All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tendrin]

So on one hand, police are necessary to protect us from criminals, but at the same time they also sometimes are actually in league with the criminals to suppress citizen activism?

If Robocop was being made today, Clarence Boddiker would've just been a cop.

[Steel Inquisitor]

So on one hand, police are necessary to protect us from criminals, but at the same time they also sometimes are actually in league with the criminals to suppress citizen activism?

Both are true.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

On the topic of defunding the police, I'm of the opinion the term "defunding" has been twisted and misused, depending upon which side of the political aisle you sit upon. I don't think the police should be defunded, they should have the tools to protect the people and fight crime, but they shouldn't have access to military grade weaponry or fighting vehicles that could be used and, in some cases, misused against the citizenry.

[PaulBullion]

https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/s...89666055299074

Laurie Garrett warns that Trump might try to steal the electoral voters.
Not sure but you might be vigilant, he might not be above bribing, intimidating or blackmailing individual voters. I'm sure a few shady officines might be at work.

One of those Electors is Hillary Clinton. I think the other ones are almost as unlikely to vote for Trump as she.

[norj]

On the topic of defunding the police, I'm of the opinion the term "defunding" has been twisted and misused, depending upon which side of the political aisle you sit upon. I don't think the police should be defunded, they should have the tools to protect the people and fight crime, but they shouldn't have access to military grade weaponry or fighting vehicles that could be used and, in some cases, misused against the citizenry.

Whoever decided to use the term defund the police for police reform sucks at marketing.

[Mister Mets]

Nah, I don't think you actually do. Because if you did, then you'd be putting forward your own ideas about what to do to fix the problems with policing in this country, rather than just trying to harp on what I said.



Superhero comics are all about really powerful people using extreme violence to solve problems, and somehow even the mere suggestion of putting landlords against a wall is too much for you to handle? Also, gonna need some citations on those left-wing regimes putting LGBT in death camps.

If a view is so extreme that the status quo is clearly preferable, energy will be devoted to defending the status quo rather than improving it. That's the problem with the more extreme versions of "defund the police."

There's no one in this discussion who thinks police are perfect, so there's no point in engaging that perspective. There is at least one person who thinks police make things worse, and that the general understanding is that police value white property more than black lives, so I'm going to respond to those points.

The police are imperfect, but it is absurd to say that, in general, they make things worse. When someone argues that, it is the goal post.

Maybe this is one of the attitudes I have that makes me conservative, but I generally have to consider the possibility that the status quo is better than the alternative. If someone's implied solutions (in this case, no police) are worse than the status quo (in this case, the police with all their flaws), their preferences would seem to represent a bigger problem than the thing they were concerned about.

[Amadeus Arkham]

On the topic of defunding the police, I'm of the opinion the term "defunding" has been twisted and misused, depending upon which side of the political aisle you sit upon. I don't think the police should be defunded, they should have the tools to protect the people and fight crime, but they shouldn't have access to military grade weaponry or fighting vehicles that could be used and, in some cases, misused against the citizenry.

This is exactly where I fall on this. I do wish instead of ‘defund the police’ it was ‘demilitarize the police’ instead since that certainly sounds much less concerning, imo.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This is exactly where I fall on this. I do wish instead of ‘defund the police’ it was ‘demilitarize the police’ instead since that certainly sounds much less concerning, imo.

Ultimately it doesn't matter.

"Defund the Police" was a slogan that came up spontaneously during the George Floyd protests. It was spread and diffused and embraced by the people. I am sure that there were people who tried a bunch of different slogans but this was the one that caught on.

It wasn't made by marketing. It was made by the people and in so far as it spooked a large chunk of white America into changing their views on the police, it worked.

It is not the job of established democrats and voters and others to dictate the slogans offered ground up. There's something called "freedom of speech" you know. The slogan happen, you are stuck with it, and now go ahead and deal with it. It's not going anywhere. A gauntlet was tossed across the cheek of the Democrat party. Either they accept the challenge or they back away.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

This is exactly where I fall on this. I do wish instead of ‘defund the police’ it was ‘demilitarize the police’ instead since that certainly sounds much less concerning, imo.

Demilitarize, yeah, I wish I had thought of that. In addition, police need much, MUCH more in the way of training when it comes to de-escalating situations. Case in point: here in Philly a scant few weeks ago, a black man who suffered a mental break faced down two armed white cops with a knife, despite pleas from family members not to use lethal force, the cops, not having tasers, pumped fourteen rounds into the man, killing him. By the by, that tragic shooting occurred literally right around the corner from my street. Those cops didn’t have to resort to using lethal force in a situation that didn’t call for same, the lack of equipment (tasers) contributed to that tragedy, but training is needed to prevent situations like that from happening.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Past those two's death tolls. 240,000 is more like "Mongul wipes out Coast City at Cyborg Superman's behest".

Good point.

I mean it's staggering the level of misrule in the last 8 months. There's really nothing quite like it. It's not just incompetence...you can forgive a certain amount of incompetence if the guy behind it meant well or did their best and so on. It's incompetence combined with active malice.

Woodrow Wilson f--ked up the 1918 Spanish Flu too and (as recent retrospective corrections have proven) an overall sh-tty president, but even him, you can give him a pass because he had World War 1 on his plate, and epidemiology and disease treatment, while it made advances was still not equipped to deal with stuff in 1918. You have fewer excuses to f--k up a pandemic response with the advances of science. That's the thing about Trump, he had no excuses. Nothing. The pandemic would have been hard for a capable government and President. It has been hard for Angela Merkel.

But it would not in any sense have been so bad if HRC won the election.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Here, we disagree. How a movement is perceived by the public is a big obstacle to get people on board, and words matter. The wrong ones are far more vulnerable to being manipulated by the right wing or misunderstood by possibly allies who will be turned off if they don't get the correct message. Which will be even more confusing by people who have differing opinions on what "defund" means in context. If someone who doesn't understand the specifics of the movement and gets two answers to what "defund" means who are they going to assume is right?

"Defund the Police" was a slogan that came up spontaneously during the George Floyd protests. It was spread and diffused and embraced by the people. I am sure that there were people who tried a bunch of different slogans but this was the one that caught on.

It wasn't made by marketing. It was made by the people and in so far as it spooked a large chunk of white America into changing their views on the police, it worked.

It is not the job of established democrats and voters and others to dictate the slogans offered ground up. There's something called "freedom of speech" you know. The slogan happen, you are stuck with it, and now go ahead and deal with it. It's not going anywhere. A gauntlet was tossed across the cheek of the Democrat party. Either they accept the challenge or they back away.

It may be the winner of the slogans the activists used but that didn't make it perfect, just popular - it did its job in getting attention from the media but it also has problems with being misunderstood and latched onto those who took it literally.

Except this isn't about freedom of speech, the activists are allowed to use whatever they want. However, is the goal only to spook people against the movement or to get as many people on board as they can to stop police brutality? I thought it was the latter? The movement may not think about marketing but its marketing itself anyway with the slogans they have. There's a reason why corporations spend millions of dollars on marketing and why they're very good at creating propaganda.

But the Democrats who disagree with the slogan are for the cause, they just have issues with the phrases in the slogan being misunderstood, something which slogans need to be very direct in or risk not allowing the movement to reach as many people as possible. Marketing isn't easy, but it has a purpose valuable to activists. AOC is very good at marketing herself, she just doesn't call it marketing.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Here, we disagree. How a movement is perceived by the public is a big obstacle to get people on board, and words matter. The wrong ones are far more vulnerable to being manipulated by the right wing or misunderstood by possibly allies who will be turned off if they don't get the correct message. Which will be even more confusing by people who have differing opinions on what "defund" means in context. If someone who doesn't understand the specifics of the movement and gets two answers to what "defund" means who are they going to assume is right?

Dude, literally every public protest ever dealt with this. In the 19th Century, abolitionists and so on, were criticized on the same grounds. The Civil Rights Era also dealt with the same issues.

"Whatever symbols they embraced, civil-rights activists—much like black activists today—never successfully connected with the hearts of the majority of adults of their own day. The process was neither neat nor particular unifying. In fact, it destroyed the Democratic Party of Roosevelt and Truman. But the activists did sketch a theater of violence, with men like Bull Connor in starring roles, that shamed and embarrassed the country. And aided by an intemperate radicalism within and the Cold War threat without, the activists were able to use that shame to affect meaningful change."
— Ta-Nehisi Coates

This ain't new. Go back to the suffragettes, same issues.

Except this isn't about freedom of speech, the activists are allowed to use whatever they want. However, is the goal only to spook people against the movement or to get as many people on board as they can to stop police brutality? I thought it was the latter?

Well it did succeed. Voter turnout and registration increased after the George Floyd protests. The Democratic base did not suffer any significant large-scale defections this electorate unlike 2016. Nobody seriously thought "Defund the Police" was a factor until the prissy House Moderates decided to throw shade on their more successful ideological rivals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cjv...uicktake%3ANow

[Godzilla2099]

Is this site legitimate? (I'm guessing the answer is a No looking at the structure of the page and how it has links to twitter posts without much proof)

https://everylegalvote.com/country

I see many Trump Supporters refer to it.

[Kirby101]

Is this site legitimate? (I'm guessing the answer is a No looking at the structure of the page and how it has links to twitter posts without much proof)

https://everylegalvote.com/country

I see many Trump Supporters refer to it.

Just by using the disingenuous "Legal vote" term, I assume it is not legit.

[Tendrin]

Is this site legitimate? (I'm guessing the answer is a No looking at the structure of the page and how it has links to twitter posts without much proof)

https://everylegalvote.com/country

I see many Trump Supporters refer to it.

It is not, in fact, legitimate.