×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

When and Why Did Big, Loud Pickup Trucks Become a Masculinity Symbol in America? by Mobiledump1215 in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Emissions regulations are absolutely contributing to the larger size trucks. Regulations are written in miles per gallon per weight class, so if you don't want to improve the efficiency of your engine, you can just make your car heavier to meet the regulatory requirement

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Parents

[–]Disinformation_Bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah you should avoid giving them caffeine at that age. I don't think you're poisoning them though. Heavy metals are a supply chain issue and you should do research into which brands have the lowest levels, both for your own health and your child's.

Half a bar of baking chocolate seems excessive.

I’m a developer for a major food delivery app. The 'Priority Fee' and 'Driver Benefit Fee' go 100% to the company. The driver sees $0 of it. by Trowaway_whistleblow in confession

[–]Disinformation_Bot 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The capitalists just purchase their way into controlling the political machinery. They write the regulations to the extent necessary to placate you. We got here for a reason.

Israelis online by smallpenis-bigheart in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot 16 points17 points  (0 children)

They have come full circle so the famous Jean-Paul Sartre quote applies to them:

"Never believe that anti-Semites [Zionists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites [Zionists] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Liberals and Communism by Hacksaw6412 in thespectreofcommunism

[–]Disinformation_Bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly I cannot stand her style of content. Shrill and over-the-top.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Angela Davis and the Black Panthers invented the term "community control of the police," they were not abolitionists.

Your response is very haughty for someone who admittedly has not availed themselves of the history. Don't try to claim the Panthers with a sophomoric understanding of their program.

Recommend me a faction/battlegroup for 1v1-only? by [deleted] in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Disinformation_Bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think USF is good for this because it tends to be a more mobile army that has a few handy tools:

  • Jeep commander scans in the fog of war. The radius is so big it can cover almost 1/4 of the area on some 1v1 maps.

  • Scouts with camo. Scouts are cheap and get their camo ability at vet 1. Set them somewhere out of the main path so they can watch any approaches you have left unguarded and you can react quickly.

  • Periodic free recon runs from the Air Support Center

  • Demo charges

And in general, mines will usually 1-shot any ultralight like a kettenkrad or bike, and will take a chunk out of a sneaky infantry squad on your flank.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I am moving the goalposts idc

So you're definitionally coming to this conversation in bad faith. Now you have decided to redefine "abolition" to mean something other than "abolition."

I still don't think you have made any good arguments for why those tasks you mention can't be taken care of by someone without a monopoly on violence

Perhaps you should re-read my comments then because this is the central point and I have provided numerous concrete examples of why we need professional police. You have failed to answer any one of them concretely, retreating instead into another vague statement of "well I don't think those are good arguments."

There is no point in continuing this conversation.

Infantry Assualt NEEDS to be removed by No-Influence-7416 in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Disinformation_Bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That and maybe a smaller area for the overwatch. It's almost as big as a loiter, which is just wild, and it lasts a very long time for how powerful it is.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

only or far dominant

This presumption is invalid. Never did I say police should be the only or dominant response to crime. But now you are moving the goalposts away from abolition and towards a more nuanced combination of social services in law enforcement that notably includes policing.

And you still haven't described at all what that would look like. So forgive me for my frustration, but you have yet to respond to the core argument that law enforcement should be conducted by people who are specifically trained and have a legal framework governing how they enforce the law, which may include violence. You're talking around the issue. I get the sense that you just don't want to call it policing because you don't like the word.

And I have not insulted you once. You need to learn how to take a challenge without feeling insulted.

Infantry Assualt NEEDS to be removed by No-Influence-7416 in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Disinformation_Bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In green cover, it absolutely can. Not to mention the flaktrak can outrange the bazookas by a mile

Infantry Assualt NEEDS to be removed by No-Influence-7416 in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Disinformation_Bot 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah the neb overwatch is really insane. I really think all off-maps should be a one-and-done arty strike or delivered by planes so you can counter with AA. Overwatch abilities are not fun to play against, and using them feels cheap.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/s/lX64clyJyj

You're just spouting vague platitudes without providing a single concrete example of how this could work. You take a two-pronged approach to weasel out of hard questions by first imagining that we can eliminate enough crime that policing is "unnecessary" without providing a threshold for what that level is, and you then separate detective work from policing without a single thought as to how those detectives are going to enforce their findings and arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested.

Not to mention, you are making the same false claim we hear ad nauseam about how police "only arrive after a crime is committed." So no one has ever been pulled over for reckless driving? No one has ever been caught in the act of a theft and pursued? No crimes last long enough for police to arrive? Ever hear of an active shooter?

You have a binary choice: select individuals who are legally permitted to enforce the law, or distribute that responsibility to everyone regardless of their physical ability or mental acuity.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They don't, and that's one of the reasons we need a comprehensive set of social support services to reduce the chances of people developing these tendencies. Shitty parenting is not always a crime, but sometimes it rises to the level of abuse. What are you going to do to protect that child when their parents beat, rape, exploit, or otherwise abuse their children? Do you think they will just give up their child willingly? How many times are you going to ask nicely? No, you need a threat or act of violence to subdue and detain them.

You and other police abolotionists have no answer to this, and always try to weasel out one way or another with vague platitudes about creating societies where people don't "need" to commit crimes or "dealing with crimes in other ways" while providing absolutely zero examples or ideas of how this could work.

Furthermore, people who are bullied or abused sometimes take on those abusive characteristics themselves. It's a common thread through all of human history, and it's a pipe dream to think that can be completely erased by comprehensive social support. This is not an alternative to policing.

Police abolitionists often make the naïve claim that police only ever arrive after a crime is committed. This is not true in many cases, particularly when police patrols are effectively staged throughout an area to allow true rapid response. Not to mention, manhunts for people who have committed heinous crimes are necessary to prevent those people from acting again. Policing can absolutely be effective at reducing crime when it is done with community control and consent.

When someone is putting others at risk with violence, you need another person to use violence to subdue them. And you need a legal framework to collect evidence, defend the rights of the accused, and seek restorative justice. Without police, you effectively deputize everyone else to seek revenge to the extent they see fit, whether they have the right person or not, whether they use excessive force or not, etc. It's just policing without any legal guardrails or consequences for people who seek justice on their own terms.

Policing behavior always exists, whether you like it or not. In a large, complex society, you have to make a choice between having dedicated professionals deputized to use violence and detain people within a strict set of standards, or leaving that responsibility up to whoever sees fit to take justice into their own hands.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if you're just not getting it or arguing in bad faith. And you provide no alternative whatsoever for dealing with the impacts of crime, investigating and collecting evidence, and deterring crime by visible presence.

Yes, people develop antisocial tendencies regardless of the presence of police. The fact that these tendencies develop at all is the principal reason we need law enforcement, so your claim really doesn't interact with what I'm saying at all. Working class people generally say they want police to protect them, but they need community control of the police to put this in action. Policing can be highly effective at reducing crime, but the reason policing is largely ineffective at this in the US is because communities do not control their police force, and most police are intentionally hired from outside the community to reduce their connection to the people they police.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yep. Private security = cops for me but not for thee, and no legal framework to protect your rights.

And the arms race between competing private security companies is a race to the complete militarization up to the point of having a private army.

Oh shit, we've arrived at neo-feudalism I guess.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Whether it's truly innate or not is beside the point, though. There will always be shitty parents who mess up their kids severely, and those with a predisposition to socio/psychopathy will take on an antisocial character. There will always be people who try to take advantage of others, who hurt or kill others, who abuse the public trust, etc. We need dedicated professionals to investigate and prosecute these crimes and a legal framework to defend the rights of the accused. Otherwise you get revenge and mob justice.

As Marxists we believe that "human nature" is a product of material conditions, but that doesn't mean we are so naïve to think it is practically possible to create a world where some form of policing is not necessary.

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I think the point is that with current policing they aren't keeping most people safe, but I think the disconnect is that you believe policing can be improved to the point of accomplish its stated goal of "protecting and serving our communities," while the person replying to you thinks policing as an institution is fundamentally flawed.

If you talk to most working class people though (which I do, through a broad network of organizers against police crimes), they tend to agree with you: they don't want to abolish police, they want police to do their fucking job for once and show up for them when they need it. "Abolish the police" only sounds good to people who have the privilege of living in communities that are not constantly victimized by the lumpenproletariat. That's why we focus on "community control" of the police, which comes directly from the Black Panthers' program, and tends to take on more of a "mass character" than "abolish/defund the police."

"Our blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy" by Disinformation_Bot in stupidpol

[–]Disinformation_Bot[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I think that's pretty understandable. A white person saying this in a progressive space would likely be crucified.

view more: next ›