Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 323: Peaceful Transition of Topics

(+) Yeah! (+)

red, repeat these words:

"The police union makes it nearly impossible for people to change laws and rules concerning police accountability."

Just say the words and you understand it.

---

I think I get what Red is saying.

Since the police union is the police themselves (that is to say, the highest ranking commissioners and whatnot are all as involved as the lowest-ranking beat cops), abolishing the police union wouldn't really do anything, since the same people would still be the ones making the decisions, right?

---

Again, I am of the opinion we cannot have any real change until we have some form of real oversight for the police.

None of this exists in the slightest, union, no union, doesn't matter. And unless there is laws enacted to change fundamentally how our system works you can do whatever you want to the police union and it won't mean shit.

Polling update: with the release of a new Fox poll that has Biden up by 5 in Ohio, he is now actually the very slight favorite in the state per 538 (52% chance to win).

(Biden's chance of winning overall in the model has been stubbornly staying at 77 for a while, while Trump has beeen going back and forth between 22 and 23).

---

In case anyone needed a reminder that Fox News is not news and is indeed trash

https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1309210868694110210?s=19

They themselves successfully argued in court that they are basically The Onion.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

BTW a Fox News poll showed Biden up 5 in Ohio, 50-45.

I can't believe Ohio is a coin flip state now. Didn't Trump take it by double figures in 2016?

He won it by about 8

---

Inviso posted...

I think I get what Red is saying.

Since the police union is the police themselves (that is to say, the highest ranking commissioners and whatnot are all as involved as the lowest-ranking beat cops), abolishing the police union wouldn't really do anything, since the same people would still be the ones making the decisions, right?

Abolishing the police union and doing literally nothing else, no.

But that's never what Biscuit has been arguing.

The argument is that while the police union is in place, they have the power to push back against any attempt to actually give them oversight and accountability. Anything you try outside of literally getting rid of the police isn't going to make a dent because the union will just fight it. Getting rid of the union is an insanely integral part in actually being able to enact the change that needs to be made.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

red, repeat these words:

"The police union makes it nearly impossible for people to change laws and rules concerning police accountability."

Just say the words and you understand it.

But unless you make a law preventing police from engaging in politics this isn't going to change how the system works right now either.

Leafeon13N posted...

Again, I am of the opinion we cannot have any real change until we have some form of real oversight for the police.

None of this exists in the slightest, union, no union, doesn't matter. And unless there is laws enacted to change fundamentally how our system works you can do whatever you want to the police union and it won't mean shit.

Who do you think is keeping the police from having a form of real oversight?

Who do you think will fight hard to keep the police from having a form of real oversight?

Who will make it almost impossible for the police to have some from of real oversight?

The police union. You cannot get what you want so long as the police union exists. It will literally never happen while the police union is there to keep it from happening.

---

FFDragon posted...

In case anyone needed a reminder that Fox News is not news and is indeed trash

https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1309210868694110210?s=19

They themselves successfully argued in court that they are basically The Onion.

Can most of Tucker's viewers really be seen to be "reasonable"?
I'd think that the fact that they watch Tucker would prove otherwise...!

---

FFDragon posted...

In case anyone needed a reminder that Fox News is not news and is indeed trash

https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1309210868694110210?s=19

They themselves successfully argued in court that they are basically The Onion.

MSNBC used the same strategy to defend Rachel Maddow. It works.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

The argument is that while the police union is in place, they have the power to push back against any attempt to actually give them oversight and accountability. Anything you try outside of literally getting rid of the police isn't going to make a dent because the union will just fight it. Getting rid of the union is an insanely integral part in actually being able to enact the change that needs to be made.

The people above the police will fight it too, they do whatever they can for police support.

The entire system around policing in this country is beholden to each other to an extent that the laws themselves create this problem, again, union or no union.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Can most of Tucker's viewers really be seen to be "reasonable"?
I'd think that the fact that they watch Tucker would prove otherwise...!

That doesn't matter. The test is what a reasonable viewer would glean from watching, NOT whether actual viewers are reasonable.

---

Red's trolling at this point

---

Leafeon13N posted...

The people above the police will fight it too, they do whatever they can for police support.

The entire system around policing in this country is beholden to each other to an extent that the laws themselves create this problem, again, union or no union.

Oh my God.

Why do you think they fight for police support? Because the police union lobbies for them and put them there and keep them there.

Without them having to answer to the support of the police union, they can make rules without them in mind that help citizens.

---

I think the confusion I'm having with this argument is that it seems like all aspects of the police are involved in the police union. This isn't like your normal union where the workers are united in opposition to management. In the police union, the "management" seems to be part of the union itself. So abolishing the union seems like it's just a symbolic gesture, since the people who run the union would still have concentrated power as part of the overall police force. My interpretation of Red's argument is that you can't just say "abolish the police union and we can make changes" because the ENTIRE police establishment IS the police union. There's no separation between the police as a unit and the police union. They are one in the same.

---

What the fuck is this shit

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1309144126793940995

Absolutely disgusting.

Also from later in the thread:

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1309149522736578560

---

Inviso posted...

I think the confusion I'm having with this argument is that it seems like all aspects of the police are involved in the police union. This isn't like your normal union where the workers are united in opposition to management. In the police union, the "management" seems to be part of the union itself. So abolishing the union seems like it's just a symbolic gesture, since the people who run the union would still have concentrated power as part of the overall police force. My interpretation of Red's argument is that you can't just say "abolish the police union and we can make changes" because the ENTIRE police establishment IS the police union. There's no separation between the police as a unit and the police union. They are one in the same.

But having a union is what gives them power. Without that union, they're just a bunch of people with no actual protections. The union argues for contracts that specifically keeps them free of oversight and accountability, and it can do that because it's a union. You take the union away, they no longer have the power to do that.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Red's trolling at this point

Nah, I dislike rhetoric that is a dead in the water argument in the court of public opinion.

It would be worse for the cause than defund the police.

Defund the police is functionally correct, but it also created a boogeyman in the way of enacting real change.

(true reform would have defunded the police without needing to make it a rallying cry).

StealThisSheen posted...

But having a union is what gives them power. Without that union, they're just a bunch of people with no actual protections.

Prosecutors protect police because they are beholden to police to do their job.

Leafeon13N posted...

Nah, I dislike rhetoric that is a dead in the water argument in the court of public opinion.

It's only dead in the water to people like you who refuse to educate yourself on what the police union is

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Prosecutors protect police because they are beholden to police to do their job.

.......

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

What the fuck is this shit

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1309144126793940995

Absolutely disgusting.

Also from later in the thread:

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1309149522736578560

I think Kim Jong Un might have some objections to that map.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

But having a union is what gives them power. Without that union, they're just a bunch of people with no actual protections.

Why, though? If EVERYONE is in the union, then if you took the union away, everyone would still be banded together out of a common interest.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

.......

Do you not agree?

Inviso posted...

Why, though? If EVERYONE is in the union, then if you took the union away, everyone would still be banded together out of a common interest.

Common interest means jack shit, though. That's why unions exist in the first place, because people being banded together in common interest can't actually get anything done without the unions that protect them. That's why unions are good when it's to protect the best interest of workers from management, but why it's bad when the police have no such need and just use it for endless bargaining power.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Defund the police is functionally correct, but it also created a boogeyman in the way of enacting real change.

(true reform would have defunded the police without needing to make it a rallying cry).

True reform can only happen when no one talks about it?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Common interest means jack shit, though. That's why unions exist in the first place, because people being banded together in common interest can't actually get anything done without the unions that protect them. That's why unions are good when it's to protect the best interest of workers from management, but why it's bad when the police have no such need and just use it for endless bargaining power.

I'm going to reiterate here, I want to at the heart of everything, union or no union, create some sort of independent management system for the police.

Because right now, union, no union, there isn't anyone in power with a vested interest in police accountability.

Red seems to only want reform if it's comfy to talk about

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Because right now, union, no union, there isn't anyone in power with a vested interest in police accountability.

And why do you think that is?

it's because of the union

And why do you think that won't change?

it's because of the union

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Common interest means jack shit, though. That's why unions exist in the first place, because people being banded together in common interest can't actually get anything done without the unions that protect them. That's why unions are good when it's to protect the best interest of workers from management, but why it's bad when the police have no such need and just use it for endless bargaining power.

I'm really not understanding you I guess.

Like, I could understand if the problem was that police unions protected lower-ranking cops from punishment and repercussions doled out by their superior officers. But their superior officers are part of the same union, so it's more that the police as an overall organization will just naturally work as a brotherhood to defend each other and watch each others' backs. From my perspective, saying "abolish the police union", to make an analogy, feels like removing a Klansman's hood. He's still a fucking racist...and all you've changed is that he's no longer wearing the hood.

---

I enjoy red saying get rid of the police union is a non-starter, but creating an oversight group to keep police accountable, something that can never happen with police unions around, is more acceptable to discuss.

---

VintageGin posted...

True reform can only happen when no one talks about it?

No, you have to frame it for the public. You still have to market your ideas to the public. If you make something a slogan, it better be easy to understand and not something that can easily be misconstrued.

The defund slogan ended up getting turned as a weapon against the cause real fast. And the court of public opinion is still the most important venue.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I enjoy red saying get rid of the police union is a non-starter, but creating an oversight group to keep police accountable, something that can never happen with police unions around, is more acceptable to discuss.

What?

I've told you my opinion. I don't approve of taking away workers right to unionize but do not approve of police unions in their current form.

Oh, I guess red only thinks solutions are only worth discussing if they're marketable enough, regardless of how valid they are.

Cool cool cool.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

What?

I've told you my opinion. I don't approve of taking away workers right to unionize but do not approve of police unions in their current form.

Well, don't worry. As long as people like you are around, the police's right to fucking murder people and get away with it will never be taken away, so pop that champagne. Yaaaay unions!

---

Leafeon13N posted...

What?

I've told you my opinion. I don't approve of taking away workers right to unionize but do not approve of police unions in their current form.

I don't know why you're confused.

You say you want to create an oversight committee to keep police accountable.

I rightfully point out that this will never happen with police unions around.

You say that discussing getting rid of the police union isn't worth talking about and maintain that discussing creating an oversight committee is valid.

But you can't discuss the thing you want to discuss without also discussing what needs to happen before it's possible.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Well, don't worry. As long as people like you are around, the police's right to fucking murder people and get away with it will never be taken away, so pop that champagne. Yaaaay unions!

I'm literally on your side here. This is why we can't have nice things.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

You say that discussing getting rid of the police union isn't worth talking about and maintain that discussing creating an oversight committee is valid.

But you can't discuss the thing you want to discuss without also discussing what needs to happen before it's possible.

No, we've gotten to this point in the argument before. You end up arguing that you think police, even reformed, should have no right to unionize. This is where we disagree.

Leafeon13N posted...

I'm literally on your side here. This is why we can't have nice things.

No you're not.

You're arguing to protect police unions just because you can't be assed to understand the difference between them and normal worker unions.

You're arguing against any reform that isn't comfy to talk about at Starbucks.

We can't have nice things because you don't want nice things if they sound uncomfortable to achieve.

---

When did I say protect them?

You aren't on our side.

Anything that you say you want to happen cannot happen unless what we want to happen does happen.

And you actively reject what we want to happen, which means you will never get what you want.

What you want is not possible until we get what we want. And you outright reject that from happening.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

When did I say protect them?

Leafeon13N posted...

I've told you my opinion. I don't approve of taking away workers right to unionize but do not approve of police unions in their current form.

Leafeon13N posted...

No, we've gotten to this point in the argument before. You end up arguing that you think police, even reformed, should have no right to unionize. This is where we disagree.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

No, we've gotten to this point in the argument before. You end up arguing that you think police, even reformed, should have no right to unionize. This is where we disagree.

You may be misunderstanding me here.

The police unions have entirely too much power right now to simply scale it back and allow the proper laws to be made. You need to rip them out right now so that the laws can be made to keep them from interfering in police accountability.

Once police accountability is put in place, you can introduce police unions again. But they simply won't allow for actual change to happen until they are entirely out of the picture.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It's funny because what he said actually doesn't apply to a lot of the people here. See, it takes a lot less words just to say "man, that's wrong or sad to hear" then half of these responses. The problem isn't with people who are like yeah that's wrong, and we need to stop the things that cause these things to happen (which is a separate argument but at least an argument that isn't saying violence is acceptable). The problem is with people saying it's justifiable or acceptable for rioting, arson, looting, and etc for whatever reason. That's the issues and that is the extremism leaking in here.

you support the war on terror.

your bitching about "extremism" has 0% value.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Once police accountability is put in place, you can introduce police unions again. But they simply won't allow for actual change to happen until they are entirely out of the picture

I'm literally for this.

Leafeon13N posted...

I've told you my opinion. I don't approve of taking away workers right to unionize

Police aren't workers.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Police aren't workers.

Yes they are.

Hell the fact police don't think they aren't workers like everyone else is part of the problem.

Leafeon13N posted...

I'm literally for this.

No, you're not.

You don't want police unions removed at all. But they need to be removed before we can put police accountability in place.

Say "Police unions need to be removed entirely so police accountability can be put in place." Agree with those words, and then we're on the same page.

If you don't agree with those words, you value police unionizing more than you do accountability for police that literally murder people with no repurcussions.

---