That's weird because when I say "don't judge all cops based on the actions of a few," and "I don't support putting bleach in cops' milkshakes" I get called a Nazi-racist. But if I say the protesters and the rioters aren't necessarily one and the same everyone gives me back pats.
That's what I meant. I hope it was for shock value or sounded betterlike it is?but I'd rather it would said basically don't do either because neither is fair nor correct (I believe the bleach in the shalenwas notntrue though, last time I checked but hard to keep upnwith everything)
I feel like a missed a thing here. But either way - people really aren't fan of the inversion principle, never realizing that without it we just replace one type of corruption with another.
.
Also - I don't know that the milkshake thing was done to the cops INTENTIONALLY, but they DID get sick. And people immediately started crowing like this was some sort of good thing.
.
I understand not all cops are "good," but all I could think was "these people are just humans. And everyday most of them go out and risk their lives so that WE can go out WITHOUT putting our lives at risk. And because some of them did something horrible... people want them dead. People are HAPPY with the thought someone might have attempted to kill them. Doesn't matter if it really happened or not."
Well... if YOU care most about who you see as the bigger danger to YOU, or would make sense that THEY care most who they see is the bigger danger to them- and THEY see it as the police force. Given our many talks in which you’ve stated that were you to feel the government finally went too far in its trampling of rights or use of force against “you and yours” that you’d bring hell upon them... it would likewise stand to reason these people may feel the same? And unlike you they DO feel threatened by the police?
And yes- some of them are causing collateral damage or targeting non combatants. No organization that YOU famousone, would EVER be a part of, has or would EVER cause harm to non combatants or collateral damage while fighting would it? You’re better than that. You’d NEVER participate in an action or be a member of a group that destroyed store fronts or burned people’s homes, or who had individual members not acting under direction from the group who did those things riiiiiight...?
No, I'm on the right side of this argument. Twist words however you want, I do not need to justify siding with the police against looters and rioters who are killing innocent people and destroying entire communities.
You don’t have to, and I’m not defending looters and rioters. But the original statement you made was not that you side with police against looters and rioters- it was a binary statement as you made here again- you are prone to two dimensional thought. There are only two sides in most of your analyses. One can be against looters and rioters while also being against police brutality. The statement that you side with whoever is the solution of and not cause of your problems not only implies total support without addendum, but it also is based on an argument of ends justifying means. I do not need to twist your words- responding to exactly what you said is not twisting your words. It is called “language” where words and sentences convey meaning based upon how and which we use. It is a relatively well known and established concept this “language” and is not some fad. I am surprised you have not heard of it.
Here's the thing, you condescending ass, I have to pick a side for the simple fact that the rioters and representatives made it binary. "Defund the police" or "Empty the prisons", leaves about as much room for discussion as "abolish the second amendment", or "ban religion". Is there change to be done? Yes. Will I support any of it that gives so much as an inch to those criminals and anarchists? Fuck. No.
There is what I would ideally support, and then there is what the factions actually want.
To quote myself on a different thread "I was on board, until...".
That is once again, not reality. YOU are making it binary- that is a hallmark of 2 dimensional thinking. “Defund the police” is not a binary statement- both the actual definition of defund as well as the movement to defund police- do not mean to completely cut off funding. Most people are not advocating a world without police. “Defund,” is a discussion of one chooses to join it instead of distilling things to “all or nothing; us or them.” Now- I’d hate to be called condescending- but since we are quoting ourselves- let me quote myself. “If you say things that make it seem like you don’t understand simple concepts- I won’t have to explain them to you.”
So- the police have a budget. That is kind of like a big bank account where all their money goes. Now, they have to budget that money, but some is budgeted for them. So if you have $100, you can decide whatever you want to buy with it. BUT- if your mom gave you $20 to buy some cleaning supplies, you only have $80 you can spend on anything you want, the other $20 is “earmarked”- specifically set for only buying one thing.
With a big organization like police, these budgets can get complex. But they include things like “anti terrorism” money and other funds for buying “tactical” equipment like things you use in the army to go overseas and worry about soldiers fighting you. Many people don’t think a lot of these things belong on US soil bro used by a civil agency keeping the peace, and many believe areas like this are places we should “defund the police.” It is also believers that police are too militarized and that they should redirect funds from things like combat based training for peace officers (leaving this sort of thing to specific teams used for specific and rare cases they are needed.)
So one can be for de funding the police and still want a police force, even support a police force. I mean- if I said “last year the federal government spent X million dollars to make a statue of Ronald McDonald outside the Supreme Court- and we need to defund them so we don’t have this kind of waste!” Would I be against America because I want to stop some agents of government from doing something that as a tax payer I find unnecessary and harmful? Isn’t that actually SUPPORTING and organization by trying to improve it?
You forgot to quote your source- which I happen to know is the Oxford English Dictionary. If you go look up the definition by Webster’s you’ll see the definition I list. The Oxford dictionary provides definitions for standard English as the primary- Webster’s lists AMERICAN ENGLISH- as we are in America you and I, speaking of an American movement, my assumption was we would default to the American English definition.
But- semantics right? I can’t say you are wrong on the definition, but nor am I wrong. So we can call definitions by the book a stalemate. So if we step outside the English dictionaries for a moment- that leaves us to have to define their usage of the word on what they are actually asking be done. And- the general ask is not to cease police funding, but to cease funding certain things or reduce and redistribute funds- so perhaps the media and those in the movement are using the incorrect word (not in American English- but some people prefer standard English) so then we could say: “they mean and are asking to reform police funding and restructure the budget.”
So regardless of semantics the original point stands that whatever word they are or are not misusing- the actual thing they are asking for is reform- and thusly it is not a binary “all or nothing” matter- which was the original point anyway, and some people using ambiguous language in their Brandon doesn’t change that fact.
But it is all or nothing. Look at their conduct, their representatives and backers. By Odin's eye, those people are using the word interchangeably with "abolish".
That is quite literally, the exact underlying point of the original post- no. “These people” are not. “These people” are a gigantic group. SOME of these people are trying to abolish. Those people are ignorant, and you will find them in any group of sufficient size. Citizens advocacy groups are not well organized vetted militia- the people leading these movements, the ones who actually would be speaking across a bargaining table or advising on a phone line- aren’t advocated abolishing the police force or their entire funding.
The idea is patently ludicrous, and while I understand that in 2020 what once seemed ludicrous is now terrifyingly reasonable on all fronts- that isn’t what is going on at all. Anyone for defund the police, and anyone against the idea- who believes that the goal is to complete strip the funding from the police force, has skipped WAY over any form of logic or reason and just jumped straight the land of imaginary extremes. It isn’t a realistic goal, a practically achievable one, nor an advisable one. SOME people do want to abolish the police completely. That is binary thinking on their part- a solution is either perfect, or it should be abolished. That is the danger of binary thinking. Extremists on one side feed extremists on the other and we end up here, arguing over a misconception based in bias.
Some opportunistic gunner taking advantage of the chaos and protests
.
Also - I don't know that the milkshake thing was done to the cops INTENTIONALLY, but they DID get sick. And people immediately started crowing like this was some sort of good thing.
.
I understand not all cops are "good," but all I could think was "these people are just humans. And everyday most of them go out and risk their lives so that WE can go out WITHOUT putting our lives at risk. And because some of them did something horrible... people want them dead. People are HAPPY with the thought someone might have attempted to kill them. Doesn't matter if it really happened or not."
Newsflash, it ain't the boys in blue.
There is what I would ideally support, and then there is what the factions actually want.
To quote myself on a different thread "I was on board, until...".
/dēˈfənd/
verb US
Prevent from continuing to receive funds.
"The California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"