Are you sure you want to abolish the police?

[Patooka]

Nobody thinks we should ban firefighters no matter how widespread rampant racism might be among them. I'm not saying it is. But we all agree that even the most horrible firefighter on the job is better than letting fires do their thing unchecked.

I certainly disagree. The worst firefighters cause a lack of trust in a profession that depends on such a thing deeply. No firefighters would be preferable than firefighters who burn your neighbour's house down while trying to get a kitten out of a tree. Or routinely run over people at a prolific rate whilst doing their routine day to day jobs. And be completely immune to oversight or consequences. There are enough innocent law abiding Americans who just don't feel safe around law enforcement. Call me insane, but personally I think that is a big fucking problem.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Nobody thinks we should ban firefighters no matter how widespread rampant racism might be among them. I'm not saying it is. But we all agree that even the most horrible firefighter on the job is better than letting fires do their thing unchecked.

I'm not in favor of disbanding police departments either. But bigoted police officers have the same kind of effect on public safety as would arsonist fire fighters who target gas stations.

I highly doubt that.

Then it seems you don't understand the cause of the ongoing conflagration in US cities.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Who is advocating for abolition of the police? Is this the new "I'll never let them take away my guns"?

Quite a few, though not all, activists. Here's one noted activist printed in the NYTimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

Opinion

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police
Because reform won’t happen.

By Mariame Kaba
Ms. Kaba is an organizer against criminalization.

One. And if you pay attention, they are using Camden as a model for what they are talking about. I realize that involved reading more than the headline and a few sentences (and there are a wide range of unrealistic opinions as well), but even with all those caveats, changing 'defund' to 'abolish' is blatantly dishonest in general.

 

[skepticalbip]

Quite a few, though not all, activists. Here's one noted activist printed in the NYTimes.

One. And if you pay attention, they are using Camden as a model for what they are talking about. I realize that involved reading more than the headline and a few sentences (and there are a wide range of unrealistic opinions as well), but even with all those caveats, changing 'defund' to 'abolish' is in general.

Some are using Camden, some are not. The fact that you didn't read the NYTimes op-ed I provided a link to could be why you assume that it is me who is changing defund to abolish. It is you that is being "blatantly dishonest" suggesting that Kaba was talking about Camden like reform. Do a little research on advocates like Mariame Kaba, the organizations they founded, are associated with, or influenced.

 

[skepticalbip]

Quite a few, though not all, activists. Here's one noted activist printed in the NYTimes.

I hate this way of using the news and looking at society. Just because a newspaper manages to find a couple of morons and the skilled journalist manages to wrangle juicy quotes from non-media trained young activists doesn't mean anything. It doesn't represent a position or actual opinion.

Nobody thinks we should ban firefighters no matter how widespread rampant racism might be among them. I'm not saying it is. But we all agree that even the most horrible firefighter on the job is better than letting fires do their thing unchecked.

You misread (or didn't actually read the op-ed that was linked). That wasn't a news article where jucy quotes were quote mined to misrepresent a movement. That was an OP-ED written by an activist representing a movement. NYTimes doesn't, in my experience, print OP-EDs by lone kooks. They print OP-EDs from people in groups that are large enough to be newsworthy.

Though I agree with you about slanted "reporting" that distorts what someone actually said. This isn't "reporting" by a second party. It is a long first party declaration by a member in the leadership of a movement.

 

[Gun Nut]

Okay, so you're up to... one, so far.

My experience is that the NY Times does not publish op-eds from lone nuts. They do publish op-eds from people in groups that have enough of a following to make it newsworthy.

Your rebuttal is akin to someone saying there were no Nazis in 1940s Germany unless you can identify several thousand of them by name.

The NY Times specifically is under scrutiny for doing exactly that... kowtowing to the Twitter-Nazi Radical Left. It takes only 12 trolls to influence the NYT. They have become completely owned by the woke police.

Factually, no one of any consequence in the democratic party, candidate, or public servant has any interest or intention of even listening to the idea of completely abolishing the police. Everyone knows that is just stupid.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Okay, so you're up to... one, so far.

My experience is that the NY Times does not publish op-eds from lone nuts. They do publish op-eds from people in groups that have enough of a following to make it newsworthy.

Your rebuttal is akin to someone saying there were no Nazis in 1940s Germany unless you can identify several thousand of them by name.

The NY Times specifically is under scrutiny for doing exactly that... kowtowing to the Twitter-Nazi Radical Left. It takes only 12 trolls to influence the NYT. They have become completely owned by the woke police.

Factually, no one of any consequence in the democratic party, candidate, or public servant has any interest or intention of even listening to the idea of completely abolishing the police. Everyone knows that is just stupid.

True. Democrats want to win. The republicans will be pushing this issue though. It's a great winner for them. They want to be the law and order party.

 

[skepticalbip]

The NY Times specifically is under scrutiny for doing exactly that... kowtowing to the Twitter-Nazi Radical Left. It takes only 12 trolls to influence the NYT. They have become completely owned by the woke police.

Factually, no one of any consequence in the democratic party, candidate, or public servant has any interest or intention of even listening to the idea of completely abolishing the police. Everyone knows that is just stupid.

True. Democrats want to win. The republicans will be pushing this issue though. It's a great winner for them. They want to be the law and order party.

Both parties have taken absurd positions. The Democrats deny there are such radical groups because they think their existence would cause people to support Republicans. The Republicans try to make it appear that such radical groups are Democrats to discourage support for them.

 

[southernhybrid]

Okay, so you're up to... one, so far.

My experience is that the NY Times does not publish op-eds from lone nuts. They do publish op-eds from people in groups that have enough of a following to make it newsworthy.

Your rebuttal is akin to someone saying there were no Nazis in 1940s Germany unless you can identify several thousand of them by name.

The NY Times specifically is under scrutiny for doing exactly that... kowtowing to the Twitter-Nazi Radical Left. It takes only 12 trolls to influence the NYT. They have become completely owned by the woke police.

Factually, no one of any consequence in the democratic party, candidate, or public servant has any interest or intention of even listening to the idea of completely abolishing the police. Everyone knows that is just stupid.

Actually, the NYTimes publishes a wide variety of opinion pieces from both liberals and conservatives, some of which are pretty kooky from both sides. That is why I try to link actual reporting and not just opinion pieces. To quote a very old line which has been attributed to a wide variety of sources: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

I doubt that any serious politician is in favor of abolishing the police. It's just a stupid, ignorant idea, but it does seem to be gaining support among some people who don't seem to realize that police reform or partial defunding isn't the same as abolishing the police. As I've said earlier, I have some very progressive friends who have said that they wish the term, "defunding the police" was never used as it's leading to a lot of misinformation and misunderstandings.

But, the fact that there are a small number of groups who do support the total abolishment of the police will certainly be used against the Democrats in the coming election, despite the fact that there is no evidence that any Democratic politician supports literally abolishing the police. Our disgusting president is already making claims that if Biden becomes president there will be no police to respond to crimes.

 

[Patooka]

Has everybody forgotten already the NYT was the only media outlet who felt it was necessary to print Tom Cotton's fascist manifesto? It didn't exactly espose the virtues of woke purple haired soy boys.

 

[Swammerdami]

What some liberals have proposed is to start over with police. To abolish the existing police departments — which are full of racists, sadists and improperly trained goons; and which have too many duties beyond policing — and immediately build new police departments, using the buildings, equipment and what personnel can be salvaged from the abolished departments.

Several recent exposés have shown that many American police departments are rotten to the core. Reluctantly, informed Americans must agree the time has come for drastic action....

... Anyway, could I see your source that existing police departments are full of racists, sadists and improperly trained goons? Or a source that shows that they are "rotten to the core"?

They may not support my exact choice of words, but the following articles will show how well-entrenched bad cops are, making reform difficult without drastic action.

• This must-read Vox article reports on the views of policeman-turned-scholar Arthur Rizer, who "wants you to know that American policing is even more broken than you think."
• This New Yorker article discusses the powerful Police Benevolent Association of New York City and how it has fought against reforms.
• Various recent news stories showing police in Oregon cooperating with the anti-black side in confrontations between BLM and white supremacists.
• Problems in the U.S.A. are, unfortunately, shared by some other developed countries. Here is a look at Nazis in the German police.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The NY Times specifically is under scrutiny for doing exactly that... kowtowing to the Twitter-Nazi Radical Left. It takes only 12 trolls to influence the NYT. They have become completely owned by the woke police.

Factually, no one of any consequence in the democratic party, candidate, or public servant has any interest or intention of even listening to the idea of completely abolishing the police. Everyone knows that is just stupid.

True. Democrats want to win. The republicans will be pushing this issue though. It's a great winner for them. They want to be the law and order party.

They say the words, but they are not, by any means. Just google a comparison of crimes and convictions of gop vs dem parties since, say, the 1950s.

Also, if you still don't believe that police unions and police departments are rife with corruption, racism, and grifting, then no amount of evidence will convince you. You're like a creationist that refuses to look at evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The NY Times specifically is under scrutiny for doing exactly that... kowtowing to the Twitter-Nazi Radical Left. It takes only 12 trolls to influence the NYT. They have become completely owned by the woke police.

Factually, no one of any consequence in the democratic party, candidate, or public servant has any interest or intention of even listening to the idea of completely abolishing the police. Everyone knows that is just stupid.

True. Democrats want to win. The republicans will be pushing this issue though. It's a great winner for them. They want to be the law and order party.

They say the words, but they are not, by any means. Just google a comparison of crimes and convictions of gop vs dem parties since, say, the 1950s.

Hey, knock it off with arguments this powerful! Give the guy a chance!