Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The tendency for white moderates to insert themselves into these phrases and movements for the explicit purpose of quelling and silencing them is infuriating.

If you're ~*~*~worried~*~*~ about the electoral impact of the phraseaology then stop, because you don't matter in it. It didn't come from your class and it's not about your class and the concerns of your class shouldn't just stride into the room and become the center of the conversation.

Pick a side and fight for that side.

If you're on the side of the cops, that's fine, just own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I do find it interesting that the "Defund the Police", as a test has kind of the same feel as "Black Lives Matter".  It's almost designed to get a negative response, and that is the point, because the listener then is supposed to hear the speaker out.  That's the whole point.  The stopping and listening to the nuance of the term reflects the kind of listening and rethinking of ideas that the speaker wants the listener to engage. 

You know what I'm sayin'?

 

Black Lives Matter isn't the same at all, and it is not designed to get a negative response.  It gets a negative response from racists.  Otherwise, its a cause with a specific goal, and the slogan states that plainly.  Nobody says "All Cancers Matter" at a breast cancer fundraiser, and that's even with breast cancer getting way more attention than other cancers already.  

Defund the Police is entirely different.  A simple reading indicates that the intent is to take PDs down to 0 funding.  People that want police unions busted, or want better community interaction with the police, or better oversight, but also still want some police around who treat all people fairly (you know reform), feel left out of the "Defund the police" group.  It also isn't a "money" issue which may be the bigger problem with optics.  A police force of 500 white supremacists and no reform isn't much better than a police force of 1,000 white supremacists, but you cut their labor "funding" in half.

If you don't want to actually eliminate the police, or even reduce their budget really, then you need a slogan that states your goals plainly just like "Black Lives Matter."

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Communities have been marching, protesting, lobbying, and crying for police reform for 40 years. Those cries were met with increased police funding and militarization, when not totally ignored.

Now, those same communities are crying out "defund the police," and white America responds with "whoa, whoa, whoa. I think we're better off reforming and let me tell you why...."

 

Edited by Foosters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wanker Bob said:

About 10 years ago I had my house burglarized 2 times. The only help the police were was writing a simple 2 minute police report for me to give to my insurance to get a payout. That's literally it. They did nothing else. Never caught anyone and never got a single item back even though I had a serial numbers list

I think outsideof divisions like homicide they pretty much see themselves as only a money-making venture at this point. Rack up those tickets and busts to get forfeitures. 

 

Without the police, you would not have received the insurance payout and would likely have been broken into more times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The tendency for white moderates to insert themselves into these phrases and movements for the explicit purpose of quelling and silencing them is infuriating.

If you're ~*~*~worried~*~*~ about the electoral impact of the phraseaology then stop, because you don't matter in it. It didn't come from your class and it's not about your class and the concerns of your class shouldn't just stride into the room and become the center of the conversation.

Pick a side and fight for that side.

If you're on the side of the cops, that's fine, just own it.

Acknowledging that some law enforcement is needed and being on the side of the cops are two different things.  I'd love to see every single cop have to reinterview for his/her job at a public hearing.  At the end, however, we are going to have some cops, and they are going to be paid from public coffers.

But I've also seen how "Abolish ICE" failed to work out as a slogan, and even under Biden, you're going to get all the shittiness of ICE, but maybe he'll put it under a different named agency just to say "see, I did it" to you sloganeers.  We defunded the police, but put their whole budget towards the new Community Enforcement Agency.  No, that's not the same asshole who shot a minority last week.  Don't you see he has a grey uniform now and the CEA cars are red and have Euro style sirens.  Not the same thing at all.  Plus, didn't you see where we added a new community engagement program?  Here is an agent petting puppies with a local preschool.

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Without the police, you would not have received the insurance payout and would likely have been broken into more times. 

This is sarcasm right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I want them disarmed.

The average patrol co does not need access to deadly force.

We should take a similar approach to UK Bobbies. The problem is we have so many guns on the street it is a serious threat that UK Bobbies don't have to face.

You can't sent a man into a shit fight with piss.

Make local beat cops carry less-lethal with lethal (shot gun/9mm) backup in the trunk, but only 1 mag. Supervisor has the reserve.

De-escalate the situation instead of bulldogging. More Sheriff Andy, less Vic Mackey (no Surly connection).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RPM said:

We should take a similar approach to UK Bobbies. The problem is we have so many guns on the street it is a serious threat that UK Bobbies don't have to face.

You can't sent a man into a shit fight with piss.

Make local beat cops carry less-lethal with lethal (shot gun/9mm) backup in the trunk, but only 1 mag. Supervisor has the reserve.

De-escalate the situation instead of bulldogging. More Sheriff Andy, less Vic Mackey (no Surly connection).

Yep, it would be nice to disarm them, but it isn't possible with so many guns on the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RPM said:

We should take a similar approach to UK Bobbies. The problem is we have so many guns on the street it is a serious threat that UK Bobbies don't have to face.

You can't sent a man into a shit fight with piss.

Make local beat cops carry less-lethal with lethal (shot gun/9mm) backup in the trunk, but only 1 mag. Supervisor has the reserve.

De-escalate the situation instead of bulldogging. More Sheriff Andy, less Vic Mackey (no Surly connection).

Right. So in the .1% of cases that involve suspects armed with fireams, we should probably have people equipped to handle this. Just like the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Black Lives Matter isn't the same at all, and it is not designed to get a negative response.

Black Lives Matter is seeking the response from the naysayers "But what about non-Black lives?"

Defund the Police is seeking the response from the naysayers "How will you provide secuirty?"

Whether the naysayers are racist or not, the response is there in the phrase.

You wouldn't even have a response if it were "Black Lives Matter, Too" and "Reform the Police". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Black Lives Matter is seeking the response from the naysayers "But what about non-Black lives?"

Defund the Police is seeking the response from the naysayers "How will you provide secuirty?"

Whether the naysayers are racist or not, the response is there in the phrase.

You wouldn't even have a response if it were "Black Lives Matter, Too" and "Reform the Police". 

Nah they'd just come up with some other shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Acknowledging that some law enforcement is needed and being on the side of the cops are two different things.

Do you actually think that the people who say/promote "Defund the Police" think that literally all law enforcement is unnecessary?

Quote

But I've also seen how "Abolish ICE" failed to work out as a slogan, and even under Biden, you're going to get all the shittiness of ICE, but maybe he'll put it under a different named agency just to say "see, I did it" to you sloganeers. 

The people actually on the ground doing shit are "sloganeers". lol fucking Christ

 

Quote

We defunded the police, but put their whole budget towards the new Community Enforcement Agency.  No, that's not the same asshole who shot a minority last week.  Don't you see he has a grey uniform now and the CEA cars are red and have Euro style sirens.  Not the same thing at all.  Plus, didn't you see where we added a new community engagement program?  Here is an agent petting puppies with a local preschool.

Look at how stupid you think these people are and how patronizing you are towards them. Alarming and pathetic.

41ZygUMAkgL._SX425_.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Black Lives Matter is seeking the response from the naysayers "But what about non-Black lives?"

Defund the Police is seeking the response from the naysayers "How will you provide secuirty?"

Whether the naysayers are racist or not, the response is there in the phrase.

You wouldn't even have a response if it were "Black Lives Matter, Too" and "Reform the Police". 

Sure we would.  Everyone is responding now because of the protests, and not because of slogans.  Kaep could have associated kneeling with any number of other civil rights slogans and he would have gotten the same "stop disrespecting the flag" reaction.  That's because actions are what actually get reactions.  Stay in the streets until you get meaningful reform.  That's the only way to get it.

Slogans are about votes which is why you see Biden distancing himself from this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Without the police, you would not have received the insurance payout and would likely have been broken into more times. 

I didn't need an army of militarized police going around the streets harassing and attacking minorities to get that done. Lesser numbers on call for emergencies would have done just fine. 

And I didn't get broken into again because the second time I had a alarm system setup so they fled as soon as they broke the door. Again, didn't need police roaming the streets harassing people to get that done either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the problem in a Nutshell.

1) The police will ALWAYS lie to protect another officer.  Simply because to tell the truth about wrong doing, puts their own job and life at risk. 

2) The "good cops" know EXACTLY who the bad cops are but.... see #1. The reason I put good in parenthesis around good cops is see #1 and #2.

This is the issue in a nutshell, and why bad officers survive and thrive in many cases. This is why this story of brutality repeats itself time and again.  You can also safely assume that the abuse of power rises in most cases the smaller the police force.  As that is where the cops dismissed from larger departments end up over time.

I could go into the fact that the Police force is basically the largest majority white high school educated fraternity.  That a great many are ex-military, because they honestly had few options beyond enlisting to better themselves.  They have very little actual life experience before strapping on a gun, this is NOT their fault.  It is the fault of how we hire officers and the lack education that most of them have.  I think the best thing we can do is get a LOT more college educated police officers!  A college education is when most people are first challenged in their personal beliefs, by others with different experiences. Experience and diverse experiences make for better police officers.  

I have been assaulted by an off duty DPS officer who I should have simply knocked out.  But even drunk I knew that I would be the one in big trouble and he would go scott-free.  he did get arrested... and released without being charged... shock/surprise.  I also had a good friend who as a soccer coach who REPEATEDLY had to deal with the Williamson County Sheriff's Department.  The reason?  HE was black.  

While not all police officers abuse their power, nor are corrupt by nature.  They all get tainted by the corruption of allowing a bad cop to abuse the citizenry again, and again, and again,  Simply because of... See#1 and #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Project number one should be abandoning the war on drugs completely. sink the billions upon billions that at going to that into more effective treatment measures. Then you end the privatized prisons since we'll have no need to send non-violent offenders to prison in large quantities anymore. 

then without all the cops going around harassing people for dimebags you don't need a huge number on the streets anymore. You can afford to have cops of a higher quality who are better vetted and trained when you don't need so many of them. 

A lot of the major problems we have here start to get a little clearer once you take that first step of completely abandoning the war on drugs and all the bullshit rhetoric and fear propaganda the Republican party has put into it over the last 40 years. 

Dismantling the systems of fear and injustice is the only way to begin to heal the wounds they have caused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Slogans are about votes which is why you see Biden distancing himself from this one.

So this slogan, which originated in the streets and is promoted/chanted in the streets, is "about votes"? Can you explain how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you actually think that the people who say/promote "Defund the Police" think that literally all law enforcement is unnecessary?

The people actually on the ground doing shit are "sloganeers". lol fucking Christ

 

Look at how stupid you think these people are and how patronizing you are towards them. Alarming and pathetic.

 

I'm telling you what is happening with that slogan as it concerns the important election we have coming up.  I told you that "jobs guarantee" was shittier than UBI too, but here we are with neither now because you insist on shitty slogans.

The people on the ground are actually taking action.  They aren't making up the slogans.  They need to continue taking action because slogans don't cause change.  But at some point, they also will need a more friendly US gov't than the one they currently have, and slogans can hinder that.

Again, you keep missing the point because your boy got stomped in a party that represents over half of voting age Americans, yet you still think you have a majority.  You need suburban white people to vote for Biden.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm telling you what is happening with that slogan as it concerns the important election we have coming up. 

And I'm telling you that the people in the streets aren't out there because of the election and that their actions aren't about getting Joe fucking Biden elected.

You can argue that they should be focused on that, but they aren't. That's not their concern right now. Just because it's yours doesn't mean it's theirs.

Quote

The people on the ground are actually taking action.  They aren't making up the slogans.

Where did "defund the police" come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So this slogan, which originated in the streets and is promoted/chanted in the streets, is "about votes"? Can you explain how?

Just like job guarantees and abolishing ICE, its a slogan designed to fail.  Simple as that.  The slogan has caused an erosion of support that is evident by the existence of this very thread.  And it allowed Trump to regain a foothold he had lost completely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The slogan has caused an erosion of support that is evident by the existence of this very thread. 

You are, with a straight face, saying that this thread is EVIDENCE that "defund the police" has "caused an erosion of support"?

That's astonishingly fucking stupid. This forum means nothing and is evidence of nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Quote

And it allowed Trump to regain a foothold he had lost completely.

More evidence-free melodrama because the underclass is making a ruckus.

Where did the "defund the police" slogan come from?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the Minneapolis City Council Allow Private Defensive Violence?

Spoiler
Quote

Minneapolis socialists are going to defund the police, it appears. Have they been reading the ancap literature?

No, because the City Council intends to redirect the money (taxes) to social workers, psychologists, housing, and healthcare, etc. Not only that, they haven’t said a word about defensive violence or the markets for it.

Defensive violence is absolutely essential to deal with criminal behavior (aggression). This incontrovertible fact is not obvious in the Council’s public statements. They are silent about crime and dealing with crime.

If the defensive violence of police is ended, will the Minneapolis City Council allow private defensive violence to occur?

Clearly, private policing is the sole alternative. But that doesn’t mean they’ll allow it. Will private self-defense be allowed to mushroom? Will citizens be allowed to organize their own private police? Will they be allowed to hire private police companies? Will they be allowed to patronize a public police force located in a jurisdiction outside of Minneapolis? Will the City Council impose regulations that hamper a free market in policing? All it will take to bring that about is a case in which the private police have an “incident”. Who is going to settle disputes when people claim to be innocent? Will due process be followed? What if innocent people still get wounded or killed or have property damaged by other people intent on apprehending criminals? What if private defenders inflict punishments that are beyond the state-mandated penalties?

Will private police be allowed to patrol everywhere? Will they have the power to arrest people and hold them? Will the rest of the justice system, prosecution and trial, be next in line for dismantling? If private police have no legal immunity, will they be super-cautious, and will that cause crime to jump?

The State of Minnesota and even the federal government may have something to say about all of this, but that’s another matter.

The biggest question is one that City Council President Bender failed to answer. She was asked “What if, in the middle of the night, my home is broken into? Who do I call?” Her answer, not worth quoting, was a non-answer.

She didn’t say that defensive violence is necessary and it will have to be supplied by someone, once public police are ended. She didn’t say that the “community” would have to come together to solve this problem. She didn’t say that social workers would stamp out all such aggression.

Bender spoke some words that had nothing to do with a genuine answer. Her answer was that whites, including her, who paid taxes and had some services from police were privileged; and unnamed others, presumably poorer black people, got worse than nothing from police. So, therefore, she answered that everyone should go without police and the money transferred to the poorer people.

Bender’s non-answer tells us that the Council hasn’t thought this through and has no real idea of what is going to happen next. It can phase in the elimination of police, but unless it allows private defensive violence to phase in, criminal activity will jump and people will demand that public police be maintained or restored.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

.

Where did the "defund the police" slogan come from?

 

 

From the Camden, New Jersey City Council via the Minneapolis City Council?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Black Lives Matter is seeking the response from the naysayers "But what about non-Black lives?"

What the fuck are you talking about? How is that the response it is seeking?  

Does everyone cause and every slogan need to include the legal caveat that "but other stuff still matters too"?

Like, do you assume that the organizers of every defeat ALS walk want you to think that cancer, ebola, world hunger, blood diamonds, domestic violence, and AIDs don't matter anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camden, I believe, disbanded the police.

The current use and popularity of "defund the police" as a slogan comes from street activism. It doesn't come from think tanks or some socialist magazine that centrists spend their lives being mad at.

If you're trying to tone-police or message-advise street activists you're either an opponent or a stupid asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bad_teammate said:

And I'm telling you that the people in the streets aren't out there because of the election and that their actions aren't about getting Joe fucking Biden elected.

You can argue that they should be focused on that, but they aren't. That's not their concern right now. Just because it's yours doesn't mean it's theirs.

Where did "defund the police" come from?

You're right.  10 million people made it up all at once.  All ten million also went back in time and registered the domain name for the first time in July 2016.  The latest reregistration occurred on May 30, 2020.  The Guardian wrote an article about defunding the police on May 31.  At roughly the same time, it was used by Reclaim the Block, and a couple of other organizations, who pushed for its use in the crowd.  Right now, Reclaim the Block has the below on their website.

"TELL MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL TO DEFUND THE POLICE"

Like all slogans that spread among crowds, it was seeded by someone.  But these are actually called marching orders.  You take them all the time from a variety of different organizations.  But seeing as you have almost no original thought of your own, I can see how you thought you were part of making it up.  Do you think you made up the wave at football games too?

In the end though, it squeezes out those who are needed as allies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Camden, I believe, disbanded the police.

The current use and popularity of "defund the police" as a slogan comes from street activism. It doesn't come from think tanks or some socialist magazine that centrists spend their lives being mad at.

If you're trying to tone-police or message-advise street activists you're either an opponent or a stupid asshole.

Camden sure did.  And that proves my point.  They redirected the fuck out of you, and while you were celebrating victory, they expanded the "disbanded" force by 100 officers, and put the whole thing in control of the more conservative county government.

"The entire Camden force was dismantled a few years ago. A new, larger force was rebuilt in conjunction with the surrounding county after a few major adjustments. 

Officers were retrained, their job conditions were revised and a bigger county-level force was relaunched, not only with more officers but also with a renewed focus: community service."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/police-reform-ideas-united-states-george-floyd-1.5601990

"In the face of this violence, Camden did something quite radical: It disbanded its 141-year-old police force. In its place, the surrounding county formed a new police department that it wants to expand to other jurisdictions outside the city. The Camden County Police Department rehired most of the laid-off cops, along with nearly 100 other officers, but at much lower salaries and with fewer benefits than they had received from the city."

https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-camden-disbands-police-force-for-new-department.html

So they hired the same assholes, but paid them less and cut their benefits.  That's a win for both civil rights and for paying workers a living wage, right?

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK, it came from Reclaim the Block... who are they?

Defund the Police origin story and canon aside, I'd like to hear your opinion on defunding the police. Just this policy or idea in a vacuum (e.g. not coupled with other reform or mandates, like fair housing, etc.) 

Specifically: are you for it? Do you think it's wise? Ultimately, is it a positive or negative (e.g. my hypothesis is it will actually create more inequality between neighborhoods and POC)?

Honestly curious because my take on you is that you actually want public goods to have MORE funding, not less or none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK, it came from Reclaim the Block... who are they?

They're a non profit organization and they are organizers.  Do you know what organizers do?  You could walk back the whole people on the street making up the slogan at least.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Black Lives Matter is seeking the response from the naysayers "But what about non-Black lives?"

Defund the Police is seeking the response from the naysayers "How will you provide secuirty?"

Whether the naysayers are racist or not, the response is there in the phrase.

You wouldn't even have a response if it were "Black Lives Matter, Too" and "Reform the Police". 

Quoting you as a jumping off point, but rambling to follow.

I disagree that the phrasing of BLM was intended to seek that response. I do agree that provokes that response, but unintentionally.

I think that's the same thing with DTP. It's an inartfully-coined rallying cry.

And it's the kind of shit that detracts from the message to the point that a winning issue with the public magically becomes a loser with the electorate in the hands of the talented marketers aligned with the Republican Party. 

When pressed on issues I'm more aligned, these days, with radicals. But unlike the radicals, I know a losing ad campaign when I see it.

You don't win elections by getting the discussion going. Do that shit in off years. Work on changing attitudes in the arts, entertainment, scholarship, etc. You win elections by making people afraid of things and telling them who's to blame for it. "Defund the police" does the opposite of that. Suddenly the police and "law and order" Republicans aren't the bad actors, a potentially lawless future is. It takes a winning issue in police brutality, and makes your party an easy mark for criticism. The people not already voting Dem see police as necessary, maybe even necessary evils, but necessary. You don't agree? Fine, but you aren't picking the next government all of us are.

If you don't win elections you don't get your reforms. You want ANY of the DTP policies to have half a chance? WIN. Welcome the Lincoln Projects guys onto the team and fucking WIN. Then go get your reforms passed. Never Trumpers are not going for DTP. Time to regroup and rebrand this reform policy. Biden has signaled he's going to do exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Camden sure did.  And that proves my point.  They redirected the fuck out of you, and while you were celebrating victory, they expanded the "disbanded" force by 100 officers, and put the whole thing in control of the more conservative county government.

I didn't even know it happened or even where in NJ Camden is or anything about it specifically, I was just pointing out that it appeared that "disband" was their thing and not "defund".

So I don't know who the "you" is. Me, specifically, the guy you get histrionically mad at online?

Quote

So they hired the same assholes, but paid them less and cut their benefits.  That's a win for both civil rights and for paying workers a living wage, right?

What are you ranting about?

Who is Reclaim the Block?

(They are on-the-street activists.)

Quote

They're a non profit organization and they are organizers.  Do you know what organizers do?  You could walk back the whole people on the street making up the slogan at least.

So Reclaim the Block doesn't consist of on-the-street activists? Interesting.

You're so invested in arguing with me online that you're actively delegitimizing black protest movements. Congratulations, white liberal.

The reality is that Reclaim the Block is an on-the-street activist organization, so their messaging is messaging from an on-the-street activist organization. I think you'd do better to not actively delegitimize black protest movements. :D

Just now, Rougarou said:

Defund the Police origin story and canon aside, I'd like to hear your opinion on defunding the police.

I don't know enough about what is meant by "defund the police" as a policy idea to comment on it as a policy idea.

My expectation of a street activism slogan isn't that it represent a fully-formed set of policy goals, but a larger moral/guiding message. In that sense, I think "defund the police" is beautiful.

Here's what Reclaim the Block has to say, and I support it 100%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Camden, I believe, disbanded the police.

The current use and popularity of "defund the police" as a slogan comes from street activism. It doesn't come from think tanks or some socialist magazine that centrists spend their lives being mad at.

If you're trying to tone-police or message-advise street activists you're either an opponent or a stupid asshole.

Or you don't like losing elections and letting the brutality enablers write the next sad chapter.

Street activists aren't above or incapable of taking advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, softlynow said:

Or you don't like losing elections and letting the brutality enablers write the next sad chapter.

*psssssst*

Democrats are brutality enablers, too.

Quote

Street activists aren't above or incapable of taking advice.

Sure, but advice from whom and for what reason?

From any of the do-nothing dipshits here? No. Not at all. Our advice isn't worth the electrons used to display it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.R. 3230 - 1997

This defense authorization contained a controversial provision to allow the transfer of "surplus" Pentagon assets to local police departments.

Senate Republicans loved it; Democrats were dead-even split.

You will never guess where Joe Biden was!

And you guys will never guess who co-sponsored a "Police Officer's Bill of Rights" alongside Jesse Helms in May 1991 (something kind of controversial happened around then!). That later morphed into the B***n-Thurmond Violent Crime Control Act in 1991 which eventually became a horrific and brutal crime bill in 1994.

You'll never guess in a million years! (I used asterisks because I don't want to give it away!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I see a slogan or hear and ad I immediately start screeching WHO DID THIS WHO DID THIS until they escort me out of the bus station. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hank Scorpio said:

Every time I see a slogan or hear and ad I immediately start screeching WHO DID THIS WHO DID THIS until they escort me out of the bus station. 

doublemint gum | Tumblr

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What the fuck are you talking about? How is that the response it is seeking?  

When the responder responds with "What about White LIves" and doesn't deviate from that kind or argument, the Black Lives Matter supporter knows exactly where they stand.

Holy shit you Nancies go into a frenzy when I merely, admittedly inartfully, made the observation that both phrases lend themselves to deeper discussion about what they really, at their base, mean, and at the same time, create a method to identify those who simply aren't willing to go beyond locking in on their own butthurt about the phrase itself. 

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/education-outreach/black-lives-matter-from-hashtag-to-movement.pdf

Edited by tantric superman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I didn't even know it happened or even where in NJ Camden is or anything about it specifically, I was just pointing out that it appeared that "disband" was their thing and not "defund".

So I don't know who the "you" is. Me, specifically, the guy you get histrionically mad at online?

You just touted Camden as a success story.  Nobody else did.   I was just pointing out, once again, that it is quite easy for someone to play a shell game with you since you are so heavily invested in slogans.  Camden played the shell game.

County wide PDs are usually worse because rural and suburban voters get a larger say in urban policing.  Nassau County PD on Long Island are some of the worst around. 

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who is Reclaim the Block?

(They are on-the-street activists.)

 

They do include on-the-street activists.  They also have a web designer, and a copy editor who decides what to post, and they have organizers who organize people like you and put slogans in their brains.  And they have accountants and administrators who manage donations and filings.

Again, the slogan didn't come from the street.  It was seeded there.  And again, its a bad slogan.  One can support a cause and realize that a larger audience can be reached with better messaging.

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

You're so invested in arguing with me online that you're actively delegitimizing black protest movements. Congratulations, white liberal.

 

Nonsense.  You're the one who delegitimizes them by refusing to do even a single bit of outreach in your ivory tower neighborhood to get other white voters on board with needed reform.  The protesters are already on board.  I'm also on board.  As a resident of the villages, you need to work to get your local community on board too.  Part of that is modifying the slogans so they aren't pushed away by them.

This isn't your only instance of it either.  By holding Bernie's messaging infallible, you helped sink his campaign too.  Content and action are what is important.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You just touted Camden as a success story.

No, I didn't.

Re-read and try again. :D

Quote

They do include on-the-street activists.  They also have a web designer, and a copy editor who decides what to post, and they have organizers who organize people like you and put slogans in their brains.  And they have accountants and administrators who manage donations and filings.

Doubling down by continuing to delegitimize and make irrelevant the work of a black activist organization to own a fellow white guy on the Internet.

Quote

Again, the slogan didn't come from the street.  It was seeded there. 

 

lol are you OK?

Quote

And again, its a bad slogan.  One can support a cause and realize that a larger audience can be reached with better messaging.

You should learn what the word "realize" means, because the thing you think you've "realized" is just a supposition.

The phrase "defund the police" went from literal 0 on Google Trends to a very highly-searched phrase across the entire nation. Seems like amazing messaging to me.

But hey, I'm just using data and not my class-reinforced pundit-brain.

Quote

 You're the one who delegitimizes them by refusing to do even a single bit of outreach in your ivory tower neighborhood to get other white voters on board with needed reform.

Is that actually true about me, though? Or is it something you've invented in your head because you're trying to own me online?

You should stop. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RPM said:

We should take a similar approach to UK Bobbies. The problem is we have so many guns on the street it is a serious threat that UK Bobbies don't have to face.

You can't sent a man into a shit fight with piss.

Make local beat cops carry less-lethal with lethal (shot gun/9mm) backup in the trunk, but only 1 mag. Supervisor has the reserve.

De-escalate the situation instead of bulldogging. More Sheriff Andy, less Vic Mackey (no Surly connection).

First of all, yeah we probably need fewer guns on the streets. But because of Merica and muh rights that hasn't happened. Perhaps an unarmed police force would actually advocate for a well regulated militia and push for reform in that area.

Also if a situation arises where they actually need lethal force, they should fall back and call for backup that would be cleared to actually carry those weapons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

When the responder responds with "What about White LIves" and doesn't deviate from that kind or argument, the Black Lives Matter supporter knows exactly where they stand.

Holy shit you Nancies go into a frenzy when I merely, admittedly inartfully, made the observation that both phrases lend themselves to deeper discussion about what they really, at their base, mean, and at the same time, create a method to identify those who simply aren't willing to go beyond locking in on their own butthurt about the phrase itself. 

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/education-outreach/black-lives-matter-from-hashtag-to-movement.pdf

I really had no idea where you were going. I disagree that "black lives matter" is seeking the sort of response you are talking about. I think the term "seeking" was the inartful portion of your post, as it suggested that the slogan intentionally sought a divisive response from others, which I just don't see being the case.  But, I agree that it does occasionally elicit that response, which ends up telling you a lot about the person making it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Anyone who is instantly offended by "Defund the Police" or somehow thinks that we're literally talking about getting rid of police and just having anarchy is probably either being intentionally dishonest or intentionally ignorant. Those people were going to feign offense to it even if it was called "let's put some rules and restrictions in place around the police that reduces militarism and racism". 

I'm not really concerned about what those people think.

And the "independents" out there bitching about the violence or the looting or whatever, fuck them too. If you look at the data coming out that's showing seismic shifts in the way people view racist police departments since George Floyd was murdered, you can see that this is what it took to get the attention of sleepy soft Xanax'ed up white America. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. I'm also not interested in hearing the people who are responsible for the terrible justice system this country has tell anyone that they need to be more polite in order to be heard.

Edited by BradInATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, I didn't.

Re-read and try again. :D

Doubling down by continuing to delegitimize and make irrelevant the work of a black activist organization to own a fellow white guy on the Internet.

 

lol are you OK?

You should learn what the word "realize" means, because the thing you think you've "realized" is just a supposition.

The phrase "defund the police" went from literal 0 on Google Trends to a very highly-searched phrase across the entire nation. Seems like amazing messaging to me.

But hey, I'm just using data and not my class-reinforced pundit-brain.

Is that actually true about me, though? Or is it something you've invented in your head because you're trying to own me online?

You should stop. :D

The word organization has a specific meaning.  Go look it up and come back.  What do organizations do?  What about organizers?

And sure, Google trends indicate only positive connotations.  Everyone just loves hurricanes and terrorist attacks too.  Have you seen those trends?  Maybe they should carry porn signs instead since "search" ranking matters.

You need to give protesters more credit.  They were protesting already and they would be protesting even without your slogan.  The content and action are there.  Its okay to change your messaging to bring more people in.  You should have done it with abolish ice and jobs guarantee before, but now that both of those are mostly dead, maybe the 3rd time will be the charm.

You tell me if you do anything at all in your local community. You certainly don't post anything about it here.  I do recall that your homeless outreach was zero on another thread.  I imagine its the same thing on most issues, where you donate and bitch on surly, but that's about it.

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix the Police! sounds better. They just need a better slogan that people can understand and not misinterpret. They should have used some PR people to come up with something that means fix the fucking police.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would go with, “Fuck the Police.”  

Just lean into something once Dems, show them you’re not afraid. Stop playing defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Anyone who is instantly offended by "Defund the Police" or somehow thinks that we're literally talking about getting rid of police and just having anarchy is probably either being intentionally dishonest or intentionally ignorant.

White liberals love nothing more than to condescend to black movements by saying, "Oh you guys are good little dancers, but let us be the brains behind the operation. Go do your shuck and jive and give us your votes."

26 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You tell me if you do anything at all in your local community. You certainly don't post anything about it here.  I do recall that your homeless outreach was zero on another thread.  I imagine its the same thing on most issues, where you donate and bitch on surly, but that's about it.

You're lying about me again, like you just did when you lied and said I was touting Camden as a success when I did nothing of the source.

You should spend less time lying to justify your Internet anger. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the idea of "positivity", that's completely irrelevant. Exposure to a concept isn't about immediately having everyone love it. That's product marketing thinking and Bill Hicks had the right idea for that crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...