this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Toronto
1611 readers
1 users here now
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Friends:
Support lemmy.ca
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ACAB
You've lost credibility. Who are you going to call when in trouble?
I'm convinced this a troll account now, nobody is this fucking stupid.
A crackhead
After a series of events culminating with Uvalde the police have lost credibility
The police don't even come a majority of the time when they're called in my city
Which city is that?
MYOB.
Deep throat that boot anymore and you’ll be shitting rubber.
Not the cops that have Nazi tattoos and like to shoot people.
Agreed, no one like that sort of behaviour. But this 'Defund the Police' is nonsense.
Yet another genius who never bothered to learn what "defund the police" actually intended before blathering on about how it's ridiculous.
The whole point of defund the police was to remove some of their funding, especially that used to unnecessarily outfit police like paramilitary groups, and use it to fund programs that actually would help people in need, like crisis counselors.
I do. I just happen to disagree with it. There isn't one common denominator of Defund the Police, it means different things to some folk. For example, this local activist: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.5594050 Which is asine!
There is and always has been one primary message, as noted above. The mainstream media, which benefits directly from sensational reporting and is owned by people who benefit from an authoritarian police force, likes to muddy the waters with misleading reporting and interviews like the one you linked, which are more extremist and not representative of the core motive.
Critical thinking, folks. It's important and never too late to learn. Ask important questions like "are these data representative? If not, why are they being presented to me? Who benefits from this misrepresentation? Which data are actually representative?"
Actually he's a high profile activist and representative of the movement in Toronto. Many of the young people I've personally interacted with, seem to think likewise. As I'm a local man, what people believe locally takes precedence over any Wikipedia article or what Solinvictus believes is correct.
When someone believes anecdotal evidence is representative of anything, you can be assured anything they say is of equal value.
Yes. Like Wikipedia. The video I linked too isn't anecdotal. I live in the “Hood” and know what black youth think of the coppers and, especially when the movement to 'Defund the Police' started, what was the prevailing thought. The fact that someone wrote a Wikipedia article and stated their opinion of what it meant, is anecdotal in and of itself! 🤦♂️
It's always nice when someone shows you their level of intellect in great detail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police
Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source for political factoids. As I explained earlier, if ones does any sort of search you'll find that there isn't a definition that everyone agrees with.
So tell me, what is an authoritative source of factoids?
Actually, this is strictly an American definition. In original English, (Cambridge Dictionary) it means what I used it for: FACTOID | English meaning—Cambridge Dictionary I'm Canadian, and we use/follow the King's English! July 19, 2023 — FACTOID definition: 1. an interesting piece of information, 2. an interesting piece of information. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/factoid
I like Quora. Encyclopedia's on print stock used to be the gold standard due to professional fact-checkers, Wikipedia is NOT an alternative to that medium IMHO. BTW, I did not know of the definition of Factoid — Had thought it was slang for Fact.
Yes, but it's a great starting point for people who have no idea what they are talking about (you).
Once you have a basic understanding it's possible to have more constructive conversations about a topic and branch out into more detailed explanations.
But if you don't have the basics down it's hard to have any real conversation with you (I often describe it as trying to have a conversation with someone who never watched star wars when they are insistent that star wars is a medieval fantasy, so you can converse with them, but if they are unwilling to grasp the basics, the conversation will never go anywhere)
https://defundthepolice.org/about/ They wish to disarm the police. https://defundthepolice.org/disarmament-demilitarization/ Some of it I agree with Predictive Policing and the use of Plantir software. But it's a lost cause I'm afraid.
A single website source like that is even worse of a source than Wikipedia...
Not really, it's as representative as anything else out there, which reinforces my point. There is no common meaning for 'Defund the Police'. You are just pissing in the wind.
I'll go back to my earlier point. Wikipedia is a fine place to start to get a summary of all the different aspects of defunding the police, you're focused on a single source when there isn't a single definition of the movement overall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia
Absolutely not for anything political related. It's a well-known fact that the deep state authors many of that type of article. It's great for official propaganda. BTW, I gave 2 sources indicating the same meaning, so I'm not focusing on a single entity, plus my experience talking to on the ground black activists in Toronto as to the meaning.
Yep, being aware of that is part of being able to read anything objectively. Every single thing you read has a political slant.
Wikipedia is great because it does reference out to sources, so you can easily find multiple sources and using critical thinking skills you can distill common themes across multiple different sources.
If you're savvy, you can even look at the page edit history and the "talk" happening behind the article to get a better idea of what parts are disputed and which are generally accepted.
[@[email protected]] The average person doesn't know this, even most in this thread …
Even with everything said, wikipedia is generally a better single source than anything else.
At the very least, it's always an acceptable starting point for understanding the concepts in a space.
Police are not there to help you, they exist to protect governments and businesses.
Call them to report your car is stolen, that's a theft of tens of thousands of dollars, and they will tell you to call your insurance company. Now go to the bank and snatch a $100 bill from a teller, there will be cops there to arrest you in minutes.
And the insurance will rip you in ways you will be surprised are legal. There is no winning.
Ghostbusters
Not the cops who didn't help us when my partner got her purse snatched, that's for sure.
Not the cops, they won't show up till it's to late, and if they do show up there is a good chance they kill you or your dog.
Bastards, obviously.
The credibility police.
We can tell by your posting history that you hate the police. Wonder who you're going to call when somebody points a gun at you, or stabs you! Bet you're one of the knobs that agrees with defunding the police too, right?
Why would I call the police when I need to get to a hospital?
Yet you just proved that you're an ignorant illiterate who doesn't even know what "defunding the police" means!
I do wish we had a better phrase that would be more clear to these types.
"Use my tax money to actually help people" doesn't really roll off the tongue.
In a better world it would
In a better world it wouldn't have to.
That's an even better world. I'd be happy with one where the above slogan would be acceptable.
There isn't any nirvana.
Well, not since Kurt Cobain died.