Two months since the riots and still no national conversation

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZemD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anonkun said:
De-escalation training for government groups generally means having workers sleep through a powerpoint once a year. I don’t see how that would affect anything.
Click to expand...
Las Vegas City Police managed with training to drop fatalities by police shooting by 30%. If we assume that’s enough 30% is a huge margin of error.
 
Last edited:
Anonkun said:
Is there a link to that reduction? I’d be interested to see exactly what methods the state used to create that amount of impact.
Click to expand...
I’ll pm you, rn I’m on cell and it’s not in arms reach.
 
ZemD said:
And why are these riots still referred to as protests?
Click to expand...
Because it’s mixed, some people are protestors and a few are rioters.
Anonkun said:
My plan is much more efficient:
-criminals may be shot on sight if police give ample warning
-protests for a single topic mat be held for 1 day a year. After such time, remaining protesters are committing a crime and are subject to the previous rule
Click to expand...
That doesn’t solve any of the abuses that caused this mess.
 
Last edited:
Anonkun said:
40.png
Anrakyr:
Police officers of all forms of law enforcement. They need reform, they need to not be doing as much as they do. I believe with proper de-escalation training and the proper reallocation of resources we can make everyone reasonable happy
Click to expand...
De-escalation training for government groups generally means having workers sleep through a powerpoint once a year. I don’t see how that would affect anything.

My plan is much more efficient:
-criminals may be shot on sight if police give ample warning
-protests for a single topic mat be held for 1 day a year. After such time, remaining protesters are committing a crime and are subject to the previous rule

The solution is simple but people don’t want to accept the answer
Click to expand...
Police don’t, in most situations, get to decide who does or does not deserve the label “criminal”. They can investigate, lay charges and prosecute alleged crimes and criminals, but usually it is judges and juries that pronounce guilt.

And for good reason. It is never wise to have the same person or people be judge jury and executioner. And it is very difficult to unmaim or unkill someone who turns out after the fact not to be a criminal.
 
Both sides are completely ideologically opposed. There isn’t much middle ground to be had.
 
There is plenty of middle ground. It’s just that too many people have voluntarily painted themselves into a corner and refuse to use the vast open floor that remains after the “other side” has staked out their opposite corner. It has ceased to be about “solving” and has become all about “winning”. And it hurts me to the depths of my soul to see what it is doing to my country.
 
Well, I know I don’t have any desire to have a middle ground or work with Democrats at the national level. They are the antithesis of most of my core beliefs. Why would people who oppose abortion, oppose universal healthcare, $15 minimum wage, oppose more lax immigration enforcement, oppose everything LGBT, etc. have any desire to compromise on those issues? I don’t want a middle ground on abortion, I want it made illegal. I don’t want a middle ground on gay marriage, I want it banned again.

I want them beaten.
 
Anonkun said:
My plan is much more efficient:
-criminals may be shot on sight if police give ample warning
-protests for a single topic mat be held for 1 day a year. After such time, remaining protesters are committing a crime and are subject to the previous rule
Click to expand...
But I don’t want to live in China 🇨🇳 :no_good_man:t2:
 
Last edited:
It’s not about political opinions when you’re talking about dismembering infants in the womb and letting homosexuals treat their degeneracy the same as a natural coupling of man and wife.

But go ahead and ignore anything that you don’t want to hear.
 
whatistrue said:
I don’t usually go to this level so soon, but welcome to the Ignore bucket.
Click to expand...
You’re entitled to this of course, but it’s ironic considering the topic.

I sympathize with those who don’t want to compromise on abortion and gay marriage, but unless we want a complete breakdown in social cohesion, or a total loss of democracy, we simply must compromise.
 
Neithan said:
You’re entitled to this of course, but it’s ironic considering the topic.
Click to expand...
There is much validity in what you say, and it is why I generally don’t do it so soon, but in this particular case I felt that I must to preserve my own emotional equilibrium. And of course it is reversible should I determine that I was overly hasty.

If we (generic “we”; not meaning any particular group) are adamant that the “other side” must submit absolutely and embrace our position, that doesn’t leave any room for talking and convincing and making progress towards our ultimate goal. It is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And it denies the reality that, however right we may be on any given question, we simply cannot demand that everyone else’s conscience conforms to ours. We can inform, we can educate, we can persuade, and we can even cajole, but we cannot dictate how others feel and believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top