You must log in or register to comment.
Slavery is not a necessity. Dealing with people too dangerous to participate in society is a necessity.
Shooting innocent civilians in the face is not a necessity.
Police and prisons are not a necessity for dealing with dangerous people. Because police are the dangerous people.
Okay, so what do you do with a John Wayne Gacy, or a Timothy McVeigh?
You make an extremely abstract and general statement. Then you give very specific cases as to why your abstraction is correct, with absolutely nothing connecting the abstraction to the specific. You take a huge system of oppression like the prison industrial complex, all of the horror and injustice that it creates, and then justify its existence because of two specific cases. Interesting how both those cases were white men when BIPOC people are much more likely to be victimized by police and carcerial punishment.
Those cases to point to a very thin segment of the population, so it too is an abstraction. No discussion about if society somehow produces killers, like for instance school shooters in the USA.
Even though there are problems with your argument, I admit there are problems with the demand “abolish police and prisons”. Because often there isnt discussion as to how exactly we can practically do it. Like what if we could abolish 50% of police and prisons, then more, then more? The word “abolish” does have many of the problems that maximal and radical demands often have. But then, you need to consider why people are totally uncompromising on their commitment to abolition.
The abolitionists before and during the civil war were a very slim minority of people, and they could not conceive of how slavery would actually end. Lincoln and the North did not want to end slavery, they wanted to preserve the union. It wasnt until the slaves freed themselves and went over to the northern armies to heroically fight for their freedom, that the process of abolishing slavery was inevitable and irreversible.
But then prison labor was used to subsidize parts of the economy where paying free workers was still unprofitable. As such, the tradition continues to this day.
So if you would like to argue that institutionalized state-slavery is justified because of the presence of a few serial killers, then it shows how little will you have to even think about it, and that you would rather just not think about the suffering of all the people victimized by the police and prison.
And that is your right, to stay ignorant on this issue. I’m sure there are many domains in which you are exceedingly knowledgeable. But many people are and have been directly and severely harmed by the prison industrial complex and the police, and when you mak such substanceless, abstract arguments, then it appears to those people you are on the side of the system that victimizes and exploits.
You might ask yourself which group you have more in common with. You dont have to want to free serial killers, you just have to want to free people who deserve to be free. Instead of ignorance, ask yourself, could this system that affects millions of people, more than anyone else in the world, often by orders of magnitude, could this system be made more just? Could the number of people incarcerated be decreased? And then either get to work making that happen, or get out of the damn way
That was an awful lot to say to not answer a simple question.
Sorry i posted an edit with a link. I just can’t stand people using fallacies to invalidate other people’s arguments. A logical fallacy is an example of where to begin to look for logical errors or assumptions in an argument, it doesn’t mean that if you can fit parts of an opponent’s argument into one of the categories in this list that it is insta-invalid. Doing this shows a compulsion to win rather than understand, and we are talking about a situation where maybe 12000 people have already died. Nobody wins, but further losses might yet be avoided.
It was a long comment telling you to get serious. If youre not serious then why should anybody who does know, even bother with you, if youre making no effort to appear as somebody who actually cares about anything that actually matters
The other poster said police and prisons are not necessary. I think it is an entirely valid question to ask what they propose be done about serial murderers, rapists, child molesters, and the like.
when was the last time the police actually protected someone from harm? they play candy crush while waiting for children to get mowed down. burglar empties your house? sorry, not way to figure that out. rape victim? yeah yeah we’ll put your rape kit somewhere we won’t even remember. ice thugs asking for the door dash lady in your house? we’ll just lie and say you have to give her up.
but wait, you’re lawfully exercising your first amendment? nah nah we better make this a war zone.
the job of the police is to protect capital, not you.
Police find the perpetrator in thousands of murders and rapes a year. Is that not worthwhile to you?
Believe me, I am fully aware of the problems with the justice system. It needs vast improvement, but that doesn’t mean it does not serve a necessary service.
Okay, so hypothetically you’re presented with a person too dangerous to participate in society. What are you going to do at the time, call the police and wait 40 minutes?
You can already reduce many incidents from happening in the first place by fixing the material and sociological causes.
You and your community look-out for and defend each other at the time, rather than hoping an officer will come and do so after the fact. How to deal with the person is contextual and up to the communities consensus. I personally would say redeem those you can, kill those you can’t.
How to deal with the person is contextual and up to the communities consensus
Lynchings. What you are describing are lynchings.
I personally would say redeem those you can, kill those you can’t.
So you need somewhere to “redeem” these people. That is called a prison or a mental institution. You need people to capture and hold these people to be redeemed. Those are called police. You need a system to determine who can’t be redeemed in a way that is fair and thorough. That is called a justice system. The irredeemable are killed in things called executions.
I agree the system we have is bad, but solutions rapidly turn into reinventing the wheel.
If you’d describe those as lynchings, what would you describe what happened to George Floyd? Or Breonna Taylor? Our cops lynch people all the time, but have the position of authority to avoid all consequences. How do you ensure that the people who are allowed to use guns on people are “fair and thorough”?
I would describe those as murder, not collective community vigilantism.
Personally I would take guns away from most police. They would have to serve on the force for 4 years with no use of force complaints and then they would be allowed to carry a 6 shot revolver if necessary for their job. Ideally only calm, experienced officers who have earned public trust through years of practice in deescalation would carry and they would only be called in when deadly force is absolutely necessary to save lives.
Even with rules that describe appropriate behavior for law enforcement, we still run into issues. A lack of guns doesn’t stop what happened to George Floyd, and maintaining accountability against cops when they’re the only ones legally allowed to use violence is difficult. It’s a dangerous power dynamic, and I’m not convinced there’s a real answer. Most crime is the result of poverty, so I personally think that the best direction to go is a heavy focus on addressing the roots of poverty. Basic income is one option that can help, perhaps rent control and better public infrastructure/transportation. I’m for the idea of tax-funded housing you can apply for at no cost to you. At least, as far as what we can do on a practical level within our own system, as much as I would prefer more radical solutions.
The unfortunate reality is that someone is going to have a monopoly on violence and it’s better to have a choice in who. Accountability is tough but possible. Body cameras and the ubiquity of smart phones has made it a lot easier to prove what really happened. These camera records need to be stored and processed by an independent federal agency though. Qualified immunity obviously needs to be dramatically curtailed. Cops should have to live in the neighborhood they patrol whenever possible. Eliminating anyone with the slightest hint of white supremacist leanings from candidacy. There are definitely things that can be done to cutrail the potential abuses of power.
No, it’s not and you’re attempt to frame it using negative connotations is obvious. What you are actually trying to say is vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. But without law, it could also not be as such. You can host a communal tribunal and provide a verdict based on the overall consensus of the community.
Also you can keep people at home, you don’t have to house them in purpose built facilities, there isn’t that much crime once you remove material conditions. It’s not a full time industry. And if they’re not an active danger you can let them go out freely and rehabilitate them without confining them. Likewise you do not need police when the community is in charge of its defence.
That’s basically the model they use in the Zapatista Chiapas. Seriously this isn’t complicated but you are incapable of imagining any system beyond the one you know, even when such systems are literally being applied in the real world and with greater effect than the police/prison model.
You can host a communal tribunal and provide a verdict based on the overall consensus of the community.
That still has the essential problem of guilt being determined by popularity, not facts. Witches had trials like this before they were burned. There needs to be a system of rules to minimize bias and regulation of evidence to provable facts. That is why we have the jury trial system. Yeah, it still needs improvement but it’s a hell of a lot better than what you are describing.
Also you can keep people at home
Shoplifters and drug dealers, sure. But serial rapists and people who shoot someone in the face for looking at them funny? No way. They need to be locked up and we need someone to put them there. There will always be a certain amount of these people in any society and we have to account for that.
Likewise you do not need police when the community is in charge of its defence.
So basically “castle doctrine” states where people shoot kids who knock on the wrong door? Kyle Rittenhouse is an example of realistic “community defense”.
There are such people in governments, even of the most recent superpower on the earth.
Anyone remember what it took to abolish slavery?
Before abolishing the police you need to have an idea of what is going to replace it.
This post offers no ideas.
I also wonder if they mean, abolish the current police force, or the concept of a police force.
I can understand the former, but the latter makes no sense to me.
Before abolishing the
policeslavery you need to have an idea of what is going to replace it.Sorry, kids. You’re trapped in a perpetual system of violence, squalor, and death until you can convince the People In Power that they’ll still be landed aristocrats under a reformed system.
I also wonder if they mean, abolish the current police force, or the concept of a police force.
What you have is a state-sanctioned cartel inflicting violence at an industrial scale. If your question is “Who will I call to report an infringement to my property/safety without the police?” I might counter with “How much help did you think the Compton Executioners intended to provide?”
Members of the Executioners are drawn from deputies who work at the Compton station of the LASD. Knock LA has reported that the gang consists of around 80 members. Potential recruits are chosen based on past acts of violence against members of the Compton community and recruits cannot be Black or female.
So, I lob the question back at you. Are we talking about abolishing this particular sheriff’s deputy gang or the concept of shariff’s deputy gangs? Until I get a convincing and comprehensive answer sufficient to satisfy LA’s billionaire class, sheriff’s deputies should be free to rob, rape, and murder Compton residents to their heart’s content.
They did have something to replace slavery with…
If you sail a boat across the Atlantic, you’ll find lots of countries that also have the concept of police. Yet… their police don’t run around shooting people all the time.
How is that even possible?
You make it too complicated.
For me the question is simple.
I get assaulted and robbed, who can I turn investigate and capture the perpetrators?
You make it too complicated.
It’s not a simple situation.
For me the question is simple. I get assaulted and robbed, who can I turn investigate and capture the perpetrators?
Ask Renee Good. Hell, ask Trina Martin
The plaintiffs – Trina Martin, her teenage son Gabe, and ex-partner Toi Cliatt – have spent seven years seeking to sue the FBI for damages after agents mistakenly raided their Atlanta home in 2017.
You want a simple, straight, obvious answer. So you create a goon squad with seemingly unlimited power and an endless budget. And now that goon squad is running around town savaging people like a pack of rabid dogs.
So who do you call to investigate and capture the perpetrators you created to investigate and capture the prior iteration of perpetrators?
It is fine to say that you have no idea, so why even bring this up for discussion?
Plenty of ideas. But if I said “provide public housing” and “guarantee jobs for everyone over the age of 16”, you’d angrily rebut that this doesn’t give you someone to call when you feel scared.
These are complex views of society aimed at alleviating criminal incidents, not simple hotlines you can dial to SWAT your neighbors.
- Public housing is a very good thing and needs to be expanded.
- However people will still be people and crimes will still happen, so some kind of law enforcment will still be needed.
- Same goes for jobs, some people will simply have better jobs, better pay, nicer homes, jealousy doesn’t just disappear becase you get a home and a job.
I think if you follow the cotton gin metaphor, they want robots to do it.
No thanks to that.
Before abolishing slavery you need to have an idea of what is going to replace it.
This post offers no ideas.
I also wonder if they mean, abolish the current slavers, or the concept of slavery.
I can understand the former, but the latter makes no sense to me.
This is a really dumb response. The replacement for slavery is the same work just paid and without ownership of the workers.
The police are already paid, and they do things that are genuinely neccesary like crisis intervention and investigating legitimate crimes (not busting pot dealers and ticket quotas), they just do a bunch of evil and corrupt shit on top of it (and usually do a shitty job of the neccesary things as well). There does need to be something to replace those roles.
To be fair, OP’s post is also a really shitty analogy because of those reasons as well.
Slavery isn’t just unpaid labor, it also involves social control, and violent enforcement. “I can’t imagine society without X unless you give me a detailed replacement” is a lame way of defending the status quo. Slavery, feudalism, child labor, debtors prisons all had the same argument made for them and they skip over the question of whether the current form is legitimate or inevitable.
this is a really dumb response to the response; replacing the police with proper responses have proven themselves to be significantly more cost effect and non-violent.
This was exactly what I wanted to say! Thank you!
Explain to me how ending slavery would have lead to a shooter being allowed to run rampant or a domestic abuser the ability to continue hitting their spouse?
Of course it wouldn’t, because these are different issues.
Obviously the police system needs to be gutted, but they do serve a function that must be replaced. Unfortunately until people stop hurting others we need someone available to stop that violence.
And before you say it I’m not saying the police are doing a great job at that. In its current state they typically escalate the violence, or provide ineffective responses. But they do serve a role hat needs to be replaced.
When slavery was ended truthfully the roles of slaves did not need to be replaced. Slavery was a tool of the wealthiest in the South to make more money. Nothing more. Taking the wealth from the wealthy is generally better for the average person. This is also ignoring the huge moral arguments here. Slavery only has the function of making the rich richer.
Police departments and sheriff’s departments do serve a purpose in society. They take on jobs that do need to be done. They are not the best way to do it, but many of their functions still need to occur, or at least until there are more systems in place. You’re not going to end policing and fix society’s issues in years. This would take decades
Explain to me how ending slavery would have lead to a shooter being allowed to run rampant or a domestic abuser the ability to continue hitting their spouse? Of course it wouldn’t, because these are different issues.
Not sure I get what your point is especially since I agree, so what’s that about? Do note that slavery was defended both on economic grounds and through “public safety” arguments: fears of chaos, crime, and violence if it were abolished. “Slavery only has the function of making the rich richer.” is blatantly false and honestly insulting to descendants of slaves, as it downplays the systemic permanent violent domination by a group of people onto another. [1] [2]
My comment addresses the rhetoric of “This function exists, therefore this institution is inevitable unless you provide a fully specified replacement” which is a historically common way of defending entrenched systems [3]. Abolitionists distinguish functions from institutions. Conflict resolution, harm prevention, crisis response are necessary in society, but that does not make any particular institution such as the police natural or inevitable. [4] [5]
“this would take decades” is part of the abolitionist position, it’s a long-term transition project, just like phasing our nuclear power, nobody is claiming it needs to happen overnight [6]. So yeah violence exists and ways to address this must exist but none of that should be used to sidestep the question of abolishing the police. If anything, it just shows a lack of imagination for alternatives.
Edit: there’s tons of other analogies to address your point, honestly, “Abolish Capitalism” doesn’t mean get rid of the economic system and figure it out tomorrow morning, you’re probably just hung up onto the specific set of words without trying to understand the position and strategy of abolitionists. [7]
Slavery only has the function of making the rich richer." is blatantly false and honestly insulting to descendants of slaves, as it downplays the systemic permanent violent domination by a group of people onto another.
We don’t need to have the argument that slavery is wrong and causes generational trauma. That is plainly obvious, and honestly annoying that you felt the need to state that. Your goal seems more about using the existence of slavery to fuel your rhetoric than to address modern issues.
Once again, slavery and policing occupy two different “functions” (do not take this word literally) in society. There are necessary things that need to happen that a police force does. Slavery was never necessary and serves to generate wealth through human suffering. Arguably there are functions of the modern police system that do that too, and those can be stripped without replacement.
You keep trying to force a comparison between two things that cannot be compared.
Honestly it’s disgusting and insulting to even try to compare these two topics.
It does not take decades to free people. It does take decades of continual investment to lift people from poverty, provide mental healthcare (really all healthcare), building rehabilitation programs, etc. It all takes time and we should absolute do it. We seem to agree there so I don’t understand the disagreement. It truly seems to be you wanting to exploit the suffering of the enslaved to make your analogy
Also to be clear I am aware of modern day slavery attached to the current system. It is abhorrent and arguably evolved from the slavery practiced in the 1800s. That can absolutely be abolished tomorrow. It is not necessary and serves nothing more to generate wealth. No need to taper anything down or put any work into a new system. Get rid of it. Although, I am still uncomfortable of comparing it to the horrors of chattel slavery in the Southern United States. Slavery has existed in some form since writing was invented, and likely longer, but I can only think of maybe one or two systems equally as cruel and brutal as the system of slavery practiced in the Americas.
Edit: I think I thought of the best way to sum up my feelings. Slavery is cruel and serves no purpose in a society. It is abhorrent and should be abolished immediately. Then you work to right the wrongs.
Policing is fundamentally flawed, but a systematic approach can over time be used to incrementally replace it. Coupled with systems to eliminate the root causes of crime.
I think that’s why your comparison upset me so much. I view one as something with no redeeming qualities or usefulness and find it morally repugnant. The other has some utility to society, but I find the current system repugnant. Only one of these is appropriate to slowly replace in a controlled manner. The other must be ended immediately
It truly seems to be you wanting to exploit the suffering of the enslaved to make your analogy
Yeah at this point I think we’re beyond argumentation if you’re just gonna resort to moral vetoing. You’re reading it as moral comparison, and then getting upset about a claim I’m not making.
Historians and abolitionists make these structural comparisons to critique the recurring argumentation used to keep powers in place, that does not make it a moral equivalence. And in turn I’m arguing against the recurring argumentation that an institution is necessary by definition. This is what my first comment was about : when you change just a few words in stoy’s comment, you highlight the systemic argumentation to keep the status quo.
Honestly it’s disgusting and insulting to even try to compare these two topics.
Yet many studied the origins of modern day police in relation to slave patrols in the US.
- https://nleomf.org/slave-patrols-an-early-form-of-american-policing/
- https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-modern-day-policing
- https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-of-the-police
There are necessary things that need to happen that a police force does
I agree that conflict response, harm prevention, and crisis intervention are necessary. That does not logically mean that the police institution as it exists is necessary or inevitable. The necessity of function does not mean the necessity of the existence of whatever institution is appointed to that function. I’m just arguing against it, I feel like I keep repeating myself so let’s leave it at that.
you’re just gonna resort to moral vetoing
That’s where you started
Yet many studied the origins of modern day police in relation to slave patrols in the US.
I don’t even disagree, but that doesn’t mean much once again. The invention cotton gin revived slavery in the South. Yet we still use the tool today without slavery.
Anyway that’s why I favor completely gutting or even abolishing police. They are fundamentally flawed. I don’t care if at the end of the day we have something still called the police, just as long as we change how its used for the benefit of society. Unlikely slavery though, I don’t see an overnight dissolution of the police as necessary.
I agree that conflict response, harm prevention, and crisis intervention are necessary. That does not logically mean that the police institution as it exists is necessary or inevitable. The necessity of function does not mean the necessity of the existence of whatever institution is appointed to that function. I’m just arguing against it, I feel like I keep repeating myself so let’s leave it at that.
This is what I’ve been saying.
Also if you decide to move forward you don’t need to cite facts, or even cite them 3 deep. It’s unnecessary. Everything you’ve cited is objectively true and I have never had a disagreement with. At least save yourself some time and only cite it 1 source deep.
Yeah I mean we keep arguing on some semantics when we agree on the structural issues at play, we could have saved some time and headache haha
How about…idk instead of shooting and killing the symptoms, you could handle the root cause, police forces don’t stop crime, they respond to it, majority of the crime in the world would have been solved with good mental health services and quality of life
Sure, but that takes time and isn’t fool proof. Full implementation of a program like that could take a decade. You need someone ready to respond to violent individuals.
Police forces also currently handle other things that are necessary like traffic enforcement or serving court documents. Both need to happen, neither need to be done by the police. So you have to replace that function.
Ideally you’d see many of these functions that require limited abilities to detain an individual shifted out of the police to new bodies. From there gut departments and form small bodies designed to apprehend violent criminals. Coupled with several programs aimed at actually reducing the root causes of crime.
It would take decades and a tremendous investment. Unfortunately too many people view nations as buisnesses now, so if things aren’t better immediately then they give up and reverse course.
I mean, they are a crime deterrent at least.
Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.
Like I said. A crime deterrent.
Jobs programs and housing policy are crime deterrents.
I’m not sure deterrent is the right word, but yes I agree that ought to lower crimes. What’s your point.
if that is true, how is there still crime?
Well it’s just a deterrent, not magic
i dont believe there is any way to prove crime was deterred.
What basis do you believe this? It’s measured all the time with various methods of policing being demonstrated to both deter and not deter crimes.
You can’t reductively bark “can’t prove a counterfactual 🤪” and you’ve seemingly done zero research into the matter
this only shows correlation, not causation
Well if you ever ask someone, “would you ever commit a crime iff you knew you could get away with it” and they say yes, you’ll have found at least one example of a successfully deterred crime.
no, you didn’t. you can’t prove a counterfactual.
Okay I’ll offer up the alternative.
Show any social worker or mental health professional a violent police interaction and in 90% of cases they will just shake their heads. They deal with the same shit every day and successfully manage many of the same situations without shooting anyone. The police universally try to respond as aggressively and counter productively as they can and it turns mental health crises into violence. Like yeah, there are situations where armed response is needed but so many of the common situations don’t require someone pointing guns at people. Go watch a random badge cam video and ask yourself, could a competent mental health worker resolve this? Food for thought, people frequently react in extreme ways to the police because they know how violent and unjust the situation will become with them involved.
For prison at a minimum just stop with the drug war shit. Stop sending people to jail for parking fines and weed and getting them wrapped up in the system so they lose their jobs. An ideal standard could, again, involve mental health treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation. If someone’s arrested for stealing shit, maybe they need to be put in a safe environment where they can learn skills, get a job and contribute to society. If they’re too dangerous, they need to be in a facility where they’re getting actual help and treatment until they aren’t dangerous if that day ever comes.
You may be thinking that this stuff is just vaguely cops and jails by some other name and at a hyper superficial level that may be in part, but the meat grinder we’ve built is definitely not the above in any stretch of the imagination.
There are even more extreme versions like the restorative (not just rehabilitative) justice systems built by the Zapatistas, I encourage people to seek out alternative proposals, there’s a whole world of ideas out there.
Thank you for providing some alternative ideas and thoughtful insight. From one internet person to another, I appreciate your comment during these sensationalist times.
I understand emotions are high on the topic and that’s valid.
I’ll give UK police some credit here.
They very capable and willing to take a minimum force approach to defuse a situation, to talk and calm things, rather than escalate violence.
I know they don’t always get it right, there’s always that 10% that’s out of control.
Generally speaking, they’re policing by consent, not force
Abolish the police and replace them with this other thing that’s totally not just a better version of the police
A better version of the police would still be better.
Right. But the OOP is quite clear that replacing them with something better is not enough.
They’re letting perfect be the enemy of good. Which is a shame, because then nothing changes :-(
Yes, which is one reason so many of us are disagreeing with OOP.
So you’re the person the meme is referring to. Brave of you to admit it
It’s very easy to imagine a perfect society without police. Unfortunately we don’t live in imagination land
Exactly, as long as people keep hurting others you need someone to deal with that.
A lot of things we use police or sheriffs for can be transferred to entities that aren’t allowed to arrest or brutalize people. Evictions shouldn’t be served by a man with a gun. A speeding ticket shouldn’t either.
But when someone is committing an armed robbery or attacking another person we need someone to respond with force, but they need to be actually trained in de-escalation.
This would likely need to be paired with massive programs designed to improve society and reduce crimes.
America is a land of guns and violence and that probably can’t change. police and conservative society understand things stereotypically because it’s also sometimes true
Serving an eviction notice can get you shot when random people own guns and crime is normal
A car speeding could be armed dudes with drugs or something and they’ll kill you in the middle of an empty highway in Colorado or wherever
Dangerous violent assholes with guns have mental health episodes too 🤷♀️
I hear you, but if people know that someone giving them a speeding ticket will not be arresting or shooting them wouldn’t it serve them better to not pull guns and lead to anything more? Criminals today attack officers during a traffic stop because the officers are trained to fish for an arrest.
That’s not the sole reason criminals attack officers and there’s no reason to think you’d be safe
Why would it serve them better? They can just shoot you and drive away and it’s hundreds of miles to the nearer station
Hey man, agreed the current police force is bad, sure, but how about an alternative being the leading narrative? A good platform offers solutions as the primary policies rather than soapboxing to the choir.
An alternative is local communities be in charge of this themselves. The money spent on policing could be better used to build up services to avoid crime originating, for mental health services, for armed community defense, etc. Local communities don’t need to buy sonic weapons, apcs, and fit out riot squds.
As it stands police do very little to prevent crime, and rarely bother to solve a crime after it has been reported. What they do, do is a ridiculous amount of abuse towards innocent people.
We cannot get to that stage without first removing the barrier that is public perception that police prevent crime and keep us safe. Getting rid of them will allow organic means of defending a community to grow. The Black Panther are an excellent historic contemporary example of this in the media today, but they have to operate in constant opposition to the police which hinders them greatly.
Likewise we can see community defense in action in Rovaja and Zapatista’s - but that’s much harder to put into a meme compared to ‘police bad’ which most people understand.
Yeah, I’m at least personally aware of alternatives, but I’m more commenting on the particular messaging of having the primary focus be on negating action. While it certainly is correct in stating the problem is the police as it exists along with the way the justice systems operates, my problem with the message isn’t “everyone knows, bro” or even the silly “it isn’t nuanced enough, bro”, but more along the lines of "the solution should be baked into the message ". Sure, the message could be police bad, acab, defend the police, etc, but even if we get everyone to hear and accept that message, how can they just not continue to feel helpless when no primary solution is proposed. Agreed there are plenty of solutions out there, but if the primary messaging out there is to say it’s bad, all those solutions are the priority. When everything is a priority, nothing is. I think this is the primary problem in leftist spaces that really muddies the waters as to what we want to do and why things implode under the sheer weight of numerous issues to solve.
A simple solution is to lead with the solution. Community policing is pretty easy to package well to make it fairly bipartisan. If you lead with community policing, you’re already giving an actionable step that helps people see an actual goal that solves an actual problem. The problem of police brutality is secondary in the messaging because that’s the problem we’re trying to solve. When providing the solution as the platform, the problem is apparent, and even highlighted. All the “nuance” is already practically implied. So yes, public perception is important in approaching these issues, but it’s inadequate with out a solution. You can get into the whole debate about why police as they exist is bad, or you could demonstrate the problem by showing why whatever proposed solution you have is a better option.
local communities be in charge of this themselves
You think that’s gonna be a reliably good model? To me that sounds like another hellscape waiting to happen.
Yeah, welcome back to sundown towns.
Agreed. Pretty sure Texas would implement the purge.
We used to have the police also run the ambulances, poorly. Folks stepped up and did it better, which is why we have EMT’s today.
Here’s a good introductory video about alternatives.
No, it’s not.
