So what form does the resistance take?

stanfr said:
I am not so sure 'defunding the police' is so much a "bad idea" but it has been a bad slogan for sure. The meaning of the term for progressives is not to eliminate policing, but to make policing symbiotic with the community, so that police are a partner with a community rather than an 'Us vs Them' mentality.
Click to expand...
Wow! I never realized that, but I looked it up in the dictionary, and you're right. The very first defintion of "defund" is:

defund: 1. to make symbiotic with a community.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
These are protestors. I assume you know about protesting.
Click to expand...
Yes, and what's the point? To tell politicians that they exist and aren't happy? I'm pretty sure that's already understood. So a bunch of people who couldn't swing enough votes to get their way are making a melodramatic spectacle of being unhappy with the outcome. At least it's no Jan 6. But even that spectacle didn't change anything about the outcome of the election.
 
I agree that Protests are not as effective as drowning politicians in phone calls, emails and sit-ins.
Even better is accumulating a pile of money and suggest you are looking for some primary challengers for the incumbent.
 
stanfr said:
There was an inside joke in my old office that a resisting arrest charge (RA on the complaint) was simply a code word for "we beat the crap out of the defendant" It was a way to justify unprovoked assaults on citizens by the cops.

I am not so sure 'defunding the police' is so much a "bad idea" but it has been a bad slogan for sure. The meaning of the term for progressives is not to eliminate policing, but to make policing symbiotic with the community, so that police are a partner with a community rather than an 'Us vs Them' mentality. And the disparity of incarceration rates and people dying or being assaulted by police in this country vs others gives plenty of evidence for the system not being very effective or trustworthy. If you simplify it down to the most basic idealistic idea, putting all your money and effort into eliminating poverty, providing mental health support, providing rehabilitation etc is always gonna be better overall for society than ignoring all that and instead putting all your resources into arming the police and building more jails. And unfortunately, the public message of the current administration is just that: better arm the police, back them up in all circumstances, eliminate all safety nets and just let the poor and disabled fend for themselves. Boo to that.
Click to expand...
In my region, "defund the police" means exactly that. It absolutely does not mean "make symbiotic with the community". It means get the police out of the community altogether. The purpose is to stop enforcing laws that disproportionately impact certain communities.

Unregistered vehicle? Not enforced. Shoplifting? Not enforced. Public drug use? Not enforced. And so on. And once you're not enforcing these things, you can cut the enforcement budget. No money for neighborhood patrols, because you don't actually want police to patrol the neighborhoods where they're needed most. No money for operators and dispatchers, because you don't actually want police responding to calls, and don't have the staffing for rapid response anyway. Because you're defunding the police.

It's true that some of these funds go to other entities that are supposed to provide a more humane and effective response. But they're also underfunded, and woefully ill-equipped to handle the kinds of situations they're being called out on.

And! They're not actually a government agency, but rather a non-profit subcontractor. This turns out to be a fantastic opportunity for grift. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we call it "the homeless-industrial complex": A miserable pile of nonprofits that are really good at taking in a lot of tax money, and really bad at delivering even the value a well funded police force would.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, and what's the point? To tell politicians that they exist and aren't happy? I'm pretty sure that's already understood. So a bunch of people who couldn't swing enough votes to get their way are making a melodramatic spectacle of being unhappy with the outcome. At least it's no Jan 6. But even that spectacle didn't change anything about the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...
Do you apply the same rules to minorities demanding civil rights? Shoot them on that bridge! Or on the southerners who are still pissing and moaning about the lost cause war? Suck it up, rebel scum.

Shut up and shoulder arms, it's the American march to the promised land.
 
bruto said:
Do you apply the same rules to minorities demanding civil rights?
Click to expand...
Yes. Whoever you are, you have to do the work. In modern times, just standing around holding signs and acting angry isn't the work.

It could be the work, if it's a silent majority, making itself heard. Or if it's an invisible underclass, making itself seen. Neither of the those things apply to these protests. It's just a visible, vocal minority being visible and vocal. It's cargo cult activism.
bruto said:
Shoot them on that bridge!
Click to expand...
You pronounced this nonsense, not me.
bruto said:
Or on the southerners who are still pissing and moaning about the lost cause war? Suck it up, rebel scum.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
bruto said:
Shut up and shoulder arms, it's the American march to the promised land.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean?
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Do you apply the same rules to minorities demanding civil rights? Shoot them on that bridge! Or on the southerners who are still pissing and moaning about the lost cause war? Suck it up, rebel scum.

Shut up and shoulder arms, it's the American march to the promised land.
Click to expand...
How the holy hell do you get from "this is ineffective and everyone knows it" to "shoot them all" with a straight face?

I'm starting to believe that some of you fellow forum members are incapable of actually engaging with what's posted and can only respond to the imaginary opponents in your own heads.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I know about protesting. I also know that protesting against a legally elected president being in office is something that all of these people really ought to be opposed to.
Click to expand...
How's that? Americans are a salty bunch, and always have been. What's wrong with showing displeasure with the performance of a lawfully elected official?
 
jt512 said:
Wow! I never realized that, but I looked it up in the dictionary, and you're right. The very first defintion of "defund" is:

defund: 1. to make symbiotic with a community.
Click to expand...
I understand that anything deeper than woman, man, tv would fly right over your head. You also missed the "bad slogan" part.
 
theprestige said:
I didn't get that either. I'm just saying that's what I think she meant.
Click to expand...
And I'm responding by challenging that take. It's a projection to make the protesters sound un-American.

I agree that it's more a show than substance, but there's nothing to be opposed to when Americans shout at their officials.
 
Thermal said:
How's that? Americans are a salty bunch, and always have been. What's wrong with showing displeasure with the performance of a lawfully elected official?
Click to expand...
They can be as hypocritical as they want to be I guess. I don't oppose them exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest for whatever reason they want to. I just think it's dumb and a bit contradictory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom