Poll: Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
19
20
... LastLast
  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Yes, there are obvious costs associated with it but the point is that it isn't that costly.

    And as previously stated there are different forms of military equipment - chairs and computers from the military require storage and upkeep, but may still be good use. Using bayonets as knifes may be ok; using military small arms may be ok in the US due to prevalence of similar weapons among criminals - whereas armored tracked vehicles seems less clear;
    So bad faith pedantry, and then this

    unless the situation is really really bad.
    disproven by j6. Not a real strong argument. Police shouldn't have that equipment at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  2. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    So bad faith pedantry, and then this
    The main point is that 'defunding the police' leads to asking the wrong questions.

    The first question should be about funding the alternatives - and despite people claiming that is about funding alternatives we still get questions about what percentage is reasonable for the police - and not what absolute number is needed for social workers, or for removing lead to protect the kids as in Milwaukee.

    The second question about military equipment - its not so much about local PD, but one part is to limit 1033 to the right equipment - as was done by DoD and Obama, undone a bit by Trump, and possibly redone by Biden. But more importantly - why do the police feel the need to have armored vehicles - to protect against military-grade weapons?

    Note that the vehicles supplied by the military aren't tanks with guns, but armored vehicles protecting against guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    disproven by j6. Not a real strong argument. Police shouldn't have that equipment at all.
    There are cases where the police have used armored tracked vehicles for good purposes. Whether those cases are sufficiently many I don't know.

  3. #343
    Pandaren Monk wunksta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Specifically for Milwaukee, WI it seems that the statement is wrong both in specifics and numbers.

    https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibr...020Budget2.pdf has the police department (297M$) of a bit below 50% (not 58%) of the General Fund under City Council control (697M$). That means it is about 25% of the budget controlled by the City Council (1,118M$) - but the education budget is outside the control of the City Council and thus not included in the figures (it may also be about 1 billion $, meaning that the police shrinks to about 13% of the city budget in that sense).
    This site is what I was using which also includes other data like the police commission and overtime costs. This page on the same site compares those figures to other cities budgets. This shows that Milwaukee still spends more of their budget on police even when compared to other cities of similar populations and budgets.

  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by wunksta View Post
    This site is what I was using which also includes other data like the police commission and overtime costs.
    Well, it's a 'Fire and Police Commission'; but still they put it 100% under the police department. What I find odd is that they complain about the lack of transparency in budgets, but they don't list what items they have included in their totals - i.e. they are less transparent than the cities.

    It's also clear that they are biased, and thus they don't want to show that 'city council' is different from overall city spending - which was the main problem with the numbers.

    Specifically they try to frame it as redirecting funds to education, although education budget isn't controlled by the city council; so they are hypocritically ignoring that education isn't part of the remaining percentage and still claiming that the funds could be redirected to education.

    However, the main problem is still getting more funds to the city.

  5. #345
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    They are not difficult to understand for you because you pay attention to politics deeply. You fail completely on understanding the average person though. A lot of people are too fucking busy with life to invest as much time into politics as those of us on this board have. While on the surface Defund the Police would on face value, take money away from them, you have to remember something that the republicans have been saying for a long time. That is Defund Planned Parenthood, and when republicans say that they mean a lot more than just taking some money away.

    https://news.yale.edu/2022/02/04/res...licy-proposals
    If someone is going to take an active part in politics such that they start hearing the phrase "defund the police" (and yes, you must be an active participant in politics to ever hear this) then the logical response is to look up why the phrase is being used. The idiot's response is to assume what it means and start going on a crusade. But that's one of the big issues here.

    Everyone in this thread participates in politics to some degree enough that they are on this forum posting about it. Either they know what it means and are trying to argue some kind of weird devil's advocate, or they're already opposed to everything the left stands for (because let's face it, nobody on the right is a single issue voter, they've all adopted the anti-left stance) and will sit here and willfully use the phrase incorrectly, even when they know they're wrong, because it's an attempt to make someone on the left look bad.

    Nearly every person in this country has the internet literally at their fingertips, and can look up a phrase, slogan, or whatever in an instant. Choosing not to do so shows a willful kneejerk reaction born from their own ignorance.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    If someone is going to take an active part in politics such that they start hearing the phrase "defund the police" (and yes, you must be an active participant in politics to ever hear this) then the logical response is to look up why the phrase is being used. The idiot's response is to assume what it means and start going on a crusade. But that's one of the big issues here.

    Everyone in this thread participates in politics to some degree enough that they are on this forum posting about it. Either they know what it means and are trying to argue some kind of weird devil's advocate, or they're already opposed to everything the left stands for (because let's face it, nobody on the right is a single issue voter, they've all adopted the anti-left stance) and will sit here and willfully use the phrase incorrectly, even when they know they're wrong, because it's an attempt to make someone on the left look bad.

    Nearly every person in this country has the internet literally at their fingertips, and can look up a phrase, slogan, or whatever in an instant. Choosing not to do so shows a willful kneejerk reaction born from their own ignorance.
    Willful ignorance at its best. You really think that, for instance, parents have time to check up on the internet what a slogan means ?

    It is a bad slogan. Period. Better version have already been proposed in this very thread. Plus, it seems that the Police overall in the US is underfunded ironically.

    I guess you find this a good slogan is you are against policing, meaning you are privileged enough to live in a privileged area where policing is not needed.

  7. #347
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Willful ignorance at its best. You really think that, for instance, parents have time to check up on the internet what a slogan means ?
    1> Yes. Were talking about 30 seconds or so.
    2> If they don't, they don't have time to express any opinion or interpretation or viewpoint on the movement and probably haven't heard it in the first place.

    It is a bad slogan. Period. Better version have already been proposed in this very thread. Plus, it seems that the Police overall in the US is underfunded ironically.
    You can't possibly be serious about that "underfunded" malarkey.

    I guess you find this a good slogan is you are against policing, meaning you are privileged enough to live in a privileged area where policing is not needed.
    That would be "every area". It's the most-policed parts of the USA that also see the majority of police abuse and the least trust of the institution.


  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    1> Yes. Were talking about 30 seconds or so.
    2> If they don't, they don't have time to express any opinion or interpretation or viewpoint on the movement and probably haven't heard it in the first place.



    You can't possibly be serious about that "underfunded" malarkey.


    That would be "every area". It's the most-policed parts of the USA that also see the majority of police abuse and the least trust of the institution.
    Talked like a person who has no kid .

    Get a better slogan, and you get a better response, simple as that.

  9. #349
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Talked like a person who has no kid .
    You have no idea what my personal life is, dude.

    If you don't have 30 seconds to look up a movement's goals, you don't have 30 seconds to watch the news, or check Facebook stories, or follow that link your friend sent you, or whatever. You literally do not have the time to have learned of the slogan in question, either. Much less to actually form any informed opinion about any of it.

    Your position on this just celebrates willful ignorance as an approach to life.

    Get a better slogan, and you get a better response, simple as that.
    This is a complaint about marketing, not the movement, and you folks keep deflecting to the marketing because you don't want to talk about the movement.

    It's boring, it's willfully ignorant, and it's a waste of everyone's time.


  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    If someone is going to take an active part in politics such that they start hearing the phrase "defund the police" (and yes, you must be an active participant in politics to ever hear this) then the logical response is to look up why the phrase is being used.
    No.
    The logical response is to tune the person out. Because logically, the words mean exactly how they're used. And people in high crime areas don't make time to listen to idiocy.

  11. #351
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    No.
    The logical response is to tune the person out. Because logically, the words mean exactly how they're used. And people in high crime areas don't make time to listen to idiocy.
    If they're presuming it's "idiocy" without looking it up, they aren't being "logical", they're kneejerking over baseless assumptions and prejudices.


  12. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You have no idea what my personal life is, dude.

    If you don't have 30 seconds to look up a movement's goals, you don't have 30 seconds to watch the news, or check Facebook stories, or follow that link your friend sent you, or whatever. You literally do not have the time to have learned of the slogan in question, either. Much less to actually form any informed opinion about any of it.

    Your position on this just celebrates willful ignorance as an approach to life.



    This is a complaint about marketing, not the movement, and you folks keep deflecting to the marketing because you don't want to talk about the movement.

    It's boring, it's willfully ignorant, and it's a waste of everyone's time.
    Why talk about the movement ? I think it is great to hope for a world without the need for police. Not realistic as our world stands, though.

  13. #353
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Why talk about the movement ? I think it is great to hope for a world without the need for police. Not realistic as our world stands, though.
    And there we go, the admitted bad-faith intent.


  14. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is a complaint about marketing, not the movement, and you folks keep deflecting to the marketing because you don't want to talk about the movement.

    It's boring, it's willfully ignorant, and it's a waste of everyone's time.
    Some of us have talked about the movement and how it is a no go. As I linked over a week ago, but bares repeating. Go to 12
    https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...s%20052321.pdf
    We see that the majority of each Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are against the "movement". So the movement has no steam here in the states.

  15. #355
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    Some of us have talked about the movement and how it is a no go. As I linked over a week ago, but bares repeating. Go to 12
    https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...s%20052321.pdf
    We see that the majority of each Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are against the "movement". So the movement has no steam here in the states.
    Talking about popularity also isn't talking about the movement itself.

    Like, I get that it's not gonna gain ground, and I'm not arguing everyone even should have been behind it. But appeals to popularity and misrepresenting what the movement was even about aren't legitimate arguments against the movement's intent and goals. And if you're not arguing against those, you're not arguing against the movement, any more than McCarthyists were when attacking "commies". Which was, itself, pretty darned popular, in its day.

    If people's problems were with good-faith understandings of the actual goals and intent behind the movement, I wouldn't be taking issue with their stances the way I have been.


  16. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And there we go, the admitted bad-faith intent.
    How bad faith ? Elaborate.

  17. #357
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    How bad faith ? Elaborate.
    1> Asking this is also bad faith.
    2> You stated you weren't interested in discussing the movement. In a thread about the movement. Meaning your intent here is to deflect and derail discussion.


  18. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    Some of us have talked about the movement and how it is a no go. As I linked over a week ago, but bares repeating. Go to 12 https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...s%20052321.pdf We see that the majority of each Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are against the "movement". So the movement has no steam here in the states.
    Even more relevant were earlier links that showed that even in cities that would have had any on the far left believing they had won the argument...didn't. Those cities voted in measures that supported police and an increase in funding.

    This thread seems more like a scramble to explain how and why that happened.

  19. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    1> Asking this is also bad faith.
    2> You stated you weren't interested in discussing the movement. In a thread about the movement. Meaning your intent here is to deflect and derail discussion.
    We could argue that the slogan is how the movement present itself, hence discussing the slogan is also discussing the movement as the slogan is a part of the movement.

    Hence discussing the slogan is not derailing the thread.

    And I say why discuss what the movement wants as I do not know anyone that would not want to live in a world where you do not need policing. But it is an utopia in my opinion.

  20. #360
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Willful ignorance at its best. You really think that, for instance, parents have time to check up on the internet what a slogan means ?
    Yes. Everyone has a cellphone. Engaging in something while being willfully ignorant of it is the height of stupidity. Every time someone goes into something that's unfamiliar to them, they look up what they need to know.

    For some fucking odd ass reason, politics (and in particular, only left wing slogans) are where people start to argue that they should be allowed to be ignorant and still have their voices heard. But again, it's apparently only left wing slogans that people are allowed to be ignorant of.

    If you don't know what a term means, TAKE THIRTY SECONDS TO PULL OUT YOUR CELL PHONE AND LOOK IT UP or MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT.

    I don't buy the dumb ass excuse that people don't have time. 30 seconds isn't too much to ask. I don't care if you have kids, a job, three wives and two mistresses. You can take 30 seconds to learn about something you're going to spend hours participating in. Anything else is known as stupid willful ignorance. The posts you write take longer to write than the time it would take you to look up the meaning of the slogan.

    So again, if someone only has 15 seconds to give to politics, it's probably better that they just stay out of it. If you have five kids, ten wives, three jobs, fifteen dogs, and don't have time to look up the meaning of a slogan, then you likewise don't have time to participate in politics. "Said like someone who doesn't have kids" is idiotic. If you don't have time to look up a slogan because of your kids, you don't have time to participate in the politics period.
    Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2022-07-24 at 11:36 PM.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •