ACAB
this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Toronto
2015 readers
2 users here now
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Friends:
Support lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
You've lost credibility. Who are you going to call when in trouble?
Not the cops that have Nazi tattoos and like to shoot people.
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 are better suited than the police to help people in certain situations, like crisis counselors.
Yet another genius who never bothered to learn what “defund the police” actually intended before blathering on about how it’s ridiculous.
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 who wants to disarm them: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.5594050 Which is asine!
"I cherry picked an outlier and used it to explain how I know what this thing is, I just happen to use verbiage that highlights in great detail that I don't know what the thing is."
It's always nice when someone shows you their level of intellect in great detail.
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.
Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source for political factoids.
factoid: A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.
So tell me, what is an authoritative source of factoids?
factoid: A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.
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
So tell me, what is an authoritative source of factoids?
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...
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.
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.
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.
[@joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca] The average person doesn't know this, even most in this thread …
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.
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! 🤦♂️
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?
The credibility police.
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?
Bet you're one of the knobs that agrees with defunding the police too, right?
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.
That’s an even better world. I’d be happy with one where the above slogan would be acceptable.
There isn't any nirvana.