Anonymous #1 1d

The correct position isn’t “trust police unconditionally” or “defund them until they prove themselves.” It’s fund police adequately, require constitutional policing, investigate misconduct, and hold officers accountable when they violate those standards. Those reforms can coexist with having enough officers to respond to crime.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

What you’re suggesting is an entire reform of American policing which is exactly what the defund the police movement is asking for

4

Anonymous #1 1d

There’s obviously overlap between police reform and some parts of the defund movement, particularly around accountability and alternative responses to certain calls. But “reform policing” and “defund the police” aren’t interchangeable concepts.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

“defund the police” does not mean to remove all funding from the police. it’s a critique on police brutality and the overly funded, hyper-militarized, state of policing in America.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

aka regarding “reform the police” and “defund the police”

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Incorrect

1

Anonymous OP 1d

did you want to explain why you think that I’m incorrect, or did you just want to sit comfortably in your arrogance to avoid admitting that you merely misunderstood the phrase?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I’m good to sit comfortably in my arrogance. You’re not on my level of comprehension of this topic.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

No reason to go back and forth all night on this

1

Anonymous OP 1d

the symbiotic relationship between ignorance and arrogance is quite a powerful force, isn’t it?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yeah, you know that better than most people

1

Anonymous OP 18h

are we going to have a conversation, or are you only going to project any criticisms you receive?

1

Anonymous #2 17h

There’s nothing to talk about. You’ve convinced yourself your understanding of what defund the police means is correct and I don’t believe you are based on my experiences/ research. We’re just going to keep going around in circles.

1

Anonymous OP 16h

you have not even offered what you believe the phrase means. you’re quite literally operating solely on vibes and nothing else; but you do you. hence, why i criticized you for your arrogance ;) you do not want to accept that you might be wrong about what you believe that statement means, so you insist that there is “nothing to talk about” meanwhile we could be talking about what you believe the statement means, and why you believed what i commented was incorrect.

1

Anonymous #2 16h

TLDR, it’s okay to be wrong, but it’s not okay to delude yourself into believing that you’re incapable of being wrong.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

I hope tomorrow is a better day. I clearly delineated the difference at the beginning of this thread and you chose not to accept it. There’s not arrogance here. I just value my time and I don’t see any value in debating the topic further with you based on your responses.

1

Anonymous OP 14h

ah I misphrased the start of my comment, and I apologize. I should have said “you have not even offered why you believe my statement was incorrect”, rather than how it’s phrased at it is; that’s my mistake and I apologize for any misunderstanding deriving from that. that being said, it is not difficult to acknowledge when we are wrong, nor is it difficult to have a mere conversation in hopes of seeking an understanding when others believe you are wrong. yes, you are being quite arrogant.

1

Anonymous #2 14h

I’ll end this off with one last final statement, unless you wish to continue. every conversation needn’t be a “debate”, and sometimes we need to be able to have a mere discussion when we have a disagreement, rather than some competitive and perverse “debate”. enjoy your day.

1

Anonymous #2 14h

👍🏻

1