Defund the Police?

[muppy]

14 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Trust me friend. This is a road to #windowlickerville that you just don't want to travel down.

that you would even use such a despicable # speaks volumes about you Jaraxxus.  I googled what t meant. wow.

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

As an engineer, I agree wholeheartedly 

 

There is only one professional that drives me crazier than lawyers.  Engineers....................

[muppy]

1 minute ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

My shame is palpable. No, really. I don't know how I can go on.

 

Oh I know........shame is not a part of your game. More than that you're proud of it . You being You reveals volumes.

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Not a big fan of librarians myself.

 

All those fines.

 

 

Too much like a cops huh? 

 

#Defund Librarians!

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Cinga

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What lots of reasons? In the late 1700s and early 1800s in England you basically had to pay for police services and/or you had to hire your own muscle to keep you safe. After that, it got worse as many would have to stand the cost of the prosecution if you wanted someone who personally harmed you prosecuted for the crime, but I did not mean my comment to go that far. If you took it to that extreme, my apologies as I only meant paying for your own police services (and/or muscle to keep you safe).

The mafia and gangs are also a way to keep someone safe (from other gangs or mafia). Some were pay (mafia got paid to allow you to not get hurt and your business to go on uninjured), some worked for the mob. The gangs protect you (generic you!) from other gangs.

All of this is, of course, simplistic. There is a history of what happens when you do not have a police force that is "free" for everyone equally under the law.

You’re aware that I offered multiple solutions, all of which could be implemented in concert; not just private security.  This included abolishing all gun laws, and a return to a sherrif and deputy system.

 

The state is violence, and America is a police state, and has been since SCOTUS ruled that the police have no legal duty to defend your rights, your property, or your life; but rather are agents of the state whose sole responsibility is to enforce the law, regardless of the justness of that law, or if it violates the rights of its citizens.

 

There is no “yeah but” which makes this acceptable.  As such I advocate for the abolition of the state as well.  The Constitution was put in place as a cage on the growth of government.  It has proved absolutely useless towards that purpose.

 

Its long past time to be done with it.  Abolish it all, and allow localism to dictate new alliances and structures of multiple governments for those who want them, and no governments at all for those who don’t.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You’re aware that I offered multiple solutions, all of which could be implemented in concert; not just private security.  This included abolishing all gun laws, and a return to a sherrif and deputy system.

 

The state is violence, and America is a police state, and has been since SCOTUS ruled that the police have no legal duty to defend your rights, your property, or your life; but rather are agents of the state whose sole responsibility is to enforce the law, regardless of the justness of that law, or if it violates the rights of its citizens.

 

There is no “yeah but” which makes this acceptable.  As such I advocate for the abolition of the state as well.  The Constitution was put in place as a cage on the growth of government.  It has proved absolutely useless towards that purpose.

 

Its long past time to be done with it.  Abolish it all, and allow localism to dictate new alliances and structures of multiple governments for those who want them, and no governments at all for those who don’t.

You are firm in your libertarian convictions, I will say that.

Let's just say we will agree to disagree on this.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

You are firm in your libertarian convictions, I will say that.

Let's just say we will agree to disagree on this.

 

The United States is far too large, and has large political groups whose philosophies are completely incompatible with each other.  This inevitably leads to political violence as national politics becomes a constant struggle over the gun that is government, such that one group can point it at the other, and force them to live a specific  way which violates the principals of that group.

 

This doesn’t even begin to speak to ideologies which are intentionally marginalized by the Two Party system.
 

Why should it be this way?  It doesn’t make any sense that California should either dictate to, or be dictated to by, the rest of the nation.  Let them go.

 

And if we are being consistent, let anyone else who wants to go, go as well.

 

Government is only just with the consent of the governed, and that’s not how America operates any more.

 

One could easily argue, if one agrees with Greg on the state of corruption and malfeasance entrenched in our government, that it actively does none of the things it was chartered to do, and instead simply now exists to feather the nests of the politically connected.

 

Power corrupts, and there is nothing more powerful than the US government.  
 

What sort of individuals are drawn to that sort of power?  Not peaceful people who simply wish to leave others alone; but rather men and women who would seek to harness that monopoly on violence in order to bend others to their own preferences, and have the will to do so at massive costs of human lives.  There were no gentle hearted plantation overseers.  Elected office attracts sociopaths.  That’s who leads us.

 

What I am proposing doesn’t leave you without government, if government is what you desire, but rather allows you to have the government you want without imposing it on others who reject your philosophy.

 

As for disagreeing with my assessment of America as a police state, that’s not my opinion, but rather the legal dictate of the Supreme Court.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

The United States is far too large, and has large political groups whose philosophies are completely incompatible with each other.  This inevitably leads to political violence as national politics becomes a constant struggle over the gun that is government, such that one group can point it at the other, and force them to live a specific  way which violates the principals of that group.

 

This doesn’t even begin to speak to ideologies which are intentionally marginalized by the Two Party system.
 

Why should it be this way?  It doesn’t make any sense that California should either dictate to, or be dictated to by, the rest of the nation.  Let them go.

 

And if we are being consistent, let anyone else who wants to go, go as well.

 

Government is only just with the consent of the governed, and that’s not how America operates any more.

 

One could easily argue, if one agrees with Greg on the state of corruption and malfeasance entrenched in our government, that it actively does none of the things it was chartered to do, and instead simply now exists to feather the nests of the politically connected.

 

Power corrupts, and there is nothing more powerful than the US government.  
 

What sort of individuals are drawn to that sort of power?  Not peaceful people who simply wish to leave others alone; but rather men and women who would seek to harness that monopoly on violence in order to bend others to their own preferences, and have the will to do so at massive costs of human lives.  There were no gentle hearted plantation overseers.  Elected office attracts sociopaths.  That’s who leads us.

 

What I am proposing doesn’t leave you without government, if government is what you desire, but rather allows you to have the government you want without imposing it on others who reject your philosophy.

 

As for disagreeing with my assessment of America as a police state, that’s not my opinion, but rather the legal dictate of the Supreme Court.

Not engaging. ?

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Borderline anarchist, that one. Some of his stuff is convincing, others not so much.

 

Philisophically I’m an AnCap, but don’t believe that to be practical in application.  Functionally I’m a minarchist, as some legal structure is needed for the enforcement of contracts. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Not engaging. ?

 

You’re clearly entitled to that.

 

I’m sure someone else will, however.

1 minute ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

It's funny that you and I sometimes come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

 

I believe aggression to be immoral.

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

I believe that history proves multiculturalism to be a failed ideology.

 

Nearly every multicultural empire in history had a very short shelf life. America is proving no different.

 

I don’t disagree with this.

 

I simply recognize that America is far to large, and far too ideologically diverse to remain a single nation.

 

It is unjust as it cannot be maintained without the application of force.

Edited June 11, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I believe aggression to be immoral.

 

If you want to do away with aggression (not insinuating you're saying that just in case you're not) you're going to have to do an awful lot of human reprogramming.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

17 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

If you want to do away with aggression (not insinuating you're saying that just in case you're not) you're going to have to do an awful lot of human reprogramming.  

I don’t propose that aggression can be stopped, I simply think we should stop institutionalizing it and giving political activists a gun to point at everyone else In order to steal from them and force them to live a certain way.

 

I also don’t equate violence with aggression.  Using violence to stop someone from aggressing you is perfectly moral.

2 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Mind DMing me a list of good resources which drive your philosophy? A lot of free time on my hands lately, could use a good read. Also, you once mentioned a book written by a historian about the Articles of Confederation vis a vis the Constitution and how the Constitution was basically a document legalizing theft. I'd be really interested in that one.

 

Gladly.  I’ll tag you shortly.

Edited June 11, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[BuffaloHokie13]

@TakeYouToTasker this you? Lotta similar vibes... admittedly long watch (30 mins) but he does make some interesting points. He's a self-proclaimed anarchist, fwiw.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

36 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

@TakeYouToTasker this you? Lotta similar vibes... admittedly long watch (30 mins) but he does make some interesting points. He's a self-proclaimed anarchist, fwiw.

 

LOL, no.  
 

I am not Eric July, though I do speak with him reasonably frequently.  Eric is a prominent and powerful advocate for libertarian philosophy 

Edited June 11, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[KRC]

18 hours ago, Margarita said:

that you would even use such a despicable # speaks volumes about you Jaraxxus.  I googled what t meant. wow.

 

He didn't mean that definition. He meant something completely different.

[muppy]

3 hours ago, KRC said:

 

He didn't mean that definition. He meant something completely different.

such as?

 

haha touche'.....points for cuteness.

[GregPersons]

20 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I don’t propose that aggression can be stopped, I simply think we should stop institutionalizing it and giving political activists a gun to point at everyone else In order to steal from them and force them to live a certain way.

 

I also don’t equate violence with aggression.  Using violence to stop someone from aggressing you is perfectly moral.

Gladly.  I’ll tag you shortly.

 

Which political activists have guns, specifically? What is being stolen, and what certain way of life is being forced?

 

Should Black people take the Christopher Dorner approach to the aggressions from police and White America, would that be perfectly moral in your view?

[Reality Check]

1 hour ago, GregPersons said:

 

Which political activists have guns, specifically? What is being stolen, and what certain way of life is being forced?

 

Should Black people take the Christopher Dorner approach to the aggressions from police and White America, would that be perfectly moral in your view?

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/10/2020 at 6:02 PM, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think the issue here, Margarita is that the word "defund" literally means to cease funding. If somebody says "defund the police" and they do not mean that funding for the police should be withdrawn and stopped, then they should use another word or phrase that more accurately represents what they mean.

 

If we start to apply arbitrary meanings and endless interpretations, the word itself then becomes meaningless.

 

Words do have meanings and should be used accordingly. 

 

This is such an important point you’ve made, billsfan1959 (and thank you for doing so while being respectful to Margarita). I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the nature of modern American political discourse and why it’s apparently collapsing all around us. I could list many reasons, but two that I’ll mention have to do specifically with how we use language. We all seem to be talking over and around each other because of our propensity for making sweeping and hasty generalizations, as well as for the reason you mentioned: using words with arbitrary definitions and loose interpretations.

 

In order to avoid confusion, we should all develop habits of specifying beforehand the meaning of a word we’re using if it differs from Webster’s dictionary, if it’s a commonly misused one, if it has multiple definitions, or if the definition has recently changed within the culture. “Defund,” “racism,” “fascism,” and even “abolish” are the most recent culprits. For me, my pet peeve has always been “socialism.”

[Cinga]

39 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

or if the definition has recently changed within the culture. “Defund,” “racism,” “fascism,” and even “abolish” are the most recent culprits. For me, my pet peeve has always been “socialism.”

 

None of those words have changed in definition though, especially your "pet peeve" socialism. 

 

Misuse of the English language doesn't change a definition.

[GregPersons]

5 minutes ago, Cinga said:

None of those words have changed in definition though, especially your "pet peeve" socialism. 

 

Misuse of the English language doesn't change a definition.

 

Where does language come from? God? 

 

Really love the folks dying on this hill. "Language never changes, snowflake!" lol 

 

Kind of a really direct example of how racists really need to insist on their own fictional reality with highly developed selective listening skills. Let's see how it manifests this time...

47 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

This is such an important point you’ve made, billsfan1959 (and thank you for doing so while being respectful to Margarita). I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the nature of modern American political discourse and why it’s apparently collapsing all around us. I could list many reasons, but two that I’ll mention have to do specifically with how we use language. We all seem to be talking over and around each other because of our propensity for making sweeping and hasty generalizations, as well as for the reason you mentioned: using words with arbitrary definitions and loose interpretations.

 

In order to avoid confusion, we should all develop habits of specifying beforehand the meaning of a word we’re using if it differs from Webster’s dictionary, if it’s a commonly misused one, if it has multiple definitions, or if the definition has recently changed within the culture. “Defund,” “racism,” “fascism,” and even “abolish” are the most recent culprits. For me, my pet peeve has always been “socialism.”

 

"Defund" is the right word.

 

It means starting the conversation from 0 and building up. 

 

Not starting from current police budgets and working down.

 

It's strong language for a reason. It's a negotiating tactic. It communicates the severity and vastness of change needed.

 

It's the right word.

 

It's arguably not strong enough. "Imprison the police" once we remove legal qualified immunity... that's gonna be a fun conversation.

Edited June 13, 2020 by GregPersons

[Doc Brown]

4 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

None of those words have changed in definition though, especially your "pet peeve" socialism. 

 

Misuse of the English language doesn't change a definition.

Define it then because some definitions I've seen are vague while some are extremely specific.

[Chef Jim]

10 hours ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Of course I did, because nothing means anything anymore!

 

Isn't language great?

 

 

***** you mother*****ing #######.

 

So is the first round on me tonight or you?  

[Uncle Joe]

57 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

This is such an important point you’ve made, billsfan1959 (and thank you for doing so while being respectful to Margarita). I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the nature of modern American political discourse and why it’s apparently collapsing all around us. I could list many reasons, but two that I’ll mention have to do specifically with how we use language. We all seem to be talking over and around each other because of our propensity for making sweeping and hasty generalizations, as well as for the reason you mentioned: using words with arbitrary definitions and loose interpretations.

 

In order to avoid confusion, we should all develop habits of specifying beforehand the meaning of a word we’re using if it differs from Webster’s dictionary, if it’s a commonly misused one, if it has multiple definitions, or if the definition has recently changed within the culture. “Defund,” “racism,” “fascism,” and even “abolish” are the most recent culprits. For me, my pet peeve has always been “socialism.”

I am old school. I used to program systems that included peoples names. Nothing was normal. Everybody had to be special.
I don't know if that is sick or sick. Or if going viral is good or bad.

Interesting times.

[Cinga]

16 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Define it then because some definitions I've seen are vague while some are extremely specific.

 

You just made a good example yourself. 

[Doc Brown]

2 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

You just made a good example yourself. 

You said none of these words change in definition.  Define it.

[Cinga]

28 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Define it then because some definitions I've seen are vague while some are extremely specific.

 

10 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

You just made a good example yourself. 

 

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

You said none of these words change in definition.  Define it.

 

I know what I said, just as you know that you just demanding the fruits of someone else labor.  See, why should you look it up when you can make someone else do it for you?

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

 

I know what I said, just as you know that you just demanding the fruits of someone else labor.  See, why should you look it up when you can make someone else do it for you?

Which is why when people on the right throw out the scare term "socialism" it makes it hard for me to take them seriously as they collect their social security check.

[Cinga]

5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Which is why when people on the right throw out the scare term "socialism" it makes it hard for me to take them seriously as they collect their social security check.

 

Yeah, I understand.... which is why I think the government should give back everything people have paid into SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE fund and let them invest it into a more secure 401K or Roth... Have no idea your age, but do you have any idea how much you (and your employer) have paid into that INSURANCE fund? Do you really think you will get it back?

 

[Hedge]

 

 

[Chef Jim]

4 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

So they are replacing the police with.............the police?? 

 

How Orwellian.  Oh sorry @Margarita  Am I being too mean?  

Edited June 13, 2020 by Chef Jim

[reddogblitz]

On 6/11/2020 at 11:35 AM, Cinga said:

 

Too much like a cops huh? 

 

#Defund Librarians!

 

 

librarians in Seattle don't charge late fines.

[billsfan1959]

9 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

This is such an important point you’ve made, billsfan1959 (and thank you for doing so while being respectful to Margarita). I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the nature of modern American political discourse and why it’s apparently collapsing all around us. I could list many reasons, but two that I’ll mention have to do specifically with how we use language. We all seem to be talking over and around each other because of our propensity for making sweeping and hasty generalizations, as well as for the reason you mentioned: using words with arbitrary definitions and loose interpretations.

 

In order to avoid confusion, we should all develop habits of specifying beforehand the meaning of a word we’re using if it differs from Webster’s dictionary, if it’s a commonly misused one, if it has multiple definitions, or if the definition has recently changed within the culture. “Defund,” “racism,” “fascism,” and even “abolish” are the most recent culprits. For me, my pet peeve has always been “socialism.”

 

I have a few thoughts myself, Kay, regarding the reasons for the toxic state of political discourse in this country, a topic which would probably make for a good thread - if the clowns could be kept out of it. As for the topic at hand, I think there has been a shift in how we use language in our national dialogue. We love to apply labels, make sweeping generalizations, conveniently dismiss the complexities of human nature, and place people in defined categories for the expressed purpose of (1) diminishing the legitimacy of their message, (2) demonizing them, and/or (3) pitting groups against each other. In the process utilize words that have somewhat specific textbook definitions, but in reality are expanded into umbrella terms under which we can place any behavior we do not appove of, as long as it can tenuously be tied to the original definition of the term. I know this has always existed to some degree; however, it seems, to me, it has worsened.

 

To be honest, specific textbook/dictionary definitions are a necessary means of creating a common dialogue through a common understanding of words; however, definitions of certain words/terms become relatively useless in their practical application to most human beings. Some words, such as, "defunding," have a specific meaning and should be used accordingly. For other words/terms, such as "racism" and "socialism," we can pull out the primary, agreed upon, dictionary/textbook definitions and read them over and over; but, the truth is, they have been pulled, stretched, and distorted to to such a degree to fit all their applications, from one extreme to another, that, in the end, they have become almost meaningless. 

 

Which then denies us that common ground on which to engage in honest dialogue. In those instances we need to find ways to accurately describe what it is we are talking about before we can meaningfully begin to discuss it.

 

[3rdnlng]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Which is why when people on the right throw out the scare term "socialism" it makes it hard for me to take them seriously as they collect their social security check.

So, socialism=social security? You're better than that, Doc. Your comments immediately reminded me of Tiberius and The Federal Reserve "confusion". Do you really want to be associated with that? 

[ALF]

I would think by defund to mean the Camden ,NJ police model.  Disband , throw out the old contract and start over again. Rehire the good officers under new rules.

 

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/camden-new-jersey-prototype-national-police-reform

Edited June 13, 2020 by ALF

[Chef Jim]

10 minutes ago, ALF said:

I would think by defund to mean the Camden ,NJ police model.  Disband , throw out the old contract and start over again. Rehire the good officers under new rules.

Then use a word that defines that like:

 

Restructure 

Reorganize

Reengineer 

Revamp 

 

You know words with a re prefix not a de prefix. And I would love to have had someone go around and ask the protesters when this word came out to define defund. I’m pretty sure a large majority would have described disband. Now?  They’d all say “oh that’s not what we meant!”  

Edited June 13, 2020 by Chef Jim

[3rdnlng]

Just now, ALF said:

I would think by defund to mean the Camden ,NJ police model.  Disband , throw out the old contract and start over again. Rehire the good officers under new rules.

That's the problem and no I'm not taking a shot at you. It is important to use precise language so that there is no confusion when discussing an issue. Using words according to your personal definition doesn't bring about any coming together or better understanding but contributes to confusion and misunderstanding. If one wants to qualify "defund" then use adjectives along with it such as "partially", "temporarily", "momentarily" or "somewhat". I know the adjectives wouldn't look good on a protest sign, but just saying "defund the police" is sending a message that not only isn't what the sign holder wants to convey, but makes the people you want to convince immediately oppose. 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, socialism=social security? You're better than that, Doc. Your comments immediately reminded me of Tiberius and The Federal Reserve "confusion". Do you really want to be associated with that? 

 

Don't make me call the FBI Police.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

 

 

New York City Council backs proposal to slash $1 billion from NYPD budget

By Peter Aitken | Fox News

 

New York City Council leaders have issued a joint statement declaring their intent to back proposals slashing $1 billion from the NYPD budget.

Speaker Corey Johnson, Majority Leader Laurie Cumbo, Finance Committee Chair Daniel Dromm and Public Safety Committee Chair Donovan Richards, among others,  said they support a plan to “get to $1 billion in cuts to New York City’s police spending in the Fiscal 2021 budget.”

 

The NYPD has a proposed budget of $6 billion, which Mayor Bill de Blasio has pledged to cut in response to citywide protests after initially backing the department.

 

The loss of $1 billion in funding would limit the scope and function of the police, but the City Council believes it shows a clear commitment towards reform.

 

“There is no doubt that this is an ambitious goal, but it is one that the time we are in calls for – both here in New York City and nationwide,” read the statement, posted on the council's website.

 

“This is possible," the statement said, noting anticipated savings by "reducing uniform headcount through attrition, cutting overtime, shifting responsibilities away from the NYPD, finding efficiencies" and more.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-cut-billion-nypd-budget