"Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" by Mariame Kaba. New York Times, 2020-06-12, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
>But don’t get me wrong. We are not abandoning our communities to violence. We don’t want to just close police departments. We want to make them obsolete.
Later in the article:
>What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all?
Even Kaba, who has been advocating for the abolishment of police and prison for a long time, doesn't just want these establishments gone. She wants all of the funding and resources currently budgeted for these establishments to go towards resolving the root cause of most violent crimes.
The spin that my conservative relatives were told by Tucker Carlson and friends was that "these people want anarchy and free reign to commit crimes" (paraphrasing). While anecdotal, it does seem that conservative media conveniently forgot to mention the rest of the argument to my relatives.
160 years ago, Lincoln and Douglas were able to hold civil debates about slavery, which gave Lincoln the popularity he needed to win the presidency. I'm not sure how public discourse has decayed so significantly when we're more educated than ever.
Slogans, headlines, and protest chants repeat the emotional overreaction, and then when questioned they retort "oh, well, we didn't mean it 'literally'.". This is Trump level political discourse.
I think this is the key takeaway from the opinion piece:
> As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm.
I find it an interesting idea to be honest. I don't know that I'm convinced one way or the other, but it definitely seems an interesting area for research and innovation. We innovate solutions to all kind of problems, it seems it has been a while since we've tried to innovate solutions around crime reduction and prevention.
(This is not a disagreement, this is mostly conversing on the nuances of exploring the policy given our current political setting. )
And like you say, nobody is allowed to be wrong or fail in politics anymore, which means we're not allowed to experiment at the local or regional level, or to rollback policies, or just have any kind of rational retrospective. Nope, now it's all ideological, like religion, you can't possibly push a policy that failed, or have a bad idea. That just means you're weak and shall be casted away for the better sharlatan to take your place, he is never wrong, if you doubt how right he is, you shall be jailed or mocked, if his policies don't work, we shall endure them and believe in them even harder.
> By Mariame Kaba
> Ms. Kaba is an organizer against criminalization.
(1) They don't understand the difference between editorial content and reporting, because the media outlets they follow do their best to blur the distinction, all the way down to not even making a distinction organizationally or professionally, and making it seem like more legitimate sources of information don't make that distinction either. So the biggest red flag is that they don't even realize that there are professional standards and practices for keeping those things separate, and they don't understand things like fact checking or there being burdens of proof applied before something considered news reporting is published. To them, editorial content and news reporting are the same thing, with the same minimal burden of proof, because those are the nonexistent standards of literally every source of "information" they have.
(2) They think that when a media outlet voluntarily issues corrections (not from a lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit), that it's a sign that that outlet is less reliable than the places they go that never ever issue corrections unless legally forced to. The reality is completely flipped around, but that's their mentality. Culturally, that dovetails with "never admit being wrong" and "never apologize", which are ideals that resonate REALLY REALLY hard with people in these propaganda bubbles. The lack of accountability makes them trust untrustworthy sources even more, not less. Accountability makes them trust trustworthy sources less, not more.
I would add (3), how they react if they find out that something they themselves put out there isn't true. Watch what happens if they find out something they posted objectively isn't true. Instead of retracting it, they'll say something like, "well it doesn't matter, the meaning of the message is the same", or "well it doesn't matter the fake news media does it all the time". Which is the exact same thing that pathological liars and con artists say when their lies are exposed- that everyone does it, and maybe even that they are victims of hypocrites for being called out on it, because they assume the people calling them out surely lie about stuff all the time too. They're always looking for excuses to do worse, not better, and for excuses to think of themselves as victims, and for any possible reason to lower the bar for themselves rather than raise it for everyone.