[in front of a protesting crowd, two characters are talking]
[blue, serious] Violence is never the solution
[purple, smug] Agreed, let’s disarm the police
[blue is now shown angrily gesticulating, sweating bullets]
NO,
NOT
LIKE
THIS
[in front of a protesting crowd, two characters are talking]
[blue, serious] Violence is never the solution
[purple, smug] Agreed, let’s disarm the police
[blue is now shown angrily gesticulating, sweating bullets]
NO,
NOT
LIKE
THIS
I think the police have proven they are only out to protect the property of the rich enough times to say that it is across the board. The police are one of the largest gangs in America and they are inherently corrupt. If a cop in a small town cares about normal people it doesn’t really matter in the big picture of police corruption in america.
And what proofs are you referring to that has proven this?
Prove to me it’s an oversimplification.
You’re the one who originally made the strong assertion that police don’t come now if you live in the wrong area. That American police protect the property of the rich. And “That’s its”
I’m not the one making such confident claims. I never asserted anything as fact. I merely suggested that it might be reductive. You seem so confident that you’re right. So I imagine it should be easy for you to prove this or back it up.
So, lets see it. Let’s see/hear what makes you so confident. To assert such things and cap it off with a confident “that’s it”, as it its fact, end of story.
Read the news. Start there.
You sure are upset when all I asked was for proof of me being reductive. ACAB.
Okay. Gotcha. So you’re not really a sensible person. Just a zealot. Thanks for the clarity.
So you’re pro police and state violence?
State violence, no. Not a fan. As someone with Libertarian leanings, I esp. recognize the state’s only means by which it can enforce its laws is through violence. Often that’s the only way to enforce laws, for those who want to be lawless.
Pro police, sometimes.
That being said, it really probably depends on our definitions. I try not to be too myopic. I get the sentiment behind ACAB, but I find it largely not useful, and often used more as a thought terminating device nowadays. I’ve dealt with shit cops, for sure. I’ve also dealt with cops that weren’t. There’s plenty to criticize. I’ve just never seen much value in reducing any complex system with issues into slogans and insular statements. That’s all.
Well thought reply. Thank you. We just disagree about police. I feel there is enough evidence out there that shows their main priority is property protection for the rich. I have anecdotal evidence as well. There’s literally tons of it. I think we just don’t see eye to eye on it, but that’s fine. I don’t see eye to eye with my dad either, and I love him.