Ranking
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Is your name Tonakai mf?
Because when police are called to DV situations, usually all that's needed is one party requires a kind and considerate talking to, right?
In America, don't you agree that a certain level of militarisation is necessary in policing, given the amount of gun violence and the culture of gun ownership? It's a classic example of the security dilemma.

No, thats why I linked that long ass article which you didn't read. I'm not going to explain it twice. And again no, the public should be able to solve that on their own without the police getting involved with more firepower. Ideally the problem is solved at the root, and we have lots of community intervention before a criminal turns into a criminal. That's the whole point of defunding the police. The shit that the police do now should be done by someone else whose main goal isn't to imprison them. I don't believe anyone is seriously arguing for wild west anarchy.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
This isn't an argument about defunding the police. This is an argument about which form of justice is best. I think most thinking people agree that retributive justice (eye for an eye) isn't ideal. Here, you're pushing for a mixture of restorative and rehabilitive justice. The solution ain't necesarrily defunding the police either, rather, the solution, I reckon, ought to be directed towards reforming the criminal justice system.

Well yes reforming the justice system might include redirecting police funds to community programs. The point is that there is too much punitive now and not anywhere near enough rehabilitative and restorative. Like why does the police need to be at a 911 call where a man fell out of a window and got shot when he ran up to the police covered in blood? The system is currently a revolving prison door which is garbage.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Some people (filthy anarchists) take 'defunding' the police to mean the complete 'abolition' of policing, i.e. police aren't needed. That's silly. Anyone wanna take that line of argument here?

I'd like to see this argument as well. I imagine it looks pretty much like what I described where the goal is to immediately help and not immediately imprison, but this is unrealistic and much more difficult to implement.
🫷🦚🫸
Can one have an actual plan of action when wanting to "end racism"? How do we know racism is over? Define the end goal, what would the absence of racism look like for it to be a success? I'm curious to see if you all have an answer, but I have observed the movement coming to a loop or at least a movement that doesn't have the need to come to an end. It has just become more of a hopeful saying like a prayer with no holistic plan in my opinion.

Movement being referred to ending racism.
Originally Posted by DaVillain View Post
Can one have an actual plan of action when wanting to "end racism"? How do we know racism is over? Define the end goal, what would the absence of racism look like for it to be a success?

When the problems raised in this thread no longer exist.

Originally Posted by DaVillain View Post
I'm curious to see if you all have an answer, but I have observed the movement coming to a loop or at least a movement that doesn't have the need to come to an end. It has just become more of a hopeful saying like a prayer with no holistic plan in my opinion.

Movement being referred to ending racism.

Are you voicing your concerns for BLM turning into a black supremacy group or something?
I think right now the action plan is getting people to vote, so that the new(?) people in power can make laws and policies to counteract any imbalances in our society. There's not much more an average citizen can do. If you're curious for concrete policies, https://www.joincampaignzero.org/ lays out a bunch of them.
alright guy