Let me give you a thought experiment:
-
Since authorities should exist for the protection of civilians, in an interaction with civilians, it is they who *should* be in more danger than civilians—at least as long as they are armed—because their equipment and their training must prepare them to handle that danger without a tragic outcome.
If the interaction results in a tragic outcome, then it is authorities who must be presumed responsible.
If authorities can't accept this natural consequence of authority and equipment, they should not have the equipment or the authority ... and stripping them of both is an even better outcome.
-
If the interaction results in a tragic outcome, then it is authorities who must be presumed responsible.
If authorities can't accept this natural consequence of authority and equipment, they should not have the equipment or the authority ... and stripping them of both is an even better outcome.
If an authority without equipment to brutalize and kill civilians makes them worthless at their jobs, perhaps they were never good at their jobs, and maybe we never needed them in the first place.
And maybe not having them at all is an even better outcome still.
-
If an authority without equipment to brutalize and kill civilians makes them worthless at their jobs, perhaps they were never good at their jobs, and maybe we never needed them in the first place.
And maybe not having them at all is an even better outcome still.
Speaking of persuasion: If we passed a law reversing the application of qualified immunity, and then started enforcing it in courts, do you think it would persuade law enforcement that it no longer enjoys absolute immunity from consequence for murdering civilians?
I think it just might.
-
Speaking of persuasion: If we passed a law reversing the application of qualified immunity, and then started enforcing it in courts, do you think it would persuade law enforcement that it no longer enjoys absolute immunity from consequence for murdering civilians?
I think it just might.
Do you think it might persuade the sort of people who want to shoot other people in the face from taking on an authority that no longer permits them to shoot people with absolute impunity?
I think it might.
-
Do you think it might persuade the sort of people who want to shoot other people in the face from taking on an authority that no longer permits them to shoot people with absolute impunity?
I think it might.
Do you think it would persuade authorities to de-escalate rather than escalate? Do you think it would start persuading citizens that the system worked for them instead of corrupt abusive power?
I think it might. It would be a start, as we work for total abolition of police and the carceral state.
-
Do you think it would persuade authorities to de-escalate rather than escalate? Do you think it would start persuading citizens that the system worked for them instead of corrupt abusive power?
I think it might. It would be a start, as we work for total abolition of police and the carceral state.
So often persuasion is framed as one person changing another's mind. But a person is the only one with the power to change their mind, and appeals to logic and morality are only effective on those who have decided to be moved by logic, who have chosen a morality of equality rather than of domination.
-
So often persuasion is framed as one person changing another's mind. But a person is the only one with the power to change their mind, and appeals to logic and morality are only effective on those who have decided to be moved by logic, who have chosen a morality of equality rather than of domination.
When persuading those who refuse to enter a shared reality or respect humanity, it is far more effective to persuade them of consequences—that if they engage in abuse, they will be understood as an abuser and treated as one.
This persuades them without giving them authority over the persuasion.
-
When persuading those who refuse to enter a shared reality or respect humanity, it is far more effective to persuade them of consequences—that if they engage in abuse, they will be understood as an abuser and treated as one.
This persuades them without giving them authority over the persuasion.
Again, putting first things first doesn't preclude persuasion or oppose persuasion; it frees persuasion from the abuse it suffers by putting it in its proper place, and it opens up persuasion, by allowing us a wider field: more methods of persuasion, and more effective.
-
Again, putting first things first doesn't preclude persuasion or oppose persuasion; it frees persuasion from the abuse it suffers by putting it in its proper place, and it opens up persuasion, by allowing us a wider field: more methods of persuasion, and more effective.
It puts first things first, and it revokes the absolute immunity that our gang of American Nazis claim for themselves.
-
It puts first things first, and it revokes the absolute immunity that our gang of American Nazis claim for themselves.
@JuliusGoat
"The heavily armed thugs who have been told by the highest office that they are permitted to kidnap or brutalize or murder whoever they like for whatever reason they like, also get to claim that they are the ones who are frightened. Renee Good, who was shot in the face and murdered, does not get to claim to have been frightened; she only gets to be dead, and to have her murder validated and her murderer justified and praised by power." -
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic on