1. don't treat the domestic population with the same level of violence you use on state enemies abroad
2. take the militarization of police down to 19xx levels
3. smarter or more cost-effective militarization
4. militarization I can get behind, this is embarrassing
5. militarization that doesn't scare the shit out of me
But in fact police are militants through and through. If you lose the militancy, you lose the police. Demilitarization means "no more police."
But in fact police are militants through and through. If you lose the militancy, you lose the police. Demilitarization means "no more police."
2 comments:
Yes, it is all window dressing. The best part of being a liberal is that #'s 1-3 don't mean anything. Nothing will come of them. They are something to talk about that sounds like there is substance there, but in actuality, are nothing more than bullet points on a powerpoint presentation.
Number's 4 and 5 are the only ones that really matter. It's the same tried and true neo-liberal response to "supporting the rebels in {flavor of the month country}". We don't want to support the "bad" rebels. We want to support the guys who are truly fighting for the correct reasons (while participating in all the same horrible, authoritarian shit...but with GOOD INTENTIONS).
I mean, you can't discuss the issue with this mentality because there is no argument there. Of course, we would like to not be scared shitless by the police. Of course, we would like to support only the "good guys." Any opposing evidence of these issues is merely dismissed as not demilitarizing in the "right way" or finding the "true good guys."
Liberals entire ideology is one big No True Scotsman fallacy.
Yeah, No True Scotsman is the tautology that holds the line around the tribe.
Post a Comment