Cops Don't Intervene In An Assault

[Tambourine]

Information is often imperfect.
We work with what we have.

Have you thought about going into politics?

 

[Father Heathen]

Wrong there Heathen. I was saying that they do things right overwhelmingly.

I wasn't referring to you, but to any sour grapes some cops might have toward the public's negative reaction toward routine misconduct; i.e. pouting over being held to account.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you thought about going into politics?

Yes, very strong thoughts.
I avoid it like the plague.

 

[Nakosis]

Whenever a police officer kills somebody, people should hit the streets in loud celebration of all the good cops that didn't kill anybody - would that be the course of action that you believe would bring about a positive change in police officer's attitudes?

Thanks for the hyperbole.

 

[George-ananda]

I wasn't referring to you, but to any sour grapes some cops might have toward the public's negative reaction toward routine misconduct; i.e. pouting over being held to account.

And what I see is harmful is BLM and like thinkers dwelling on the negative and losing the big picture and causing more racial and police tension and dislike than is warranted by the big picture.

 

[Father Heathen]

And what I see is harmful is BLM and like thinkers dwelling on the negative and losing the big picture and causing more racial and police tension and dislike than is warranted by the big picture.

By "dwelling on the negative" you mean demanding change to a system that fosters corruption and misconduct? The onus is on those who perpetrate or facilitate injustice and dishonor.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Abolishing police department means disbanding a police department to create a new one. It allows a city to basically fire every single police officer without breaching their union contract and then re-hire whoever they want under different work condition without having to do so under the same condition than a normal negotiation contract with the police union. It's a union busting technique that allows radical changes in how police operate, Of course, the new police officer can form a new union afterward.

Then it should be called "restructuring" police, or something along those lines, rather than "abolishing."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And what I see is harmful is BLM and like thinkers dwelling on the negative and losing the big picture and causing more racial and police tension and dislike than is warranted by the big picture.

So exactly how much racial and police tension would you say IS justified? To what extent is drawing attention to systemic police injustice inappropriate or harmful to the cause of addressing systemic police injustice?

What "big picture" are you looking at, exactly? Is it the one where it's an issue which basically doesn't affect you, so it can just be dismissed wholesale? How many more black people have to be murdered in broad daylight by the very people who are supposed to protect and serve them, or how many more black arrests and incarcerations need to be made, before it transforms from "dwelling on the negative" to "maybe something that we should acknowledge and discuss?"

Because that discussion never seems to come, for some people. Almost as if a lot of people REALLY want to avoid having it, for some reason...

 

[Tambourine]

Then it should be called "restructuring" police, or something along those lines, rather than "abolishing."

The slogan is actually "defund the police", not "abolish the police", unless everybody changed it since the last time I checked.

 

[epronovost]

Then it should be called "restructuring" police, or something along those lines, rather than "abolishing."

Well no, it's not purely restructuring because it involves abolishing a structure. Sure, it's part of a grander scheme to restructure things, but the key maneuvre in this restructuration, for there are many ways to restructure, is abolishing the police department. I'm sorry, but to all of those who want to argue semantics, but you will have to exercise critical judgement listen to more than just slogans to understand the goal of activists.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well no, it's not purely restructuring because it involves abolishing a structure. Sure, it's part of a grander scheme to restructure things, but the key maneuvre in this restructuration, for there are many ways to restructure, is abolishing the police department. I'm sorry, but to all of those who want to argue semantics, but you will have to exercise critical judgement listen to more than just slogans to understand the goal of activists.

The fact is, most voters don't want to investigate things critically. I admitted I didn't know what "abolish" the police meant, and wanted to learn the basics, but most won't even go that far. If you want an idea to get public support, you have to make the name sound better to uninformed people. That's just the reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well no, it's not purely restructuring because it involves abolishing a structure. Sure, it's part of a grander scheme to restructure things, but the key maneuvre in this restructuration, for there are many ways to restructure, is abolishing the police department. I'm sorry, but to all of those who want to argue semantics, but you will have to exercise critical judgement listen to more than just slogans to understand the goal of activists.

One way to avoid semantic arguments is to eschew words
that tend to mislead even learned & reasonable people.
"Abolish" is more problematic than "defund", which has
been discussed at length to not mean eliminating the police.
In short...
If one uses a word whose definition must be explained,
then tis best to use a more generally understood word.

 

[Tambourine]

As far as I can tell, those hypothetical people who would totally support BLM if only they spelled things out in simpler and clearer terms seem to be just that, hypothetical.

 

[epronovost]

One way to avoid semantic arguments is to eschew words
that tend to mislead even learned & reasonable people.
"Abolish" is more problematic than "defund", which has
been discussed at length to not mean eliminating the police.
In short...
If one uses a word whose definition must be explained,
then tis best to use a more generally understood word.

One way to see it is for the sake of argument, BLM and other anti-police brutality and justice reform activists realise the wisdom of your words and decide to suddenly change the slogan from abolish the police to reform the police and suddently their base of support swell and carries them to power. Their first move will be of course to abolish the police department, how do you think the people who marched under the slogan "reform the police" will react? The same kind of idiot who didn't understand that abolishing the police was a maneuvre in larger scheme to change the police system will certainly not understand it when it will be voted in city councils. They will panic and protest in turn. They don't want no police they want a different police. Of course abolishing and disbanding a police department doesn't mean no more police either. By trying to pander to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to rise the conversation, you just created another social crisis.

 

[Revoltingest]

By trying to pander to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to rise the conversation, you just created another social crisis.

You over-estimate my influence.
Much as I'd love to create some social crises,
I can't even affect the few posters on RF.

 

[epronovost]

You over-estimate my influence.
Much as I'd love to create some social crises,
I can't even affect the few posters on RF.

That's quitter talk. I believe in you.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's quitter talk. I believe in you.

My fan base of one.
Woohoo!

 

[George-ananda]

So exactly how much racial and police tension would you say IS justified? To what extent is drawing attention to systemic police injustice inappropriate or harmful to the cause of addressing systemic police injustice?

What "big picture" are you looking at, exactly? Is it the one where it's an issue which basically doesn't affect you, so it can just be dismissed wholesale? How many more black people have to be murdered in broad daylight by the very people who are supposed to protect and serve them, or how many more black arrests and incarcerations need to be made, before it transforms from "dwelling on the negative" to "maybe something that we should acknowledge and discuss?"

Because that discussion never seems to come, for some people. Almost as if a lot of people REALLY want to avoid having it, for some reason...

BLM and the like need to also make it clear that they think the police are overwhelmingly good people and do their dangerous jobs well. We are not hearing that good will and thankfulness also.