Repost when a cop has chimed in :P

Lol I’ll check in again next weekend, and give you an update 😉

Reads like a prelude to a Logic exam question!

"You are using the public facilities and come across the following claims scrawled on the cubicle wall:

1. Some cops are gay
2. Some gays are racist
3. All racists are bastards

Use 1st-order predicate logic to deduce the truth of the statement 'ACAB'. Show your working."

Is this in a college bathroom? There were always convos like this on the stalls in my college bathrooms.

No, It’s a gay bar in Oslo, Norway

I feel like I have pissed drunk in this bathroom on the west side of Jax before.

Some of those that work forces,

Are the same that gay sexes

"Some cops are gay"

"Some gays are also raspt"

Rasist is the Norwegian word for racist, not sure if that was on purpose or not though 🤔

Something tells me that people who scrawl messages into bathroom walls don't take much time to consider their actions or words.

At least they're being honest when they specify they don't just want to defund the police but also abolish them entirely and prisons.
I'm sure that will work out well...

I mean the whole conversation is kinda stupid, while I don’t want to comment on the American police system (simply due to lack of knowledge on the subject) this is Norway. Our police is pretty chill. And our prisons are very well maintained with extremely low return rate.

Apart from that one scandal last year about them apparently having gangbangs on Thursdays, I guess. Google “knulletorsdag” (bang/fuck Thursday) if you’re curious a out that.

Ah yes caveman Reddit lol

[deleted]

Police and Prison Abolition is not an overnight process. It's a long term objective that will likely take at least a century. Whether or not our door writer knows this is up in the air, but it doesn't mean the idea is a fantasy.

It kinda is a fantasy.

Even countries with the lowest crime rates in the world such as (Iceland, Japan, Switzerland) have police. Society doesn't work without some law enforcement.

You can have universal basic income, increased funding for social workers, decriminalization of drug abuse, and other good programs but there's still going to be bad actors, crimes of passion, angry drunks, and just plain greedy assholes trying to take advantage of others.

I will go to the grave saying that the use of the specific language "defund" rather than anything else like "reform" or "replace" was at least partially an astroturfing op. It was so ridiculously easy to paint "defund the police" as unreasonable because for some reason the movement used step one of a multi step plan as their rallying cry.

If your local community decided they wanted to remodel the library, the campaign phrase wouldn't be "shut down the library".

It’s actually the opposite. We know who started (or at least popularized) the “defund the police” phrase and they meant it as “abolish the police” but felt using “defund” made it seem easier to swallow

Elaborate on this cabal of anarchists that you purport exists.

Well, I can’t direct you to any anarchist, but there’s the advocacy group Black Visions Collective and people like the author of this editorial:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

I don't think most people would say that author speaks for them, even most people who were saying to defund the police in 2020. Yes we'd all love to live in a post crime society where there are no criminals to arrest but the realistic path to that is definitely not to start by eliminating all police.

I remember at the time seeing posts about how "defund the police" actually meant "reduce the militarization of the police and redirect excess funds to social services to decrease crime at the source", radicals like that author were never the driving force, they just took the momentum and tried to run with it and they got their opinions disproportionately boosted because the headline "Abolish all law enforcement" gets clicks.

The problem is there’s two different definitions for “defund the police” and even people on the BLM side of the equation mean different things. And while not all will agree with the New York Times op ed, there’s a heck of a lot that do.

Which is the majority? 🤷‍♂️

Everyone believes their position is the most common. I support cutting police funding, funding social workers and mental health, and demilitarization. Am I part of the majority? I have no clue.

But since the term is unclear and to some people on both the left and the right it means “abolish” then it’s not really useful. No one knows what you mean...

That's kind of my point. I also saw posts about how using "defund" was 100% necessary to get the point across, which doesn't really make sense. Which is why I think there was an effort, on some level, to insist on the word "defund" in order to undermine what should have been unifying energy.

None of that is incompatible with Police and Prison Abolition.

Probably the best text to start with would be 'Are Prisons Obsolete?' by Angela Davis

How is police abolishment not incompatible with the fact that not a single modern society functions without a police force???

[deleted]

Because it's a process that would take AT LEAST a century, hence what contemporary societies are doing isn't particularly relevant.

Prison and Police Abolition is a goal to try and work towards gradually, not an overnight policy change, read the book.

>Because it's a process that would take AT LEAST a century, hence what contemporary societies are doing isn't particularly relevant.

Which makes it outright impossible.

That's a longer term goal than any human society has attempted. 25 presidencies, 50 election cycles, and three or four generations. Reshaping society for a world we don't know the needs of. Will there even be a recognisable USA in 100 years?

Construction projects that take a decade are hard to manage, and they have a clear goal and blueprints.

>Prison and Police Abolition is a goal to try and work towards gradually, not an overnight policy change, read the book.

I'll buy prison abolishment. I think there are better ways to handle incarceration and rules breakers.

But police? You need someone to keep the peace. There's always going to be someone who breaks the rules. The job of policing needs to fall on someone. And if not a public police force then it becomes the job of the military OR private security firms and corporate security, which is dystopian as fuck.

Read the book.