News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
What about this, instead we just take that 1.5 mill a year and put it towards things that actual solve problems, rather than making sure we have the best and brights super soldiers doing traffic stops and taking notes on your break in.
Since we're engaging in fantasy, sure.
But I think you'll find no matter what you do, some version of a person whose role in society is to enforce the laws, a kind of "law enforcement", emerges.
The properties of that role can vary widely from society to society, but pretty much every society independently comes to the same conclusion, that the role is necessary, once the society determines a common and well structured code of conduct is necessary.
100% abolish the police. They are a corrupt institution which finds their roots in re-enforcing a slave culture. 100% let every prisoner free. The roots of the prison system in the US are the same as the police state.
But countries with no history of slavery have police forces and prison systems. They are an emergent property of large social systems. Society will re-invent the role. We might as well fill the niche in a manner we want, instead of a manner we dont want.
I mean yeah, if you don't have means of enforcing law, the law becomes pointless, might as well abolish all laws.
And I mean that MIGHT be possible, but do we really want to test what it'd be like in a lawless society where it's probably going to be money and violence that decides who's right, kinda like now, but with no possibility of suing the people with money or violence, you could only respond with your own violence.
The idea that things devolve into a lawless society because a lack of police is absurdist reductionism.
Firstly, we already live in a lawless society; see any of the actions Trump has taken since January. Its just a matter of "for whom does the law apply?"
Second, and I posted this to your other response, the idea that we can't "abolish a police department and rebuild it into something that serves its intended purpose" is also absurdist, in at least that we have the counter-factual of it actually happening: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/12/camden-policing-reforms-313750
So they didn't abolish the police, they reformed it. That doesn't disprove my statement, which in itself was not a shot at you, merely commentary on what you said.
You said
And I don't disagree, I merely stated that police of some sort, regardless of name, is not just an emergent property, but also a necessity. I never said that the way Americans do policing is THE way to do it. I'm not American myself.
That's more an America problem than a "police is inherently bad" problem if you ask me.
TL;DR: Yes, I agree, policing in the US needs heavy reforms. But the moment you go around saying "abolish the police", you're not talking about reforms, or at least that's not what most people are going to hear. They're going to think they're going to have to live in The Purge. So maybe stop referring to it that way and people will give your ideas, which are actually good, more consideration.
No. The abolished it. They didn't reform it. They abolished it.
Stop it.
Don't both misinterpret what I said and then put words I didn't put down into my mouth. If your balls shrink into your chest when you hear "abolish the police", thats a you problem. Likewise, if you are basing your decision making on "what most people want to hear", you probably are both a) not an effective strategist, and even further b) not a very good person.
Abolish the police. If you can't do that, de-fund them. Tip-toeing around the sensitivities of a deeply immoral people isn't a strategy that gets results. It only gets you halfway to no-where.
They still have a police mate. The city one was dissolved on the same day the county one started operations. There was not a day without police.
Maybe a better salesman than you though. Not that I'm a salesman at all.
You're selling a nice system, but calling it total mayhem and anarchy. Nobody's gonna want to buy it.
You seem to forget that people have to vote for things to happen. In a democratic system, anyway. If you want people to vote for police reform, call it police reform, not police abolishment. People read headlines, not articles. Most people read that a candidate is for police abolishment, it's an immediate nope for them. People don't want to live in a lawless society and nobody's gonna read into what the candidate says they mean by abolishment.
For a couple of teachers?
I don't understand what you mean.
Like pay for teachers not cops.