Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[Clem Fandango]

I never said that those members of the "lower class" lack critical thinking skills. What I said was that we need to take steps as a society to help those lower class people rise up and become part of the middle class.

Poverty is relative. You can improve someone's material conditions but that doesn't mean they aren't poor. People are poor in relation to the rich. The poor in the US live better than most human beings that have ever lived, social problems come from inequality.

[El Dildo]

It's designed from top to bottom to resist societal evolution. If it weren't, the civil rights movement would have been the end of racist police

this statement doesn't really make any sense...

the civil rights movement was meant to be the beginning of the dialogue, not the end of the issue altogether.

 

you can't do this overnight.

I know you're "against" the police but that doesn't really get us anywhere. there's still a lot of room between reform and reset. I hear you. you wanna be all NWA. but I don't agree. not yet, not in this reality. I don't think it's time to simply eliminate the 'police' at this point. that's a poor idea unless you can elaborate on how you want it accomplished. there are plenty of reasonable steps that can be taken before the point of anarchy which can improve the situation for everyone involved; both citizens and law enforcement officials.

[Raavi]

It's designed from top to bottom to resist societal evolution. If it weren't, the civil rights movement would have been the end of racist police, and these videos of cops killing innocent people would be the end of the police altogether.

 

You're confusing evolution and revolution. The recent dubious deaths at the hand of law enforcement in the US, have engendered change: They have brought the issue to the national and international spotlight and a more local level they also have resulted in investigations into various precincts and the tactics they employ. Those are the first steps to evolution.

 

It's clear that there is a disconnect between US police and community and vice versa, that's a problem. But that's something that can be tackled, no pun intended. Whilst at the end of the day police are there to enforce the law, there shouldn't be an inherent sense of animosity. For this the "enforcement" in law enforcement needs to be gradually redefined. Community outreach, evolving the role police play within communities and evolving the judicial system to a rehabilitative rather than purely punitive instrument when it comes to minor and medium offences are instrumental in this. Take for example Sagacious' idea with narcotics enforcement, that seeing the number of minor drug offence related arrests, is something that could go a long way to improving perception and police-community relations.

 

"Abolishing" the police however simply isn't at all realistic.

[Clem Fandango]

Abolishing the police is entirely realistic because police are not a natural force in society, they're a specific type of military force. Reforming the police so that they aren't c*nts is totally unrealistic, as there are no examples of a police force that isn't at odds with the community.

[Raavi]

The realities and intricacies of actually abolishing something as deeply rooted in modern society as the police aside, let's draw this into the hypothetical realm. Say you managed it, all blue is gone. What's next? Crime wouldn't magically disappear. So what in a law enforcement-less society is there to stop/deal with anyone committing crimes? What will prevent organised crime from reigning supreme? Who would investigate/deal with with major crimes? Realistically unless you want to experience a nasty brand of vigilante "justice", surely you will need some kind of system to deal with that? How exactly in a modern society would you structure such a system in a way that it isn't just a watered down neutered police apparatus with a different name?

[El Dildo]

Abolishing the police is entirely realistic

hey.

please remove the meth pipe from your lips.

 

"abolishing the police" is not "realistic" at this point in time.

it's pretty much the opposite of "realistic."

 

you wanna' elaborate on this at all?

I appreciate your sentiments in all honesty but they're literally useless to the discussion at hand. unless you're willing to delve into the complexities of "abolishing the police" at this moment in history.

 

Reforming the police so that they aren't c*nts is totally unrealistic, as there are no examples of a police force that isn't at odds with the community.

2 things are wrong with this statement.

 

1) there's nothing unrealistic about reforming law enforcement.

they're not aliens. they're human beings working within a human construct. I'm not saying we're 'finished' and that everything is perfect but we've clearly worked very hard to reform and improve numerous institutions in society including the military itself (since you're so concerned about this "specific type of military force"). it's both entirely possible and realistic.

 

unless you're willing to elaborate and explain anything about your ideas, they're just empty ideas at this point. F/CK THE POLICE YEAH BOI. yeah boy. go write a rap album or stop wasting our time...

 

2) there are absolutely examples of local law enforcement working alongside and within the community to improve responsiveness and rapport. there's definitely not enough but your extremely blanketed statement is patently false.

Edited September 23, 2015 by El Diablo

[make total destroy]

 

 

 

You're confusing evolution and revolution. The recent dubious deaths at the hand of law enforcement in the US, have engendered change:

Where? More people have been killed this year, more people imprisoned, etc.. What change has taken place between now and last November when Michael Brown was shot, besides politicians paying lip service to BLM? There hasn't been any change, and just because people have been talking about it doesn't mean anything will change at all. Talk is cheap. It's all but disappeared from the media in the last few months anyway.

 

 

 

 

They have brought the issue to the national and international spotlight and a more local level they also have resulted in investigations into various precincts and the tactics they employ. Those are the first steps to evolution.

 

f*ck 'evolution'. I don't want this system to evolve, I want to destroy it and replace it with something that actually benefits the majority of people. A boot on your neck is a boot on your neck no matter how gently the pressure is applied. We don't want capital's servants to be kinder and gentler, we want to abolish capital.

 

 

It's clear that there is a disconnect between US police and community and vice versa, that's a problem. But that's something that can be tackled, no pun intended.

 

 

Outside of abolishing the police, it really can't. They're an occupying army, of course they're disconnected from the communities they operate in. They're not there to be your buddy, they're there to throw your ass in jail.

 

 

 

Whilst at the end of the day police are there to enforce the law, there shouldn't be an inherent sense of animosity. For this the "enforcement" in law enforcement needs to be gradually redefined. Community outreach, evolving the role police play within communities and evolving the judicial system to a rehabilitative rather than purely punitive instrument when it comes to minor and medium offences are instrumental in this. Take for example Sagacious' idea with narcotics enforcement, that seeing the number of minor drug offence related arrests, is something that could go a long way to improving perception and police-community relations.

 

Good luck getting police unions to support that.

[Saggy]

I think it is important to define what a police officer's role really is, and what we consider policing, to really say whether it is a natural force that would simply reappear in a new configuration.

 

Frankly, the ideas of patrolling is what I think is at odds. When we talk about investigations, there is no reason why those couldn't take place without a force of men patrolling the streets, and the same thing can be said for if organized gangs started running amok. We have actual military forces to call upon, and throughout time there have been other types of agencies tasked with tracking down and apprehending violent people like the U.S. Marshalls.

 

The concept of patrols seems to be a little newer, and the real "construct" because it compliments the other human construct, large cities. The only thing is while you can go look back through history and find examples of patrols being used in large cities to ensure public safety, just as common is to find instances of misconduct. Sticking to the U.S. incarnation of patrols, the concept was born mostly in response to capture runaway slaves, collect rent from Tennant's refusing to pay (keep in mind there was no such thing as tenants rights then) and so on.

 

I don't believe the notion that any large city needs police officers to act like predators in order to ensure public safety. Some would like to absolve personal responsibility for the officers, since they were just doing their job... So was any officer tasked to hunt down escaped slaves. You cannot excuse the mechanism of opression by making the oppressor anonymous, it's still there whether we want to believe the police are all great and their actions complete a greater good or not. Most people are actively engaged in a kind of double think, where they realize this misconduct exists but then are taught to embrace it as the thin line between order and chaos.

 

I get the idea that if it wasn't for police presence people would just go ape sh*t and crime would shoot up, if only for a while. However I don't think patrols actually have any effect, its not as if criminals are so inundated by patrol cars being everywhere they cannot commit a crime. I don't know the statistics but if you considered every violent crime, I.e. where someone was victimized by another, do you think most are handled by a 911 call or a patrol car being there to witness and respond to the incident? Meanwhile, the one aspect of policing patrols do increase, is the violation of civil rights and unnecessary brutality.

 

There is no good reason for armed men to be cavalcading around a city with enough firepower to kill a dozen men, trained to try to forcefully harass and subjugate anyone who so much as misses a turn signal. No amount of "Well that is how they find weapons" should justify that, because the extremely little bit of good it does do lives in the shadow of a lot of bad. Brutality, racial profiling, insidious civil forfeiture laws, are just a small sampling of what has been bred out of the mentality of "needing" patrols of cops on every street and block in America.

 

Think about it likes this... We keep wanting to talk about human nature. We screw up a lot more than we kill each other. Don't believe me? Look at how many fires happen annually across the US.

 

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-by-property-type/residential/home-fires

 

Yet somehow, with close to 3/4 of a million fires annually we don't seem to justify the need for "fire patrols" and having them ready at a station ready to deploy is good enough to respond to that many incidents per year?

 

Obviously the police have different tasks to perform, and I bet a good percentage of fires reported happen from a police patrol unit, but the idea that if police were not out there pulling people over for traffic violation, and generally harassing the public... The idea that crime would just erupt is f*cking nonsense. Police patrols do more to create criminals out of orindary people for frivolous infractions, than they do to stop actual crime.

 

The thing Melchior gets is that, that's the point. Patrols exist to fine and arrest people, aggregate court costs, etc. This is exactly what the DOJ found in Ferguson but the myth is that it was isolated. The truth is most "patrol" forces exist more to generate revenue for the state than to ensure public safety, and it has been this way for a long time. People are born and bred on the idea that what the police do is good, necessary to order, and shielded from an early age from any kind of thought to the contrary. It's such a deeply ingrained method of indoctrination, the common theme is always to suggest, "There is no way to have a civilized society without patrols," and then to fail to recognize how on the whole they cause more harm than good, fail to recognize their history, and fail to recognize they're just as duped by it as generations were before them into paying for their own oppression and pretending it is protection.

 

I don't think it is realistic to break free of this in any timely fashion, and any kind of society that realizes this and has moved on beyond a need for something akin to a police force, will have probably moved on from the symptoms that created the crime people wanted to address in the first place. Imagining any society could be free of police is to imagine a utopian society, and that isn't to say because they are necessary, but exactly to say they are just another symptom of modern societies being as maligned as they are. However I do have to agree the idea of police becoming social workers is probably equally unlikely to happen as Melchior suggests, if only for the mere fact that if the powers that be had wanted them to be a socially benevolent force they already would be.

[make total destroy]

The realities and intricacies of actually abolishing something as deeply rooted in modern society as the police aside, let's draw this into the hypothetical realm. Say you managed it, all blue is gone. What's next? Crime wouldn't magically disappear. So what in a law enforcement-less society is there to stop/deal with anyone committing crimes? What will prevent organised crime from reigning supreme? Who would investigate/deal with with major crimes? Realistically unless you want to experience a nasty brand of vigilante "justice", surely you will need some kind of system to deal with that? How exactly in a modern society would you structure such a system in a way that it isn't just a watered down neutered police apparatus with a different name?

No one is suggesting that we can abolish the police overnight, or anything. It's not like we want everything to stay the way things are, and just get rid of police. This isn't a single-issue platform. We're talking about revolution, the complete destruction of class society, the state, private property, etc.. It's not a singular event, it wouldn't happen over a weekend, or whatever. Besides, it's not like crime has magically disappeared with the introduction of standing police forces, or that was ever even their purpose to begin with. The police developed to deal with large crowds--striking workers, slave insurrections, riots, etc.--and runaway slaves. Basically, the police were an instrument of the capitalist class to keep their workforce in line, to protect private property, and ultimately operate as their domestic army. Fundamentally, they have the same role today. I'm not sure how you can reform them to operate as anything other than a domestic army.

Edited September 23, 2015 by make total destroy

[El Dildo]

I'm not sure how you can reform them to operate as anything other than a domestic army.

I understand the pessimism.

 

I just want to be clear that the police have not always functioned like the domestic army they appear as today. president Eisenhower definitely called it during his final address to the public; that our newfound place of authority in the world resulting from our victories in World War 2 would put us on a path of righteous indignation. he saw this sh/t coming; that we had constructed a vast superiority complex around our military prowess and that without real foreign enemies the corruption would spill over at home.

 

the police devolved into this state of affairs.

they can evolve out.

 

resources were consolidated around incarceration.

they can be diverted back into real investigations, crime solving, and rehabilitation.

[make total destroy]

It's not even really pessimism to be honest, it's just based on what I've come to understand about class society and authority. The strength in power of the ruling class lies exactly in the premise that things can be changed, that we can reform particular institutions to serve a common interest, that any flaws and kinks can be ironed out, or what have you. This is literally the only reason these people still wield social, economic, and political power. It's like being in an abusive relationship and constantly reassuring yourself that your partner can and will change given time. Their abuse may become more subtle, but they'll never become the person they should be. Capitalism and state power aren't really much different.

Edited September 23, 2015 by make total destroy

[Clem Fandango]

the civil rights movement was meant to be the beginning of the dialogue, not the end of the issue altogether.

The police couldn't survive a real dialogue, nor could any of our societal institutions. My representative has never answered my emails or phone calls, police screamed at me to leave them alone (when I'm meeting them in an office, not on the street) and when you tell your within your rights, they walk out of the room and head straight behind a locked door. Political candidates have approached me to see if I'll vote for them, when I try to talk about something other than immigration they actually power walk away, and I think that's only because they're too old to run.

 

All I've ever really done within the system was try to get the police to stop robbing homeless kids, and to stop abortion from being banned. I got nowhere. Imagine trying to have a conversation about actual reform when I can't get a homeless girl's $50 back.

[Raavi]

f*ck 'evolution'. I don't want this system to evolve, I want to destroy it and replace it with something that actually benefits the majority of people. A boot on your neck is a boot on your neck no matter how gently the pressure is applied. We don't want capital's servants to be kinder and gentler, we want to abolish capital.

 

That's the problem, every argument whether it be on a topic of economics or society always boils down to that. Whilst at the end of the day it simply isn't realistic, and in my critique I don't even have to delve into the intricacies of the system itself. I just have to pose a simple question: "How?". Society today is an incredibly complex network of interests and systems, the most complex it has ever been. How do you realistically suppose to break it all down when those whom share your philosophy present a relative tiny minority that is internally heavily divided and don't even begin to have anything resembling widespread support?

 

If you just look at the progress we've made over the past 200 years, and we're only moving forward. The issues we are tackling today pale against that what was at play just 200 years ago, and that period of time when looking at the timeline of world history, really only represents a tiny sliver. Actually looking at the statistics of it all it's quite astonishing how far we've come. Are we there yet? Of course not! But pretty much all critiques of "capitalism" boil at the core down to legislative issues. Things that can, and will, be changed.

 

But look, I get it. You grew up, had unfortunate experiences with the "man", spiralled into disenfranchisement and found refuge in a philosophy and community that flipped the bird to it all, with nowadays issues like police violence only cementing your believes further.

 

What is at the core of your arguments really isn't even all that outlandish, I'd even go as far as saying you'll get a lot of nodding heads across the spectrum. Issues start to arise when you approach the "how", which usually tends to translate to some kind of "revolution" and naive notion of "crushing it all". That's where you start to lose those nodding heads, myself included.

 

They're an occupying army, of course they're disconnected from the communities they operate in. They're not there to be your buddy, they're there to throw your ass in jail.

 

They're there to enforce the law. Their tactics and judicial systems that present the backbone vary greatly from country to country, and so does their image and the public's perception. Whilst in the US they might feel like an "occupying army" that's only out to get you, they don't here, not one bit.

 

Good luck getting police unions to support that.

 

Between getting police unions to support changes that will greatly improve public perception and officer safety and abolishing the police- I'll take my chances.

[Dingdongs]

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-police-officers-charged-over-deadly-shootings-in-2015-2015-9

 

 

"More police officers have been charged over civilian killings in 2015 than at any time in the last decade"

 

 

Oh wait I thought nothing will change without a revolution

[universetwisters]

Oh god, what monsters the cops are. Rah rah fight the man!

But really though, I'm with Raavi. Abolishing police just can't work in today's society. Are criminals going to suddenly stop committing crime because there's no police, or are vigilantes going to become more prevalent? All I see when that question comes up here is some crazy idea of a revolution to "get rid of class" and enforce some society where we're all the same economically, politically, etc. and hope that doesn't bring out any criminal traits in anybody.


>but you got it all wrong

Then either dumb it down for me or bring me up to your level. All I'm getting here are vague psuedo-marxist ramblings on how the world should be run. Don't we already have a topic for that?

[sweller]

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-police-officers-charged-over-deadly-shootings-in-2015-2015-9

 

 

"More police officers have been charged over civilian killings in 2015 than at any time in the last decade"

 

 

Oh wait I thought nothing will change without a revolution

Did you even read the article? It says more court trials do not necessarily mean more convictions. That's bad if only 12 officers out of hundreds of bad cops have been charged that is a tiny number you don't even know if each of those cops were convicted which I doubt most of them were. Also says not one single officer has been convicted of murder or manslaghter. Edited September 24, 2015 by sweller

[Tyler]

Then either dumb it down for me or bring me up to your level. All I'm getting here are vague psuedo-marxist ramblings on how the world should be run. Don't we already have a topic for that?

 

This whole "hey let's keep it in the other topic" thing misses the fact that leftist thought is an encompassing thing, just as much as liberal or conservative thought. Simply put, your views are affecting your entire outlook. In other words, this response is a red herring because it is dismissing the valid points of leftists posters to the effect of not being 'on-topic' even though they are clearly and very specifically talking about police force and the controversy of that.

 

>but you got it all wrong

 

You did, actually. MTD is not a 'pseudo-Marxist' (that isn't even a thing). The process of revolution that anarchists talk about does not boil down to "and we'll hope everyone is polite and doesn't become a criminal!" Frankly, it's not only rude to make light of someone's well-established political beliefs like that, but it's also completely counter-productive to making any headway or agreement between the major differing agreements in his thread. Honestly if you're just here to say that the other side is crazy then you should't even be posting.

 

Revolution is not a crazy idea. History is filled with examples of revolution, and many of those examples have specifically lead to the values and societies we have today. Beyond that, the idea of a society sans economic or political disparity isn't exactly a dream either-- but of course, you've been linked plenty of communistic sources by other members, and you've refused to really look at those. My linking them again won't help you. I don't think anything I can say will help you considering how biased you seemed to be against people who would advocate for anything other than maintenance of this oppressive status quo that you seem to be so ardent to defend.

[universetwisters]

Could you link something that points out how a society with no economic or political disparity equates to zero crime, or rather something to warrant the lack of police? I'll give it a read (no reason for me not to on this long week off of mine) and get back to it. Maybe it'll change my mind on how I look at things, maybe it'll at least explain things better.

Edited September 24, 2015 by universetwisters

[Tyler]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

 

These are two good introductory works that elaborate on material used in earlier posts by other members. There's also the Principles of Communism which is a short read that I would recommend. This is a very nascent work, but the ideas of communism are present and you can go much further into whichever topic you think is interesting or would like to know more about from links on that website.

[universetwisters]

I remember reading Capital by Karl Marx in high school. With the whole "share everything with everyone" thing, I thought it'd work good on a farm or some other collective of people, but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not it'll work on a bigger scale. I'll give these a read and edit this post with what I think of it after reading them and other notes of stuff. Thanks Tyler.

 

________________________________


I gave it a reading and, while it still wouldn't be a suitable lifestyle for me, it did get to the point on my questions as to how the law would work in anarchist societies, which was what I wanted all along. Good read, too.

Edited September 24, 2015 by universetwisters

[Saggy]

Oh god, what monsters the cops are. Rah rah fight the man!

But really though, I'm with Raavi. Abolishing police just can't work in today's society. Are criminals going to suddenly stop committing crime because there's no police, or are vigilantes going to become more prevalent? All I see when that question comes up here is some crazy idea of a revolution to "get rid of class" and enforce some society where we're all the same economically, politically, etc. and hope that doesn't bring out any criminal traits in anybody.

>but you got it all wrong

Then either dumb it down for me or bring me up to your level. All I'm getting here are vague psuedo-marxist ramblings on how the world should be run. Don't we already have a topic for that?

I guess you missed the post I made only a few above yours where I posted that same video.

 

I think the major irony you're missing is even the police themselves realize that the job they so often "ruins people's days" they wanted to offer some kind of consolation.

[Clem Fandango]

Could you link something that points out how a society with no economic or political disparity equates to zero crime, or rather something to warrant the lack of police?

Crime is a feature of society, unique to the sociopolitical context of the society. So, in the middle ages crime meant 'banditry.' There are no more bandits; we went into the hills and dealt with them. Likewise, the middle ages saw no organised crime because the kind of communities people lived in didn't allow for elaborate criminal conspiracies.

 

'Where does crime come from?' is an empirical question with empirical answers. Relative inequality produces crime to a certain extent. When every other c*nt is getting locked up, crime becomes normalised. Our society isn't scratching its head, wondering why people commit crimes, we simply refuse to deal with it, partially because it serves its social function, partially because of the limits of the system.

[make total destroy]

 

 

 

That's the problem, every argument whether it be on a topic of economics or society always boils down to that.

Because these issues are all systemic, all interwoven. Literally all--or at least most--major issues the world faces today are intrinsically linked to capitalism. Capitalism, after all, is a global economic system, no one or thing is free from it's claws. Of course, I'm not suggesting that if we overthrew capitalism today all our problems would be gone tomorrow. There are still a myriad of issues that need to be addressed, but we'd be off to a great start.

 

 

Whilst at the end of the day it simply isn't realistic, and in my critique I don't even have to delve into the intricacies of the system itself. I just have to pose a simple question: "How?". Society today is an incredibly complex network of interests and systems, the most complex it has ever been. How do you realistically suppose to break it all down when those whom share your philosophy present a relative tiny minority that is internally heavily divided and don't even begin to have anything resembling widespread support?

 

How is it unrealistic? Because things are "complex"? I would think that, if anything, that is an argument against reformism. Given that capitalism is a complex, intricate system, reforms are made difficult and are rather limited in their ability to effect real, substantial change. And even when these reforms are made, they can end up causing their own problems. It's like dealing with an illness by treating the symptoms, and treating the side-effects of that treatment with other treatments with their own side-effects, and so on. The point is to deal with the illness itself. We shouldn't be trying to reform a system that, in it's crudest from, is based on widespread violence, exploitation, genocide, and colonialism. We should be actively digging it's grave. Although, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if there's some global social revolution, capitalism seems to be doing a very good job at slowly killing itself.

 

As for how we build a revolution? It starts small. It starts with reclaiming social space, your street, your neighborhood, your workplace, your city, and slowly building from there, creating autonomous zones and largely self-sufficient communities. We already see this taking place all over the world, from Chiapas to Athens, from Chile to Turkey. Revolution is being built and nourished by the day. For now, anarchists have to continue agitating and creating social tension, challenging power and attacking capital.

 

 

 

If you just look at the progress we've made over the past 200 years, and we're only moving forward. The issues we are tackling today pale against that what was at play just 200 years ago, and that period of time when looking at the timeline of world history, really only represents a tiny sliver. Actually looking at the statistics of it all it's quite astonishing how far we've come. Are we there yet? Of course not! But pretty much all critiques of "capitalism" boil at the core down to legislative issues. Things that can, and will, be changed.

 

 

 

 

There are more slaves today than at any point in human history. There are more prisoners than at any point in human history. Climate change and ocean acidification threaten the future of life on this planet, with many climate scientists arguing that it is much too late to reverse. Sure, there has been progress in the way of science and medicine, we have made some obvious social progress, and so forth, but at the end of the day, our 'progress' comes at the expense of people and the planet. Our entire lifestyle is still premised on violence and exploitation, and it is more wasteful and destructive than ever. For the petty bourgeois, the labor aristocracy, and so forth, things have never been better. For everyone else, things really can't get much worse.

 

My criticisms of capitalism do not boil down to legislative issues. No law will dismantle private property, no law will end class antagonisms, no law will end exploitation, no law will end alienation, suffering, and misery. Only the forcible overthrow of all existing social and material conditions can resolve these issues.

 

 

 

 

But look, I get it. You grew up, had unfortunate experiences with the "man", spiralled into disenfranchisement and found refuge in a philosophy and community that flipped the bird to it all, with nowadays issues like police violence only cementing your believes further.

 

What is at the core of your arguments really isn't even all that outlandish, I'd even go as far as saying you'll get a lot of nodding heads across the spectrum. Issues start to arise when you approach the "how", which usually tends to translate to some kind of "revolution" and naive notion of "crushing it all". That's where you start to lose those nodding heads, myself included.

 

 

This is where social democrats and anarchists--as well as revolutionary socialists in general--part ways. You believe we're naive for advocating revolutionary change, and we believe you're naive for advocating reform. As I said before though, capitalism will eventually destroy itself with or without reforms, with or without revolution. At the end of the day, it makes little difference.

 

Then either dumb it down for me or bring me up to your level. All I'm getting here are vague psuedo-marxist ramblings on how the world should be run.

I don't like you anymore.

 

I remember reading Capital by Karl Marx in high school. With the whole "share everything with everyone" thing,

Considering Capital is a critique of political economy, and not a blueprint for a communist society, I very much doubt you read it. It's also super dense, and even I couldn't bring myself to read through it (and unlike you, it actually genuinely interests me). I need to find my copy and power through it tho.

Edited September 29, 2015 by make total destroy

[universetwisters]

Considering Capital is a critique of political economy, and not a blueprint for a communist society, I very much doubt you read it. It's also super dense, and even I couldn't bring myself to read through it (and unlike you, it actually genuinely interests me). I need to find my copy and power through it tho.

 

I thought it shared some similar stuff though, like the communal stuff. I don't remember how much I read but I do remember reading it.

[Dingdongs]

Well look at that, I guess Ol' Irv and his argument that everybody incorrectly blames the cops for the complete degradation of minority communities has found itself a powerful ally.

 

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/30879006-Obama-Police-are-scapegoated-for-societys-failings

 

Obama: Police are scapegoated for society's failings

Edited October 27, 2015 by Irviding

[Clem Fandango]

Well look at that, I guess Ol' Irv and his argument that everybody incorrectly blames the cops for the complete degradation of minority communities has found itself a powerful ally.

 

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/30879006-Obama-Police-are-scapegoated-for-societys-failings

 

Obama: Police are scapegoated for society's failings

The state praises its dogs well, this is to be expected. He's not going to oppose the military force that maintains his power.

 

Also if you read that article it's basically him dismissing everybody's grievances with the police. He didn't say we're wrong, he said he'd rather not listen to us.

 

In other news, another unarmed black guy- Corey Jones- was shot dead by the police recently. This time he was waiting for a tow truck, imagine if he'd also been smoking a cigarette, or God forbid, selling them tax free!

[Dingdongs]

So now we have gone from the police are racist against blacks to that they maintain the power of a black guy. Good we are moving right along.

[Clem Fandango]

Being racist doesn't mean red mist descends whenever you see a black person. Obama's presidency isn't as significant as racist apologists would like to think. I guess people just ignore how he's treated in the media with Republican pundits like O'Reilly screaming over him.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Melchior

[Clem Fandango]

Police scum slams small girl (and her school desk) into the ground, drags her across room as she whimpers

 

In his defense her skin was very dark, darker than most black people even, and we haven't seen the whole video she's even darker outside of the classroom light.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Melchior

[Dingdongs]

Yeah so? I could post up the black NYPD cop who was murdered last week in a feeble attempt to change the topic as well. Doesn't change the fact that what Obama is saying is true. Cops are not the reason minority communities are in shambles and have no opportunity to improve.


Though, maybe it's time we have armed cops in every classroom to increase test scores. Get a 40 on your worksheet? Prepare for a .40 from the officer's weapon.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/10/27/south-carolina-officer-student-don-lemon-sunny-hostin-vo-tsr.cnn?sr=fbtsr1027studentofficervideo

 

 

Not sure what more there is to know in this one though.... nothing can justify what that officer did IMO unless the kid was armed with a knife or otherwise putting another student at risk. Then again, Don Lemon is known for his strange remarks.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Irviding