[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
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You’re the one who originally made the strong assertion that police don’t come now if you live in the wrong area.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.
I really appreciate your recent replies. Really changed my preconceptions about you and this convo, in a positive way. So thank you.
Honestly, I suspect we see eye to eye on many many things regarding the police. Maybe a great majority of it we’d agree on. If we were to deep dive into the topic, over a meal or something. I strongly lean towards being skeptical/cynical of the police by default, and really any institutions/people of power/influence, at any scale. I’m just very careful/mindful about becoming a zealot in any direction. Lest I become a unwitting pawn for any side. Because let’s face it, the police aren’t the only “gangs” roaming out there vying for or asserting power and control. Some even pretend to be our friends. And those are often the most dangerous. And the media is often unhelpful. We live in a static age, bombarded with information all asserting to be fact/truth. So much noise, its hard to know whats really going on. So I’m Just trying to honestly, calmly think about and engage with these things as best I can. And not be swept into it by me feelings.
Good talk at the end here, I’m really glad I chose to continue responding. You seem like a good person.