• abraxas
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ll give a different angle, as I see it.

    A problem is that reality is complicated and makes shit for soundbytes. That means your options are to lie to constituents, or to actually have policy ideals that are just harder to explain.

    Defund the Police is a great example. We simply lean on the police too heavily. We DO need to defund them. They should not be the first line for mental health breaks, the first line for non-physical domestic disputes, etc. I know other countries do this, but in the US I would argue the current format of police shouldn’t be used for situations where violence is unlikely… and yeah, I mean things like driving infractions. Not only are they not great at it, but they are also not TRUSTED. In a country where someone getting a ticket for pulling through a stop sign literally fears for their life because they’re black, we should be offering a justice system that makes such a danger impossible because it won’t be kill-trained people with guns giving them their ticket.

    Similarly, our police are over-equipped. Too many SWAT teams, used too lightly in situations without elevated risk or without enough red tape to require better information-gathering. And not unlike a bad comic book, SWAT team members have to hide their identity because they know the masses hate and fear them. I’ve known spouses of SWAT team members, and the rule is that nobody but those closest to you can know that’s what they do. Not unlike drug dealers.

    So stepping back, all those things are a nice ball of “what I fucking want to vote for”. If you had 5 seconds to explain it, what would you say? I would say “defund the police”. Because it’s strictly accurate in a dozen ways AND it isn’t even pretending to say “abolish the police” because that would be “absolish the police”.

    So yeah. The Right looks at Defund the Police and says “see, they’re trying to abolish the police. Let’s back the blue” and it’s all over.

    I’m gonna say BLM was the same. BLM had clear numbers, clear figures, a clear message. Stop killing black people. They had people marching with (posters of) unarmed black people who were killed without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. They had everything you could need. But then you had an orange fascist prick saying “All lives matter”. NO SHIT all lives matter. But how many white people do these idiots know who have been wrongfullly abused by police? Post-BLM, we are way down on black deaths by cop; it’s only TWICE their representation.

    You say you’re not an American, so I get it. But the real problem with BLM is exactly what we have complained it is… full-on-racism. BLM became a riot in many areas because White Supremecists working with the police started the riots to give an excuse to end the protests. The message was trampled on, not because it was bad, but because we are a horrible country right now. And yes, innocent people only see the fallout and the sound bytes on TV. When the most powerful man in the country has this message that “all lives matter”, anyone who is not politically savvy is going to just nod their head and agree.

    • InputZero
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You made some good points, I’ll have to think on it. Have an up-boat.

    • woobie
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’ve made some good points. I hope that a fair number of people read through the whole post, but I fear that not enough will. Most seem to have about a three sentence threshold.

      • abraxas
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bingo! And it’s kinda hard to make a soundbyte explanation for why something is too complicated for a soundbyte :)