[INFJ] This will make you rage

[Reason]

Ok then give them extra money just for training. And if they require college degrees and background in some areas of social services, pay them more. But it should be tied to reform. Also, get rid of qualified immunity.

That would make financial sense. I was just confused because everyone is talking about diverting police funds while increasing training and requirements.

Also I don't know if you've noticed the connection between low pay and shitty, unprofessional workers. I have from my work experiences. Raising pay sounds counterintuitive but it helps weed out undesirable candidates.

 

[Reason]

Or reduce number of officers and lighten their load by bringing in other crisis intervention services. Spend the funding there. I'm open to ideas. Just want to see reform because things can't continue as is

Either you edited or my phone is having a stroke because I didn't see this. Brb later with response.

 

[acd]

That would make financial sense. I was just confused because everyone is talking about diverting police funds while increasing training and requirements.

Also I don't know if you've noticed the connection between low pay and shitty, unprofessional workers. I have from my work experiences. Raising pay sounds counterintuitive but it helps weed out undesirable candidates.

Raising pay would do that with additional qualifications I think. And I do see that in my field with direct care support workers serving vulnerable populations.

Either you edited or my phone is having a stroke because I didn't see this. Brb later with response.

I did add that in there. I do think police are responsible for way too much that more qualified professionals could handle. Things like mental health issues, for example.

 

[mintoots]

That would make financial sense. I was just confused because everyone is talking about diverting police funds while increasing training and requirements.

Also I don't know if you've noticed the connection between low pay and shitty, unprofessional workers. I have from my work experiences. Raising pay sounds counterintuitive but it helps weed out undesirable candidates.

I wonder if police forces should be trained in psychology, behavior, and social welfare. A good disciplinarian has a balance of both heart and head. That point about requiring prisons by handled by experts on behavior are accurate too. Nuns could volunteer in that set up. 60% police force. 40% psychosocial work

 

[slant]

This problem is not going to be magically solved because of the protests. We have not reached "a tipping point". That's how everyone felt during Rodney King. And what to the two things have in common?

A republican president was soon up for election against a challenging democratic candidate.

The issue is valid but I hope you all realize your being drummed up by the Dem party in an attempt to make Biden win. I don't think it will work this time. Regardless, I get frustrated to see the masses sucked into this bullshit. We all know none of the politicians actually care and nothing will be resolved.

Clinton ESCALATED the imprisonment of blacks! And if you think Biden will fix things (he isn't going to get elected anyway) have fun. Obama deported more people than bush and dropped so many bombs we ran out. You're all living in an illusion.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

This problem is not going to be magically solved because of the protests. We have not reached "a tipping point". That's how everyone felt during Rodney King. And what to the two things have in common?

A republican president was soon up for election against a challenging democratic candidate.

The issue is valid but I hope you all realize your being drummed up by the Dem party in an attempt to make Biden win. I don't think it will work this time. Regardless, I get frustrated to see the masses sucked into this bullshit. We all know none of the politicians actually care and nothing will be resolved.

Clinton ESCALATED the imprisonment of blacks! And if you think Biden will fix things (he isn't going to get elected anyway) have fun. Obama deported more people than bush and dropped so many bombs we ran out. You're all living in an illusion.

You've got a very condescending tone these days, slant, and you keep presenting commonly understood positions like this as if it's revelatory.

I think you should give people more credit, especially here. The issue we're talking about exists regardless of whether or not it's being exploited by politicians, and those two conversations don't render the other illegitimate.

 

[slant]

You've got a very condescending tone these days, slant, and you keep presenting commonly understood positions like this as if it's revelatory.

I think you should give people more credit, especially here. The issue we're talking about exists regardless of whether or not it's being exploited by politicians, and those two conversations don't render the other illegitimate.

I have the right to express my point of view. Just because it isn't the popular opinion here doesn't mean that I'm going to stop expressing it. It is unfortunate that you don't like the way I communicate.

These conversations have been had, and will just continue to be had. Who needs credit for what is as it always has been, and always will be?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I have the right to express my point of view. Just because it isn't the popular opinion here doesn't mean that I'm going to stop expressing it. It is unfortunate that you don't like the way I communicate.

These conversations have been had, and will just continue to be had. Who needs credit for what is as it always has been, and always will be?

Oh for sure, you definitely have a right, but saying things like 'you're all living in an illusion' reduces your credibility and weakens your voice rather than bolstering it. You become quieter because you become easily dismissable. Dismissable because it reveals a lack of awareness of how widespread the discourse is.

Hey I'm guilty of communicating in an off-putting way myself too, sometimes, and I mention it not as a kind of moral critique but a rhetorical one.

 

[slant]

Oh for sure, you definitely have a right, but saying things like 'you're all living in an illusion' reduces your credibility and weakens your voice rather than bolstering it. You become quieter because you become easily dismissable. Dismissable because it reveals a lack of awareness of how widespread the discourse is.

Hey I'm guilty of communicating in an off-putting way myself too, sometimes, and I mention it not as a kind of moral critique but a rhetorical one.

I like how I communicate. I'm not worried about my credibility. Each individual decides what they want to believe, and the idea that carefully wording what I say in some attempt to manipulate the views of others, more gently described as "influence" the opinions of others, does not sit right with me.

All we have is the thoughts we think and what we choose to believe. So if my thoughts are not correct for someone else because of the way that they are phrased, perhaps that's justified.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I like how I communicate. I'm not worried about my credibility. Each individual decides what they want to believe, and the idea that carefully wording what I say in some attempt to manipulate the views of others, more gently described as "influence" the opinions of others, does not sit right with me.

All we have is the thoughts we think and what we choose to believe. So if my thoughts are not correct for someone else because of the way that they are phrased, perhaps that's justified.

Fair enough, that's an approach I can respect.

Even so, I don't think you can presume the ignorance of others and not make them feel patronised in doing so.

 

[slant]

Fair enough, that's an approach I can respect.

Even so, I don't think you can presume the ignorance of others and not make them feel patronised in doing so.

Hmm. That isn't my intention. I feel patronized by the general existence of these threads themselves; the idea that we can solve what amounts to human nature.

And the argument goes: oh well, if we don't talk about it how can we ever change it?

And then over time minor changes happen.

When I was a little girl I read this book at my great grandfathers house about a chicken who kept going on about how the sky was falling. Henny penny I think it was. Looking it up, that folk tale goes back to 1823. It's 2020 now; so 200 years. And the concept of the story is even older yet.

The general point being that the news is sensationalizing this, as it does everything, and the emotional distress I see people in reacting to it is unwarranted, not because the event that happened isn't upsetting, but because these things aren't new and we can't be in a constant state of upset. The context of these conversations seems trite, especially when in comparison to any other time in the world violence is down significantly. And it continues to decrease. But because of the news media people can be brought into hysteria in this feeling that there is a looming threat awaiting them. It's imagined.

In the book I'm reading it actually theoriZes the reason for the decrease in violence in the modern era is the news media constantly feeding us violent news which satisfies that base need, as well as video games. I think that makes a lot of sense. So perhaps this is the trade off: if we want less violence, we need more people in a constant state of panic and fear because of the greatly exaggerated violence they see on news.

Still.

I find it in poor taste.

 

[slant]

@slant it's funny that you keep trying to convince us how pointless and therefore unworthy it is to even discuss these topics. What a waste of time it is. Yet you are always drawn in. You always find yourself in these very threads. Trying to tell us how much it doesn't matter. And I think if anyone is over emotional about any of it, it would seem to be you. That's not a jab. It's important to have free and open discussion. But you seem intent on shutting it down.

Right we are doing the same thing. Perhaps that's the point

 

[Reason]

Or reduce number of officers and lighten their load by bringing in other crisis intervention services. Spend the funding there. I'm open to ideas. Just want to see reform because things can't continue as is.

I did add that in there. I do think police are responsible for way too much that more qualified professionals could handle. Things like mental health issues, for example.

I wonder if police forces should be trained in psychology, behavior, and social welfare. A good disciplinarian has a balance of both heart and head. That point about requiring prisons by handled by experts on behavior are accurate too. Nuns could volunteer in that set up. 60% police force. 40% psychosocial work

I think the collapse of America's mental health institutions has been a disgrace. As I understand it there were a good many things wrong with the asylums back in the day but abolishing them has done little good. Again, good personell and good infrastructure ain't cheap. This isn't a directly related issue but this is why I don't endorse the American empire. That kind of 'lets fix the whole world' spending is for nations with surpluses, not nations with debt. Not to mention people just call us fascists anyways. Let them have as Woodrow Wilson put it a right to self-determination.

That money is needed at home.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I think the collapse of America's mental health institutions has been a disgrace. As I understand it there were a good many things wrong with the asylums back in the day but abolishing them has done little good. Again, good personell and good infrastructure ain't cheap. This isn't a directly related issue but this is why I don't endorse the American empire. That kind of 'lets fix the whole world' spending is for nations with surpluses, not nations with debt. Not to mention people just call us fascists anyways. Let them have as Woodrow Wilson put it a right to self-determination.

That money is needed at home.

The irony here is that 'that money' is dependent upon the imperial power.

It wouldn't exist otherwise. It couldn't be maintained otherwise.

 

[Reason]

The irony here is that 'that money' is dependent upon the imperial power.

It wouldn't exist otherwise. It couldn't be maintained otherwise.

You're entitled to your opinion but there are other and frankly better ways to make money. Outsourcing manufacturing to be done via slave labor in China makes for cheap goods but it doesn't make for an industrial sector at home. There are ways to generate wealth that don't involve constant interventionism.

 

[Reason]

Back on topic:

The police problem will actually never be solved because it's racist I'm sure to suggest a pay rise for the evil police. No they'll cut the budget and more police will quit leading to an increase in crime and more difficulty in firing bad cops. A negative feedback loop.

In 2 months we'll be discussing rebuilding destroyed neighborhoods with taxpayer money. All just so antifa can role play Che Guevara and burn down neighborhoods they don't live in. Opposing that will be racist too.

Also if Trump sends in the military he's a fascist trying to stifle free speech. If he does not, then he's intentionally letting neighborhoods burn because he's a bigot.

Nobody will be held responsible for their own actions. It'll get pushed on to some external target so that nobody has to admit they made a mistake.

 

[slant]

You're entitled to your opinion but there are other and frankly better ways to make money. Outsourcing manufacturing to be done via slave labor in China makes for cheap goods but it doesn't make for an industrial sector at home. There are ways to generate wealth that don't involve constant interventionism.

The problem is that the military industrial complex economic model cannot end until it's gone at the same time globally. If the untied States just "stopped" intervening guess who takes up that role? Russia or China. Its human nature and has been going on since the dawn of time and the only solution is to end it completely everywhere and short of the complete collapse of global society I don't see that happening.

It was happening before globalism too, just with neighboring counties.

I once thought limitless resources would solve the problem but I realized it's actually human beings need for power and control- which is caused by our innate single conscious. All of these things we do to try to get people to believe or behave the way we want them to is in an effort to feel like we are not alone in our consciousness, that we are sharing it with someone. This is why spiritually is such a draw and effective way of curbing this human nature tendency because it can provide the feeling of having a shared consciousness and that's pretty much the only thing that seems to overcome this tendency.

But it doesn't actually create shared consciousness just the illusion of it. If humans are able to accept that they are alone in their consciousness and become comfortable with it that is another way to curb this. So there's multiple angles to attack this from.

Notice how none of this involves actual policy or theory as to how to change human behavior or the structure of society.

Because you can't change everyone.

So who can we change? The self of course.

And that's the whole point. We spend so much time looking outward thinking oooh ooh this problem that problem! This person that person!

But it's you. It's always you.

I'm not confident that we can ever master the self, either. It's a lifelong thing. Maybe when we die there's some sort of conclusion but we'll just have to wait on that one, huh?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

You're entitled to your opinion but there are other and frankly better ways to make money. Outsourcing manufacturing to be done via slave labor in China makes for cheap goods but it doesn't make for an industrial sector at home. There are ways to generate wealth that don't involve constant interventionism.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well, but what I mean is that the entire global system is predicated on American power, with or without military adventurism.

Withdrawing that power and suddenly expecting the world's economic structure to remain exactly as it was is very naive. Exceptionally cheap resource extraction from Africa, for instance, only works because of the internationally-backed sovereign debt system and foreign ownership of extractive processes. Oil from the Middle East depends upon Saudi cooperation, &c. &c. Withdraw that cooperation, as in '73, and you get standstill.

These are only two examples, but the pattern is repeated a thousandfold with the same answer - at bottom, what secures these processes and undergirds this structure is American power and global authority. The system will fail with a collapse in that authority.

It's already partially failing because the US can't enforce patent protection, and so it's getting out-competed by state actors that don't have to invest in costly R&D, merely industrial espionage. China got hit with import tariffs and simply finished their products in other countries to avoid them. How were they able to do that? Power; a failure of American power.

The whole system of international trade is indelibly reliable on American power and you simply don't have the option of withdrawing that. You can't pull the keystone out of the arch to to build something else, and just... pray that it doesn't collapse.

China, Russia, whoever... they will forcibly close your markets, as China is doing with Belt and Road and increasingly in Australia and Eastern Europe even.

The only solution is to rebalance and strengthen NATO, if you want to have any chance of reducing your military spending while keeping the current system as intact as it is.

 

[acd]

Back on topic:

The police problem will actually never be solved because it's racist I'm sure to suggest a pay rise for the evil police. No they'll cut the budget and more police will quit leading to an increase in crime and more difficulty in firing bad cops. A negative feedback loop.

In 2 months we'll be discussing rebuilding destroyed neighborhoods with taxpayer money. All just so antifa can role play Che Guevara and burn down neighborhoods they don't live in. Opposing that will be racist too.

Also if Trump sends in the military he's a fascist trying to stifle free speech. If he does not, then he's intentionally letting neighborhoods burn because he's a bigot.

Nobody will be held responsible for their own actions. It'll get pushed on to some external target so that nobody has to admit they made a mistake.

I think we have more chance of societal breakdown if nothing changes. If there is no reform. That trust must be rebuilt. I'm not exactly sure what it will take but I think it's a worthy discussion to have. We even have Lindsay Graham suggesting another look at qualified immunity!

 

[Reason]

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well, but what I mean is that the entire global system is predicated on American power, with or without military adventurism.

Withdrawing that power and suddenly expecting the world's economic structure to remain exactly as it was is very naive. Exceptionally cheap resource extraction from Africa, for instance, only works because of the internationally-backed sovereign debt system and foreign ownership of extractive processes. Oil from the Middle East depends upon Saudi cooperation, &c. &c. Withdraw that cooperation, as in '73, and you get standstill.

These are only two examples, but the pattern is repeated a thousandfold with the same answer - at bottom, what secures these processes and undergirds this structure is American power and global authority. The system will fail with a collapse in that authority.

It's already partially failing because the US can't enforce patent protection, and so it's getting out-competed by state actors that don't have to invest in costly R&D, merely industrial espionage. China got hit with import tariffs and simply finished their products in other countries to avoid them. How were they able to do that? Power; a failure of American power.

The whole system of international trade is indelibly reliable on American power and you simply don't have the option of withdrawing that. You can't pull the keystone out of the arch to to build something else, and just... pray that it doesn't collapse.

China, Russia, whoever... they will forcibly close your markets, as China is doing with Belt and Road and increasingly in Australia and Eastern Europe even.

The only solution is to rebalance and strengthen NATO, if you want to have any chance of reducing your military spending while keeping the current system as intact as it is.

This whole response is predicated on the idea that America is just going to dissapear from world leadership instead of sunsetting itself over time. There's more to discuss I'm sure but that's for another thread with a different topic.