At 6/8/20 02:07 PM, nightsavior wrote:
I apologize if I somewhat misunderstood your point but when you defund a group they're gonna struggle and be a shadow of what they once were. That means even "good cops" would be hindered in doing their jobs properly. They certainly should be held accountable but I do not know if cutting them off from the resources they need on a grand scale is a good idea. This also seems to be punishing "all cops" for the actions of the bad ones.
Regardless we can agree to disagree. I don't have anything else to add without repeating myself. I could post links too to back up my POV but I find that often quickly devolves into the "But your sources are BIAS!" grandstanding that I find to be tedious/meaningless.
Except, as the protests are showing, the problems with the police are more widespread than most have been admitting. The willingness to use violent tactics on innocent protesters (just because other protests have turned violent) should be shocking to us as citizens. And, as Zachary has pointed out, when punishment is attempted of bad cops, the rest of the force flock around them in the blue wall, complaining about their unjust treatment.
As for defunding police "punishing" them, I suppose that is a way to look at it. In reality, even were the police not abusing their positions, 90% of what the police do today is not needed, nor is it helpful to society. At the same time, they fail to fulfill their most basic function virtually everywhere- solving violent victim creating crimes. Pruning back the police is a societal good on it's own. Removing the ability to buy tanks, ATVs, and other military grade equipment is a universal good, as well as fiscal common sense.
That some police are hindered in the pursuit of legitimate objectives (assuming this weill happen) is not punishment. It doesn't affect their personal lives, rights or freedoms. They're not even going to be held accountable if their professional performance suffers. And, overall, even viewing it as punishment, one cannot continue the current path because a few good apples might be indirectly affected by defunding largely corrupt and illegitimate activities. That's just not good sense.
At 6/8/20 05:09 PM, Gagsy wrote:
A man who made his fortune trading slaves then monopolied the local area using that blood money so his name could long on long after he died, and it did in that area for years and years. Millions of us in the UK never realised this because it was brushed aside, deemed not important.
Virtually everyone at the time made money off of slavery. Saying that his indirect participation in acts common amongst his profession makes him a bad person is...interesting, to say the least. Nevertheless, he was a wealthy man from legitimate activities, who then became a member of a company that made money, in part, off of slavery, which they had been doing long before he came along. In contrast to his minor involvement with that, his charitable activities were significant and still benefit people today. Criticism of Colston comes not from any sort of historical perspective, but on current views of the world. It wholly exaggerates his evils while ignoring completely his goods.
And now people have had enough. Years of petitions and protests to get the statue removed ignored by the council and government and now the people have spoken.
If my neighbor wishes to hang a picture of Hitler in his window, my dislike of Hitler doesn't give me the right to go destroy his property. This is no different.
If you don't see that this is history in the making then compare it to the plight of the suffragettes. Denied, ridiculed, criminalised - it wasn't until brave women said "fuck this, we've had enough of this establishment that doesn't treat us as equal individuals" and they fucking acted. And thank god they did, so I myself can vote and have my own freedoms as a woman.
Actually, let's be blunt. The suffragettes were good women. But if men, those in power, hadn't backed them, they would still have no rights today. Had we truly lived in the caveman society that many feminists pretend, the suffragettes would've simply been beaten, raped, and thrown back in the kitchen or bedroom. If they weren't killed that is.
The success of the suffragette movement shows the genteel nature of our society. We have seen how protests worked in Nazi Germany, communist Russia and China and other dictatorships. The protesters end up in mass graves.
So that is why they are fighting so that finally they can be treated the same as the white man.
Yes, I do not agree with looting shops and attacking police trying to protest (that may apply more in the uk, I've seen enough of the violence of US officers over the last week thank you), and as I said before that to me is a case of misguided individuals looking more for a fight than reform. So you should ignore those people because all they are doing is ruining the good fight of people who have been dying to finally be heard.
Viewing this as a black/white issue ignores the actual nature of the problem. Police routinely assault and kill people of all colors without cause. The qualified immunity cases in front of the Supreme Court now have gotten virtually no attention from the media, because most of the victims were white, and therefore not chic enough to notice. But the cases still involved the same sort of misconduct we saw in the cases of Garner, Floyd and more. Indeed, dozens of nonviolent white suspects were treated the same as Floyd with nary a peep from the media.
Pretending that it's a race issue simply because it happens to black citizens disproportionately suggests that it would be ok, if only the misconduct was racially proportionate. The problem is the same whether it affects 100% white, 100% black, or any mix in between. There is nothing to even hint that Floyd would've gotten different treatment if he was white. Correctly identifiying it as a problem with official misconduct, regardless of race, allows us to attack the problem, rather than put a bandaid on it.