Defund the Police?

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, Margarita said:

I argue like a child.

 

Words mean whatever I want them to mean whenever I say them.

 

It’s everyone else’s fault that they don’t understand what I’m talking about because everyone else should be mind readers who intuitively know that I mean “cheeseburger” when I say “spaceship”...  except for times it means “the” or “chartreuse” or “the Mona Lisa”.

 

So there.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[billsfan1959]

6 minutes ago, Margarita said:

I'm going to try this one more time. this after reading this tasker characters scathing rebuke of me personally. What a self righteous supposed know it all.  Just because I dont choose to take the most radical interpretation of "defund the police" doesn't mean that every protester did as well.  How is it that a few posters here presume to know the intent and thought processes behind each and every protest sign out there. I refuse to accept that He does or anyone CAN  accept a premise that to "defund the police" means to remove police period and let the chips fall as they may. RIDICULOUS.  I took some time and found an article in a publication I would hope folks would read as not politically inclined either way forbes magazine. Here is what they had to say"  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/09/the-defund-the-police-movement-is-sweeping-the-country-heres-what-it-really-means/#4a068e394d9b

 

I hope this clears up the matter. Never did I ever infer that I knew what every protester meant  by defund, Only MY opinion which in no way shape or form aligns with radical inference. To take the radicals interpretation to me is the idiotic take and I personally give folks more credit than that even in the heat of protest.    

 

to that tasker character or  whatever his name is Go Pound sand.

 

I think the issue here, Margarita is that the word "defund" literally means to cease funding. If somebody says "defund the police" and they do not mean that funding for the police should be withdrawn and stopped, then they should use another word or phrase that more accurately represents what they mean.

 

If we start to apply arbitrary meanings and endless interpretations, the word itself then becomes meaningless.

 

Words do have meanings and should be used accordingly. 

[muppy]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

whatever you say Kreskin

[Capco]

A couple more questions if you have a moment, @billsfan1959 and @Sig1Hunter.

 

The author mentions Dave Grossman:  

 

One of the most important thought leaders in law enforcement is Col. Dave Grossman, a “killologist” who wrote an essay called “Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs”. Cops are the sheepdogs, bad guys are the wolves, and the citizens are the sheep (!). Col. Grossman makes sure to mention that to a stupid sheep, sheepdogs look more like wolves than sheep, and that’s why they dislike you.

 

This “they hate you for protecting them and only I love you, only I can protect you” tactic is familiar to students of abuse. It’s what abusers do to coerce their victims into isolation, pulling them away from friends and family and ensnaring them in the abuser’s toxic web. Law enforcement does this too, pitting the officer against civilians. “They don’t understand what you do, they don’t respect your sacrifice, they just want to get away with crimes. You’re only safe with us.”

 

I was wondering if either of you have read this essay (https://www.killology.com/sheep-wolves-and-sheepdogs), been exposed to Dave Grossman's work either in print or in person, and what your opinions were of his view on law enforcement.  

 

I find many of his views to be extreme, and it troubles me that he contributes to law enforcement theory around the country through his seminars and books.  What about you?

[Deranged Rhino]

This man is running for Congress in NY. 

 

 

(posting for the vid)

[muppy]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think the issue here, Margarita is that the word "defund" literally means to cease funding. If somebody says "defund the police" and they do not mean that funding for the police should be withdrawn and stopped, then they should use another word or phrase that more accurately represents what they mean.

 

If we start to apply arbitrary meanings and endless interpretations, the word itself then becomes meaningless.

 

Words do have meanings and should be used accordingly. 

I think the folks who are so steadfast in holding on to the most radical inference of this word are zealot idiots. Did you read the link I posted? If that is the ONLY reference to that term word Yes i agree another term should have been used it not being fully demonstrative of the effect hoped for.  Do you agree with me there? I'd Much rather discuss this with you than kreskin 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

A couple more questions if you have a moment, @billsfan1959 and @Sig1Hunter.

 

The author mentions Dave Grossman:  

 

One of the most important thought leaders in law enforcement is Col. Dave Grossman, a “killologist” who wrote an essay called “Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs”. Cops are the sheepdogs, bad guys are the wolves, and the citizens are the sheep (!). Col. Grossman makes sure to mention that to a stupid sheep, sheepdogs look more like wolves than sheep, and that’s why they dislike you.

 

This “they hate you for protecting them and only I love you, only I can protect you” tactic is familiar to students of abuse. It’s what abusers do to coerce their victims into isolation, pulling them away from friends and family and ensnaring them in the abuser’s toxic web. Law enforcement does this too, pitting the officer against civilians. “They don’t understand what you do, they don’t respect your sacrifice, they just want to get away with crimes. You’re only safe with us.”

 

I was wondering if either of you have read this essay (https://www.killology.com/sheep-wolves-and-sheepdogs), been exposed to Dave Grossman's work either in print or in person, and what your opinions were of his view on law enforcement.  

 

I find many of his views to be extreme, and it troubles me that he contributes to law enforcement theory around the country through his seminars and books.  What about you?

I’m well versed on LTC Grossman and have read both On Combat and On Killing. They are very interesting, and provide a TON of evidence to back up his point of view. 
 

The sheepdog metaphor doesn’t say, to me, “only I can protect you”. I actually quoted an excerpt from it in a different thread. I believe it is important, and it is accurate. Have you actually read it? Or better yet, read any of Grossmans books? If not, I suggest you do so you can make up your own mind about what he is saying, instead of taking someone else’s word for it.

[Chef Jim]

48 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Ah, but you’ve made the positive assertion here.  It falls to you to prove the argument you are making, not to others to accept your claims as verboten, and then to disprove them.
 

That’s the argument of a child.

 

 

 

And that is the "debate" style of so many.  

 

Them: You smoke crack!!

Me: That's absurd.

Them:  Prove you don't

Me: No that's not how it works.  Prove I smoke crack.  You made the assertion now back up your claim

Them: Ok.........YOU SMOKE CRACK!!

Me:  Sigh...........

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Unless there have been updates I don't know about, I believe they are classified as white.

 

Individual departments may have more classifications; however, everything that gets passed on to the FBI and DOJ pretty much mirrors the census classifications. That way, at least there is some uniformity, which enables better analyses of the numbers.

 

Do you think there should be an expansion of the classifications?

 

I don't much care if it's expanded personally, though I am glad to hear it sounds mostly consistent. I think a lot of the identitarian folks would classify Middle East & North Africa as 'POC' or 'Brown'. Honestly, I'm surprised someone hasn't already been outraged by this.

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, Margarita said:

I think the folks who are so steadfast in holding on to the most radical inference of this word are zealot idiots. Did you read the link I posted? If that is the ONLY reference to that term word Yes i agree another term should have been used it not being fully demonstrative of the effect hoped for.  Do you agree with me there? I'd Much rather discuss this with you than kreskin 

 

Margarita, your post is very well potatoes.  Thank you for trglgumpfhing our riboflavin.  We are in your monkey chow.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

22 minutes ago, Margarita said:

whatever you say Kreskin

What a bizarre choice of... insult?

 

Stop being pouty, and accept responsibility for poorly communicating your ideas.

 

Again, I am actually in favor of abolishing police.  I’m happy to make that argument in another thread.

 

I was actually pleased to hear the term “defunded” used, because I know what the word “defunded” means, and I thought, for a fleeting moment, that the extreme left and principled libertarians might have found a singular common purpose.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Chef Jim]

30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This man is running for Congress in NY. 

 

 

(posting for the vid)

 

You're going outside and ***** destroying the same police cars you ***** paid for!  I love that. 

 

I would love to see him in congress. Someone that Nancy Pelosi would probably lock her car doors if she saw him walking towards her.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

. what's your alternative?

Localism.  
 

Sheriffs and deputies.

 

Private security.

 

Abolition of all gun laws.

 

Neighborhood defense.

 

Not the thread for this though.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

I could get behind that.

 

Though in commonwealths like PA there are no sherriffs, IIRC.

I believe they have a different purpose that would include serving warrants, eviction notices, etc. , but yes there are sheriffs in PA. 

[muppy]

56 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What a bizarre choice of... insult?

 

Stop being pouty, and accept responsibility for poorly communicating your ideas.

 

Again, I am actually in favor of abolishing police.  I’m happy to make that argument in another thread.

 

I was actually pleased to hear the term “defunded” used, because I know what the word “defunded” means, and I thought, for a fleeting moment, that the extreme left and principled libertarians might have found a singular common purpose.

no Kreskin wasn't an insult it was an observation..he was a "mentalist" something you pretend to be.

 

He may have been a dick too then  you'd have that in  common with him but I cant speak to that .. he may or may not have been one....Now that is both an observation AND an insult TWOFER

 

How''s that sand pounding going MENSA? Now that's not an insult or an observation,.... that's a sneer,  insult AND a joke. TRIFECTA

 

Glad we cleared that up. Back on ignore you go. 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Margarita

[Sig1Hunter]

30 minutes ago, Capco said:

A couple more questions if you have a moment, @billsfan1959 and @Sig1Hunter.

 

The author mentions Dave Grossman:  

 

One of the most important thought leaders in law enforcement is Col. Dave Grossman, a “killologist” who wrote an essay called “Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs”. Cops are the sheepdogs, bad guys are the wolves, and the citizens are the sheep (!). Col. Grossman makes sure to mention that to a stupid sheep, sheepdogs look more like wolves than sheep, and that’s why they dislike you.

 

This “they hate you for protecting them and only I love you, only I can protect you” tactic is familiar to students of abuse. It’s what abusers do to coerce their victims into isolation, pulling them away from friends and family and ensnaring them in the abuser’s toxic web. Law enforcement does this too, pitting the officer against civilians. “They don’t understand what you do, they don’t respect your sacrifice, they just want to get away with crimes. You’re only safe with us.”

 

I was wondering if either of you have read this essay (https://www.killology.com/sheep-wolves-and-sheepdogs), been exposed to Dave Grossman's work either in print or in person, and what your opinions were of his view on law enforcement.  

 

I find many of his views to be extreme, and it troubles me that he contributes to law enforcement theory around the country through his seminars and books.  What about you?

To further elaborate on the specific portion of the essay (which wasn’t his, actually. He quoted it as told by someone else to him) that you referred to, and actually was the same portion I quoted in a different thread.

 

He isn’t saying that only cops are sheepdogs. There are plenty of sheepdog civilians, and unfortunately there are some sheep cops. The metaphor is basically saying that evil exists (the wolf). There are sheep (people that don’t believe the evil exists, are far removed from it, or just don’t believe it will ever effect them), and there are people that choose to believe evil exists and are willing to stand between the sheep and the wolf - with their life, if necessary (the sheepdog). Grossman expresses that it’s ok to be a sheep. A lot of people are sheep, and they live without a lot of stress because they are oblivious to the dangers around them. Being a sheep isn’t a bad thing...until the wolf shows up. When the wolf shows up, the sheep better find a sheepdog. Again, that doesn’t just mean the cops..or, the military. Your neighbor might be a sheepdog. You might be one. Would you give your life for your family? If yes, then you are their sheepdog. Grossman defines a sheepdog as someone with a capacity for violence and a concern for his fellow man. One willing to put themselves in peril for someone else. A wolf is someone with a capacity for violence, and no concern for their fellow man. A sheep is someone who just mosies along nibbling at the grass without a care in the world, except for themselves. The sheepdog looks like the wolf because they both have a capacity for violence (big fangs). One uses it to destroy the wolf, the other uses it to destroy the sheep. Grossman explicity states that any sheepdog that harms a sheep must be punished and removed - that’s the only way for our system to work. Sheep are people who would freeze or run when they would be forced to act to help someone else.

We need more sheepdogs. In uniform, and out of it.

 

That’s just my view on the essay.

 

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, Margarita said:

no Kreskin wasn't an insult it was an observation..he was a "mentalist" something you pretend to be.

 

He may have been a dick too then  you'd have that in  common with him but I cant speak to that .. he may or may not have been one....Now that is both an observation AND an insult TWOFER

 

How''s that sand pounding going MENSA? Now that's not an insult or an observation,.... that's a sneer,  insult AND a joke. TRIFECTA

 

Glad we cleared that up. Back on ignore you go. 

 

 

 

Says the snowflake who took offence for me calling her Orwellian.  

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What a bizarre choice of... insult?

 

Stop being pouty, and accept responsibility for poorly communicating your ideas.

 

Again, I am actually in favor of abolishing police.  I’m happy to make that argument in another thread.

 

I was actually pleased to hear the term “defunded” used, because I know what the word “defunded” means, and I thought, for a fleeting moment, that the extreme left and principled libertarians might have found a singular common purpose.

 

In this case it quite clearly means, "give someone else's money to me instead".

[muppy]

21 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Says the snowflake who took offence for me calling her Orwellian.  

correction: I acknowledged it was an insult nowhere did I type I was offended big difference  twin sons from different mothers  another kreskin in the house.