- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: ‘Defund the police’ activist begs for help when everything she owned is stolen.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:04 am to reggierayreb
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:04 am to reggierayreb
quote:
Why don’t they call it cut funding to the police or slash police funding then ? Here’s the definition below. You’ll have to forgive the masses for not catching your drift. We just go by the word’s actual meaning. Defund - prevent (a group or organization) from continuing to receive funds.
Because the left is fond of punchy, bumper sticker slogans even if they aren’t completely accurate. Though the right seems to be inclined to try to make up lost ground as of late.
And again, not my drift. Part of the reason discourse on TD has gotten so shitty is that it’s impossible to discuss something without people not only asserting that you espouse what you’re discussing (even if you clearly state otherwise), but that you believe everything that could possibly be roughly associated with it. So if I explain what most progressives mean when they say defund the police, I’m now a progressive who believes everything progressives believe.
It’s extremely stupid and not worth the aggravation most of the time.
2
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:11 am to Joshjrn
quote:
More social workers and less cops, not no cops
An acquaintance of mine was involved in this movement in Seattle, and youre wrong.
quote:
That’s some edgelordy shite, Roger, but you do you
Most men feel this way. Metro-sexuality has fricked many of you up.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:13 am to Joshjrn
quote:
While there are some ideological crazies, most people who say “defund the police” don’t mean it in the capacity of “get rid of police”. What they mean is to reduce the funding that goes to law enforcement and divert it to other service providers. So if someone’s autistic teenager is having a destructive melt down, instead of a cop trained to arrest people who break the law showing up, you have a team of people trained specifically to handle youth mental health crises.
I don't know that I agree with your first sentence.
I think most people who say this DO think the movement is about getting rid of police.
I agree with you that that isn't the intent at the core of it by the people who started it, but the messaging is so poor and people are so dumb, I think that's what it has become to the majority of people who parrot it.
And I think there's a second layer of folks within that group also, who don't just want social workers to handle cases like the one you described, but who think that social workers are going to address some true criminal cases. I don't think they expect the police to completely go away (they're not quite as dumb as the first group), but I do think their expectations for social workers fall well within the city limits of Fantasyland.
White leftists are so divorced from reality that I really do think that's what they expect and are calling for.
White leftists are ignorant of the very obvious fact that people in lower socioeconomic classes do not think like they do. That unless they specifically learn to think differently, they CAN'T think like they do.
There are exceptions, of course, but the average person who grows up poor in America cannot think beyond today. They cannot defer gratification except in certain concrete circumstances which they have experienced before. They can't look forward to next month, next year, five years from now. Their capacity for abstract thought of any kind is very limited.
This doesn't mean that they are necessarily not intelligent, btw. But their lives have conditioned them toward huge thought limitations. Like the elephant who is chained to a stake when he's a baby and who still thinks he can't pull the stake out of the ground as an adult.
White leftists think if poor people just have more opportunity, they'll take it.
By and large, they won't. They have to be reconditioned first.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:13 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
An acquaintance of mine was involved in this movement in Seattle, and youre wrong.
“Most progressives” aren’t in Seattle or Portland. Those positions are extreme edge cases.
quote:
Most men feel this way. Metro-sexuality has fricked many of you up.
Never change
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:16 am to Joshjrn
quote:
So if I explain what most progressives mean when they say defund the police, I’m now a progressive who believes everything progressives believe. It’s extremely stupid and not worth the aggravation most of the time.
one of the consequences of anonymous message boards?
(not that I’m advocating against anonymous message boards. shite, now I’ve done it to myself
) Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:16 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I don't know that I agree with your first sentence. I think most people who say this DO think the movement is about getting rid of police. I agree with you that that isn't the intent at the core of it by the people who started it, but the messaging is so poor and people are so dumb, I think that's what it has become to the majority of people who parrot it. And I think there's a second layer of folks within that group also, who don't just want social workers to handle cases like the one you described, but who think that social workers are going to address some true criminal cases. I don't think they expect the police to completely go away (they're not quite as dumb as the first group), but I do think their expectations for social workers fall well within the city limits of Fantasyland. White leftists are so divorced from reality that I really do think that's what they expect and are calling for. White leftists are ignorant of the very obvious fact that people in lower socioeconomic classes do not think like they do. That unless they specifically learn to think differently, they CAN'T think like they do. There are exceptions, of course, but the average person who grows up poor in America cannot think beyond today. They cannot defer gratification except in certain concrete circumstances which they have experienced before. They can't look forward to next month, next year, five years from now. Their capacity for abstract thought of any kind is very limited. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily not intelligent, btw. But their lives have conditioned them toward huge thought limitations. Like the elephant who is chained to a stake when he's a baby and who still thinks he can't pull the stake out of the ground as an adult. White leftists think if poor people just have more opportunity, they'll take it. By and large, they won't. They have to be reconditioned first.
While we seem to disagree as to the average opinion of people who espouse that movement, I actually agree with the rest of your post. I’ve spent a significant amount of time explaining “scarcity mindset” both to the the naive and the “cut hands off thieves” authoritarians. Scarcity mindset is a hell of a fricking thing
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 8:18 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:18 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Though the right seems to be inclined to try to make up lost ground as of late.
Well, the left has been eat up with populism for decades.
The right, only the last few years. But it's catching up fast.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:20 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Most men feel this way. Metro-sexuality has fricked many of you up.
Never change
When the apex of your life is fashion and eating out, you probably arent in touch with 80% of the people in this world.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:24 am to Klark Kent
quote:
one of the consequences of anonymous message boards? (not that I’m advocating against anonymous message boards. shite, now I’ve done it to myself )
Nah, I’ve been on “anonymous message boards” for nearly two decades, and while you’ve always had idiots, if someone said they did or didn’t believe/support something, they were generally taken at face value unless proven otherwise. While there isn’t a clearly defined break point of when this happened, it’s clear over the last 5-10 years that both sides of the political spectrum now fully believe that the “other side” actively and intentionally lies about their beliefs and agenda. As such, it’s the default to believe that someone is lying about what their beliefs and agenda are to begin with. So unless 100% of what someone says passes the accepted ideological purity test, they are immediately tagged as an ideological enemy.
We live in interesting times
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:26 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
When the apex of your life is fashion and eating out, you probably arent in touch with 80% of the people in this world.
Roger: paragon of and spokesperson for the common man
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:34 am to Joshjrn
i don’t disagree with that.
i guess the point i was trying to make: for me personally, I’m much more willing to hear someone out who has a different opinion, if I know them a bit more than just an opinion from an anonymous screen name.
i guess the point i was trying to make: for me personally, I’m much more willing to hear someone out who has a different opinion, if I know them a bit more than just an opinion from an anonymous screen name.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 8:36 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:16 am to Cell of Awareness
Why do they all look the same??
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:18 am to Klark Kent
quote:
i don’t disagree with that. i guess the point i was trying to make: for me personally, I’m much more willing to hear someone out who has a different opinion, if I know them a bit more than just an opinion from an anonymous screen name.
Which I completely get. And it’s always been that way to some extent… for some subjects. Now that I’m thinking about it, I think the biggest shift is how much people on both sides personally and intractably identify with their political views. People have always thought those who disagreed with them politically were naive/stupid; now people think those who disagree with them politically are evil. And I think that trickles down its infection.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:35 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:19 am to Klark Kent
quote:
i guess the point i was trying to make: for me personally, I’m much more willing to hear someone out who has a different opinion, if I know them a bit more than just an opinion from an anonymous screen name.
Message boards are for grinding. We're dealing with ideas, most of then really dumb..and not dealing with real people.
I honestly dont think most people post honest opinions here, I think they post popular opinions.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:21 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:37 am to Joshjrn
quote:
More social workers and less cops, not no cops. That’s what I’m trying to explain.
quote:
Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who represents the city in Congress, said that she thinks “the Minneapolis Police Department has proven themselves beyond reform," and wants to see it disbanded
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:41 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who represents the city in Congress, said that she thinks “the Minneapolis Police Department has proven themselves beyond reform," and wants to see it disbanded
Interesting spot to cut off that quote. Don't worry, I grabbed the rest for you
quote:
Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who represents the city in Congress, said that she thinks “the Minneapolis Police Department has proven themselves beyond reform," and wants to see it disbanded, but envisions a department modeled after Camden.
“A new system will allow officers to address the most dangerous situations and serious crimes that our residents face, while ending the criminalization of poverty and disproportionate violence against black and brown communities,” she wrote on Twitter.
"The current police department we have is so corrupt that we need to replace it with something else" != no police.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:09 am to Joshjrn
quote:
we need to replace it with something else"
And what is that something else?
Even after the fact and we know that the results of the whole defund movement and what little actual change instituted had negative results (Dems have admitted as much), we still have people like you defending it, which is wild.
"That idea is bad and we shouldn't do it"
Dems: "You're wrong and racist"
"See? It was a terrible idea and we're worse off for it"
Dems: "Your eyes deceive you, you're wrong and racist"
ETA: Please provide the full quote where she said this
quote:
but envisions a department modeled after Camden.
The second quote in what you provided is ridiculous progressive dog whistle word salad which is completely undefined. They refuse to go any deeper than that because their story falls apart if they do.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 10:13 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:16 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
And what is that something else?
I appreciate that you've now added an edit, but your edit literally answers your question
If you look at the entire quote, it's clear she's envisioning a department "like Camden". Do I know what that looks like? Nope. Do I care? Not even a little bit. Because again, I don't espouse this position. But to cite her (intentionally truncated) quote as though it's evidence that she wants to have zero police who would respond to a stolen U-Haul complaint simply isn't reflective of reality.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:22 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
And what is that something else?
Social workers.
Just end proactive policing and most of these issues fix themselves. But retards on the left actually believe that police came about to keep slaves in line.
You cant reason with idiots.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:28 am to Joshjrn
quote:
it's clear she's envisioning a department "like Camden".
The author of the piece is the one who said that was her vision. I'm simply asking when has she ever used Camden as the model? I assume that journalist isn't interpreting her view for her? Right?
Here's about 3 minutes of her defending her position (start at ~1:48). Which is a lot of talking with zero actual ideas other than "dismantle it completely" (a term she uses multiple times). She suggests that there will still be a response to crimes and there will be investigation but at no point, unless I missed it, does she ever use the word "cops" or "police" or "policing".
Her only idea is "tear it down", the end. She is too dumb, idealistic, hateful, racist (pick your term) to have any real solution that would actually work.
Like I said, Dems have already admitted the defund movement was a bad idea, multiple departments are already walking back changes that were made, and yet, like clockwork, we've got you in here still fighting the fight for a terrible position.
Two Stable Geniuses Solving Problems: Tapper and Omar
quote:
Do I know what that looks like? Nope. Do I care? Not even a little bit.
You're the worst kind of person then. Because you will not challenge terrible ideas and policy, you'll actually defend the position, and do not care when the negative effects are realized...most likely by other people and in this case by black and brown people the most. And the slow decline of our society accelerates.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 10:34 am
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News