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

[aja_christopher]

You can tell how much people really care about "alternatives" by all the rousing debate inspired by the numerous links I made to Obama's proposals.



And how they ignore that Americans (Republicans) elected Trump who had Sessions end nearly every reform program enacted by Obama.

Like I said before -- it's a waste of time to keep pointing out the obvious to those who don't really care about solving the problem.

Most don't really care if "minorities" are oppressed and killed by our government -- they only care when it affects them personally.

[Steel Inquisitor]

There is no single alternative that I want, but I'd take nearly any of them over what we have now.

I want the killing of black people by the police to stop. Getting rid of the police will accomplish that.

You haven't offered any alternative. Would you? What alternatives would you like? This thread has gone over some options.

So do we all.

Edit: What do you think about the link's aja christopher's posted?

[Dalak]

That's why I mentioned the Discworld watch and not the Watchmen: They don't take bribes, they include every sentient species (begrudgingly at first), they target the rich as well as the poor, and they don't kill their prisoners. They are a worthy goal compared the the horror we are dealing with daily, but I'll repeat that we need to fix the laws and the courts as well or whatever we replace our current Police with will be corrupted once more.

[aja_christopher]

You haven't offered any alternative. Would you? What alternatives would you like? This thread has gone over some options.

So do we all.

Edit: What do you think about the link's aja christopher's posted?

Seems a moot argument since nearly all of it was either obstructed or rolled back by Republicans.



And the image posted makes it clear what alternatives are sought -- such as investment in education, housing and health care.

It's reasonable to argue that there would be far less crime in our society -- like most other nations -- if people already had the basics covered.

[aja_christopher]

There's no excuse for people to pretend anymore.

There never was.

[XPac]

Seems a moot argument since nearly all of it was either obstructed or rolled back by Republicans.



And the image posted makes it clear what alternatives are sought -- such as investment in education, housing and health care.

It's reasonable to argue that there would be far less crime in our society -- like most other nations -- if people already had the basics covered.

Problem being steps to prevent crime, while certainly nice, don't cover everything the police do.

Greater investment in education or health care or housing won't assist in clearing a street of cars or pedestrians of a major car accident occurs. There are dozens of things police do which aren't related to crime. They serve functions that other first responders in emergencies like Fire Departments and paramedics don't necessarily have the proper training to deal with.

You can ideally strive for a BETTER police department. But a world without police isn't a good idea.

[aja_christopher]

Problem being steps to prevent crime, while certainly nice, don't cover everything the police do.

Including abusing and killing black people.

Other nations do fine without incarcerating such a large percentage of their population and we can do the same once America gets past it's racism.

[Mister Mets]

It's because those on the "right" generally use fear, hatred and division to control their voters and the populace in general.

Immigration, education, desegregation, LGBT marriage, abortion rights -- it's all about disempowering and controlling others.

Mets argument regarding "open borders" is based on exactly the kind of fearmongering that is common within the party.

The only difference with Trump is that he doesn't know how to pretend not to do so.

Since you're bringing up earlier comments, I do want to make it clear that the concern about open borders didn't come from right-wing fear-mongers. It came from people who voted for Obama over McCain and Romney, who supported Hillary Clinton over Trump and will back Joe Biden over Trump noting that Democratic officials have a difficulty expressing a clearly defined limiting principle on immigration, and immigration enforcement.

Andrew Sullivan wrote about it in 2017.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017...=sharebutton-t

Peter Beinart wrote about it in The Atlantic in the same year.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...istake/528678/

That led to a Vox follow-up basically endorsing massive increases in legal immigration.

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/2/1584784...ft-immigration

And then there was this exchange on a Vox podcast where Ezra Klein notes the moral force of the Open Borders argument, when responding to a comment about the contradiction in President Obama's comments on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2xyQ8ejIw

Ezra Klein: It seems to me that on the spectrum of arguments, in a way that I'm pretty sympathetic to, you are having trouble with the idea that the argument that makes the most sense on the left is the one that the fewest people really hold; the open borders argument. One of the problems in this whole debate is that, and I think this infects both sides a bit, there is the suspicion that what the left wants is open borders, and there is the suspicion that what the right really believes in is closed borders, and while I'm not sure that either is true in general, I'm sure that what is true, and something you were grappling with in here, is that the underlying emotional principles do point in those directions, and we end up having a lot of debates that people feel either instinctively are based on false principles or false arguments, as people try to develop just those stories that get in the direction of their outcome, but don't seem to be hitting the core emotional justification for their position.

Reihan Salam: Right, and they don't want to be held accountable for the kind of arguments they make that connect with that emotive underlying argument. Yeah, I open the book by chatting about one experience in New York City, but I also talk about Barack Obama's speech when he signed the executive order around DACA, and it was just really striking, that DACA was actually a really narrowly cabined executive action relative to the argument he was making which is that "'thou shalt not oppress a stranger." Saying "Wait a second, how do you reconcile this with the particulars of the proposal, or that elsewhere you've said "Hey, we need to have a managed flow." It's this way we've got a soaring rhetoric that appeals to a lot of people, but it's not the actual policy, and then when you say "Wait a sec, there's a contradiction here" and you resent being called out on the contradiction. That is the uncomfortable space that I sit in on pretty much all issues, and certainly on this one.

Ezra Klein: I want to hold here, because I think this is interesting. You bring up the Obama speech, correctly so, but that exists almost everywhere, when you look at what George W Bush said about folks who cross the border, when you look at what Jeb Bush said about them, what Rick Perry said about them. We have a little problem in this debate that if you allow yourself to open up the needs and the fears and the actions it takes someone to leave their family and take a dangerous journey and come here, the moment you open yourself up to that, being a human to them, you begin to destroy your limiting principles. That doesn't mean people don't keep the limiting principle, I am not an open borders person because I don't think political stability can handle it, but there's something that happens in this debate, and people pick up on it pretty quickly, and it's not that people are lying, it's that one of the hard things here is that the moral force of there isn't a really good reason that morally people should not be allowed in is very hard to connect to the practical difficulties of actually assimilating immigrants, retaining a social safety net, and keeping political stability. People get trapped in the middle of that quite a bit.

[Mister Mets]

When people say police brutality against black people is a problem but that we shouldn't go as far as abolishing the police, what they are saying is that black lives are an acceptable price for keeping the police around.

They could also be saying they believe that the presence of police saves more black lives than it costs.

[numberthirty]

Problem being steps to prevent crime, while certainly nice, don't cover everything the police do.

Greater investment in education or health care or housing won't assist in clearing a street of cars or pedestrians of a major car accident occurs. There are dozens of things police do which aren't related to crime. They serve functions that other first responders in emergencies like Fire Departments and paramedics don't necessarily have the proper training to deal with.

You can ideally strive for a BETTER police department. But a world without police isn't a good idea.

The idea that said function needs to involve police power to function is probably suspect.

Probably around ninety percent of that could be done without police power even coming into play.

[XPac]

Including abusing and killing black people.

Other nations do fine without incarcerating such a large percentage of their population and we can do the same once America gets past it's racism.

And thats fine.

Point being, IF any city is going to attempt to operate without police (something I honestly doubt is anyones actual intent), they will need alternatives that more fully address the things the police actually do. Problem being there probably aren't any. You can try and come up with a new and improved police department... but it's still the police department.

[aja_christopher]

And thats fine.

Point being, IF any city is going to attempt to operate without police (something I honestly doubt is anyones actual intent), they will need alternatives that more fully address the things the police actually do. Problem being there probably aren't any.

I posted a number of "alternatives" enacted by Obama.

That you ignored.

Which I why I'm done here.

[Maine Starfish]

I’m pleasantly surprised and impressed that Minneapolis is disbanding the police department and going with the community-led public safety. It’s a huge task with many parts to piece together and hopefully it works out, but really this is the kind of big change that is needed. And maybe other cities and states will look into it as well.

Looks like all the peaceful protests worked

[XPac]

The idea that said function needs to involve police power to function is probably suspect.

Probably around ninety percent of that could be done without police power even coming into play.

YOu can have a person without police power do things like direct traffic... the issue being what are the consequences if pedestrians or cars don't follow it. That's where police power comes into play.

If say a bunch of spring breakers are violating social distancing by gathering large numbers on the beach or whatever, you probably will need a law enforcement officer to break it up. Someone without police powers will have a much harder time enforcing regulations.

[XPac]

I posted a number of "alternatives" enacted by Obama.

That you ignored.

Which I why I'm done here.

Honestly does Obama himself actually think we need a world without police? Honestly I'm kind of skeptical there.