Yeah, it’s weird how when black cops fuck up, they get exactly what they have coming to them, but when white cops fuck up, they just get suspended until a different black person gets killed by cops in a different town and the media moves on to cover that heinous murder. Can we talk about that, Tucker?
If you get stuck in a "discussion" with these morons, offer to remove the racial angle and point out it's still on-duty police turn the traffic stop of an American citizen into a murder, and don't they agree that's a problem?
Hey there just want to touch base. Worked two jobs yesterday so schedule was tight.
A bunch of that time I've spent thinking about this conversation so I'll get back to you soon. RN I don't really have the chunk of time to dedicate to thos conversation that I would like to, so let me just share some bullet points quickly so you know what's on my mind, and hopefully we can connect later.
1)This word, slogan.
2)My perspective on DtP came to me after talking to (somewhat local) community activists, who directed me to the original, abolitionist message of DtP. I was in the space where it seems, to me, your perspective sits, the one that other people cooped the message for, not of abolition but of reform. I aim to aplify the original message of the people on the street, those who chanted it first and what they meant by it, which is exactly what it says: defund the police, that's it. Not reform, not do x instead, just this: get rid of this militaristic force that is repressing and killing us.
Ok, didn't want the day to go by without reaching out. Hope you're well and that this snapshot gives you some sense of my thinking.
I am aware of three different definitions / descriptions of "Defund the Police", and I'll rank them from most commonly cited to least:
1) Divert some police funds to social services so they can take the lead on more police calls and that way reduce police brutality. That is the interpretation I have heard from AOC to every writer on Wonkette to that infernal cartoon with the dog-cop that I frequently post. This interpretation is so common, in fact, that if you even question what "defund" means, most DTP supporters will insist that obviously it's about funding social services better with police funds, and how could you possibly pretend you didn't get that from the name. This of course is a stupid plan because it doesn't actually address police misconduct, which is the actual problem to solve. All it does is change exactly which innocent black people get murdered by cops.
2) Abolish the police, period. It's a more honest idea than #1; it's also the one preferred by white people who fancy themselves revolutionaries and don't have a fucking clue. Black people generally don't want to get rid of police because, as bad as they are, white people taking the law into their own hands is invariably worse. Just ask Trayvon Martin or Ahmaud Arbery; actually you can't, because local white people decided to go after them. But they're currently outliers; most white people prefer to leave matters of neighborhood safety to the police. Get rid of the police and the George Zimmermans and Travis McMichaels become the norm. That said, I consider this more honest than #1, because proponents of #1 invariably oppose all funding increases to the police, without any effort to assess whether they're deserved or targeted. For example, the Squad refused to support increased funding to the Capitol Police after they'd saved their lives; if there's one police force in America that earned their keep, it's the Capitol Police.
3) Abolish the police and replace them with something else. Honestly, I can't think of anyone but you who's ever advocated for this and called it "defunding". If you mean re-form police forces but with new personnel, training, and guidelines, then that's just a type of reform. If you mean replace them with some other type of agency that is not recognizable as police, well, you're going to have to go into a lot more detail, and also explain how you're going to deal with the problems of #2.
Beyond which of the three models you subscribe to, there remains the problem that "Defund The Police" is like the worst slogan ever, and all it does is help the Republicans and reduce the chances of ever doing anything about our police problems. Anyone who's sincere about fixing our problems would ditch the slogan, because Jesus Christ, why actively dissuade people from joining your cause, unless you really don't give a shit about your cause. Look, you belong to a band, right? Do you pick a band name that might make people want to listen to you? If you put naming duties on me and I don't care about your band's success, I might call your band "Child Porn Creators" because I think it's funny. Or maybe because I like children, porn, and creators. You would rightly be appalled and say "no KB, you're totally not helping and I question your motives". Well that's how I view each and every person still defending "Defund The Police".
"I am not pretending to know what to replace it with, rather, I am calling for the tumor to be removed before it kills the body."
Oh my god. Could you at least try to put some thought into it? You don't want to repeat the same mistakes, that means having a plan that won't repeat them. Right?
"Lastly, your vitriol towards progressives and women progressives specifically is really disturbing."
My vitriol is towards politicians acting in bad faith, and in case you haven't noticed, the progressive heartthrobs I despise most are Fetterman and Bernie: the former for being a Travis McMichael wannabe who has done nothing but lie about nearly murdering a Black man, the latter for being a bad faith politician who incidentally shows nothing but contempt for women. Yeah I take a dim view of the Squad and I call them out on their shit, but you know, maybe you should too.
If you're assessing me at all honestly, you'll also notice that nobody defends Clinton, Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, or Underwood more ardently than I do. That's because they're all dedicated public servants who have done as well as any man in their position -- and backwards and in high heels no less -- and I want more of them. What I want are fewer politicians who think their job is to be next-level Twitter personalities.
"Oh my god. Could you at least try to put some thought into it? You don't want to repeat the same mistakes, that means having a plan that won't repeat them. Right"
An excellent example of telling a progressive woman they don't know their own mind. Just because I haven't shared my thoughts with you, you presume they dont exist at all. When in actuality, my thoughts are not ready for prime time- undergoing research, self education and creation. I'm aware that these are not simple answers. But you simply imply I'm thoughtl-ess.
You're the one who said you didn't know what to replace the police with, and you didn't even hint at having ideas that were as yet half-formed. Now that I know you're working on ideas, fair enough. But come on, I can only go off of what you choose to share.
And I'd tell a progressive MAN he was a fool for wanting to get rid of the police while having no idea what to replace them with.
protests become violent it's often because Proud Boys and other rightwing agitator types show up.
they aren't defending white cops this time, so why would they show up, is my take on that one
In a far, far better place, I suspect.
Yeah, it’s weird how when black cops fuck up, they get exactly what they have coming to them, but when white cops fuck up, they just get suspended until a different black person gets killed by cops in a different town and the media moves on to cover that heinous murder. Can we talk about that, Tucker?
Warning: if you are not a fan of fivehead pictures combined with “shrinky face” syndrome you have been warned.
Bobbing for a few bad apples is hard
If you get stuck in a "discussion" with these morons, offer to remove the racial angle and point out it's still on-duty police turn the traffic stop of an American citizen into a murder, and don't they agree that's a problem?
Amen
I was mistaken to say he was "fired": Lester Holt tonight described him as being "on administrative leave"
Fivehead libelz!
Kinda makes my point then. He should be fired.
Yes, you were right and I was wrong
Hey there just want to touch base. Worked two jobs yesterday so schedule was tight.
A bunch of that time I've spent thinking about this conversation so I'll get back to you soon. RN I don't really have the chunk of time to dedicate to thos conversation that I would like to, so let me just share some bullet points quickly so you know what's on my mind, and hopefully we can connect later.
1)This word, slogan.
2)My perspective on DtP came to me after talking to (somewhat local) community activists, who directed me to the original, abolitionist message of DtP. I was in the space where it seems, to me, your perspective sits, the one that other people cooped the message for, not of abolition but of reform. I aim to aplify the original message of the people on the street, those who chanted it first and what they meant by it, which is exactly what it says: defund the police, that's it. Not reform, not do x instead, just this: get rid of this militaristic force that is repressing and killing us.
Ok, didn't want the day to go by without reaching out. Hope you're well and that this snapshot gives you some sense of my thinking.
I am aware of three different definitions / descriptions of "Defund the Police", and I'll rank them from most commonly cited to least:
1) Divert some police funds to social services so they can take the lead on more police calls and that way reduce police brutality. That is the interpretation I have heard from AOC to every writer on Wonkette to that infernal cartoon with the dog-cop that I frequently post. This interpretation is so common, in fact, that if you even question what "defund" means, most DTP supporters will insist that obviously it's about funding social services better with police funds, and how could you possibly pretend you didn't get that from the name. This of course is a stupid plan because it doesn't actually address police misconduct, which is the actual problem to solve. All it does is change exactly which innocent black people get murdered by cops.
2) Abolish the police, period. It's a more honest idea than #1; it's also the one preferred by white people who fancy themselves revolutionaries and don't have a fucking clue. Black people generally don't want to get rid of police because, as bad as they are, white people taking the law into their own hands is invariably worse. Just ask Trayvon Martin or Ahmaud Arbery; actually you can't, because local white people decided to go after them. But they're currently outliers; most white people prefer to leave matters of neighborhood safety to the police. Get rid of the police and the George Zimmermans and Travis McMichaels become the norm. That said, I consider this more honest than #1, because proponents of #1 invariably oppose all funding increases to the police, without any effort to assess whether they're deserved or targeted. For example, the Squad refused to support increased funding to the Capitol Police after they'd saved their lives; if there's one police force in America that earned their keep, it's the Capitol Police.
3) Abolish the police and replace them with something else. Honestly, I can't think of anyone but you who's ever advocated for this and called it "defunding". If you mean re-form police forces but with new personnel, training, and guidelines, then that's just a type of reform. If you mean replace them with some other type of agency that is not recognizable as police, well, you're going to have to go into a lot more detail, and also explain how you're going to deal with the problems of #2.
Beyond which of the three models you subscribe to, there remains the problem that "Defund The Police" is like the worst slogan ever, and all it does is help the Republicans and reduce the chances of ever doing anything about our police problems. Anyone who's sincere about fixing our problems would ditch the slogan, because Jesus Christ, why actively dissuade people from joining your cause, unless you really don't give a shit about your cause. Look, you belong to a band, right? Do you pick a band name that might make people want to listen to you? If you put naming duties on me and I don't care about your band's success, I might call your band "Child Porn Creators" because I think it's funny. Or maybe because I like children, porn, and creators. You would rightly be appalled and say "no KB, you're totally not helping and I question your motives". Well that's how I view each and every person still defending "Defund The Police".
"I am not pretending to know what to replace it with, rather, I am calling for the tumor to be removed before it kills the body."
Oh my god. Could you at least try to put some thought into it? You don't want to repeat the same mistakes, that means having a plan that won't repeat them. Right?
"Lastly, your vitriol towards progressives and women progressives specifically is really disturbing."
My vitriol is towards politicians acting in bad faith, and in case you haven't noticed, the progressive heartthrobs I despise most are Fetterman and Bernie: the former for being a Travis McMichael wannabe who has done nothing but lie about nearly murdering a Black man, the latter for being a bad faith politician who incidentally shows nothing but contempt for women. Yeah I take a dim view of the Squad and I call them out on their shit, but you know, maybe you should too.
If you're assessing me at all honestly, you'll also notice that nobody defends Clinton, Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, or Underwood more ardently than I do. That's because they're all dedicated public servants who have done as well as any man in their position -- and backwards and in high heels no less -- and I want more of them. What I want are fewer politicians who think their job is to be next-level Twitter personalities.
"Oh my god. Could you at least try to put some thought into it? You don't want to repeat the same mistakes, that means having a plan that won't repeat them. Right"
An excellent example of telling a progressive woman they don't know their own mind. Just because I haven't shared my thoughts with you, you presume they dont exist at all. When in actuality, my thoughts are not ready for prime time- undergoing research, self education and creation. I'm aware that these are not simple answers. But you simply imply I'm thoughtl-ess.
You're the one who said you didn't know what to replace the police with, and you didn't even hint at having ideas that were as yet half-formed. Now that I know you're working on ideas, fair enough. But come on, I can only go off of what you choose to share.
And I'd tell a progressive MAN he was a fool for wanting to get rid of the police while having no idea what to replace them with.