it's the equivalent of ECONOMIC ANXIETY but applied to abuse of power. Like consider this cartoon that DTP fans always upvote: that cop isn't a brutal asshole, if we make his life easier he can get back to Keeping The Police like he's been trying to do all along.
Note that I didn't create this cartoon to lampoon DTP; this is what they actually believe. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Oh Jesus, not this again. Look, single payer made it to the floor in 2009; Republicans shot it down, but did the presence of single payer suddenly make them supporters of the public option? Of course not. So, did the possibility of a public option make Republicans support an ACA without a public option? Of course not.
Face it, you have even less of a handle on how negotiation works than the Democrats do.
I mean, fucked if I know why "overworked" is being used as the selling point in that strip, but If I had to take a stab at it I'd say it might be because people get really really REALLY mad when you say something is racist.
Also, again: it's a protest slogan, that was watered down from something much more direct (ABOLISH the police). Different groups of people have run with that idea in different directions. It's inherently going to be difficult to nail down, and the explanations that garner the most visibility and/or respect from traditional media are liable to skew away from more radical takes like "enough is enough, stop paying these fucking cops, yes we mean all of them." (Which, to be clear, is the take I agree with, and is what drove people to march last year.)
"I mean, fucked if I know why "overworked" is being used as the selling point in that strip, but If I had to take a stab at it I'd say it might be because people get really really REALLY mad when you say something is racist."
My deepest conviction on it: people started chanting "Defund The Police", found themselves with an unhelpful slogan, and rather than retire it they tried to make like it was a really fantastic slogan for a really fantastic idea. Thus they reverse engineered themselves into bad policy.
See, I don't even disagree with the idea of letting social services handle cases they are well-suited to; what I object to is making like that is central to how to fix our police problems, without actually trying to fix the police themselves.
Why do we keep doing this shit!?! It should've been obvious by the time the Supreme Court gave us Shrub that RsDON'T DO GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS!!! Stop this shit already, I can't fucking read about it anymore, it makes me insane.
While it's true that SER's article doesn't mention DTP, several commenters do, and SER is a fan of DTP even though it's more feckless than the plans he's criticizing, so I thought I'd go there.
colorado is actually doing what the rest of the country should do. every cop has a body camera, footage is released immediately after an incident of force. cops can be sued, other cops who stand by and watch also get in trouble. this isn't really a federal issue anyway, since the laws cops are breaking are mostly state laws. it's also hard for cities to do much since the mayor and the city police are so intertwined, but governors can actually do something. hopefully at least all the blue states will follow colorado's lead.
I've come to the conclusion that people who never miss a chance to denounce the Democrats are the reason we don't hold a 70-30 majority.
Except that SER is complaining that the Democrats accepted something that the Republicans agreed to. He's not complaining about the part where Republicans backed out later - which wasn't entirely surprising - but about the Democrats agreeing to the best agreement available at the time.
I mean, it helps if you represent DTP accurately, such as recognizing that it's a protest slogan and not a full-fledged policy proposal. Details are going to differ, especially once politicians who are beholden to police unions try to offer their own spin. Any random article isn't going to encapsulate what the goals of protestors are.
DTF (or the more accurate slogan that predated it, Abolish the Police), at least to me, has always been about getting rid of the police force entirely, and building a new policing force from the ground up that doesn't have racism, brutality, and immunity built into its DNA. It stems from the idea that it's lunacy to keep paying for a violent, racist, and frankly ineffectively police force, when we could just build a public security force that ISN'T all of those things and pay for that instead.
It's also about acknowledging that it's literally impossible to reform the police, as the past 50+ years have shown.
Part of that discussion has been acknowledging there are specific situations where sending the police in is counterproductive and often results in escalation, and suggesting that social workers could play a more effective role in those cases. I kind of see you blowing that particular part of the discussion out of proportion whenever this comes up, and while I don't think you're doing so maliciously, it might be helpful to be more mindful of the full scope of what's actually being proposed?
I’m also not a proponent of defund the police as a slogan. My point has always been that the police oppose even basic reforms, so it’s not like they would be receptive to anything if it was marketed better.
But generally, people who argue about the slogan do so to shift accountability for Democratic political losses rather than address actual police violence.
The “best-case” scenario was that the GOP would agree to a watered-down reform that did nothing to address actual issues and when more Black people wound up hashtags, Republicans could just shrug and say we tried.
McConnell for instance makes a stand at never getting GOP’s hands dirty on something that they can’t sell to their constituents. It’s why they are a full NO on voting rights. (Democrats assume the GOP will negotiate like they do and accept even some concessions if they get most of what they want. The GOP refuses.)
There’s also the reality that the negotiations were a sham from the start designed to distract Democrats from anything effective.
Let's start with Dems. They fail every time in negotiating these GQPers. They start where they want to end up at, instead of going for the GOLD then negotiate where they want to be.By starting where you want to be at the end, the other side has nothing to lose but put demands out there to see if you how you juggle yourself down. Now Dems got very little of what that initially wanted in the first place.I remember how President Obama's team negotiated themselves out of Public Option, and other Democratic things during Affordable Care Act trying to get conservative Dems and Republicans to buy into ACA. Republicans, not a one voted for it yet Dems allowed their poison pill amendments to stay in. President Obama signed ACA into law May 2010.During the 2010 congressional election Republicans ran a national campaign against Obama/all the Dems/ACA poison pills they put in, and they won the US House and many state legislatures/Governors across the country.So no, Dems don't know how to negotiate. Just watch them today fumbling all over themselves.
See, this is what it's always like arguing bout DTP: when someone points out the flaws in DTP (most notably how limited its scope is), its supporters insist that DTP means something completely different. It's a perpetual game of Calvinball.
Credit to you that you at least acknowledge that racist police are the big problem to solve. Most DTP fans think that the police are victims more than the root of the problem; it's the equivalent of ECONOMIC ANXIETY but applied to abuse of power. Like consider this cartoon that DTP fans always upvote: that cop isn't a brutal asshole, if we make his life easier he can get back to Keeping The Police like he's been trying to do all along.
Note that I didn't create this cartoon to lampoon DTP; this is what they actually believe. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Oh Jesus, not this again. Look, single payer made it to the floor in 2009; Republicans shot it down, but did the presence of single payer suddenly make them supporters of the public option? Of course not. So, did the possibility of a public option make Republicans support an ACA without a public option? Of course not.
Face it, you have even less of a handle on how negotiation works than the Democrats do.
Boy, I sure couldn't see that coming from good old Tim Fucking Scott! There are certain kinds of hypocrites that are worse than others.
I mean, fucked if I know why "overworked" is being used as the selling point in that strip, but If I had to take a stab at it I'd say it might be because people get really really REALLY mad when you say something is racist.
Also, again: it's a protest slogan, that was watered down from something much more direct (ABOLISH the police). Different groups of people have run with that idea in different directions. It's inherently going to be difficult to nail down, and the explanations that garner the most visibility and/or respect from traditional media are liable to skew away from more radical takes like "enough is enough, stop paying these fucking cops, yes we mean all of them." (Which, to be clear, is the take I agree with, and is what drove people to march last year.)
"I mean, fucked if I know why "overworked" is being used as the selling point in that strip, but If I had to take a stab at it I'd say it might be because people get really really REALLY mad when you say something is racist."
My deepest conviction on it: people started chanting "Defund The Police", found themselves with an unhelpful slogan, and rather than retire it they tried to make like it was a really fantastic slogan for a really fantastic idea. Thus they reverse engineered themselves into bad policy.
See, I don't even disagree with the idea of letting social services handle cases they are well-suited to; what I object to is making like that is central to how to fix our police problems, without actually trying to fix the police themselves.
If it weren’t for bad faith They wouldn’t have no faith at all.
Why do we keep doing this shit!?! It should've been obvious by the time the Supreme Court gave us Shrub that RsDON'T DO GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS!!! Stop this shit already, I can't fucking read about it anymore, it makes me insane.
How many lumps? Nine mm lumps? 12 gauge lumps?