Progressive Twitch streamer Hasan Piker filed a defamation lawsuit against conservative CNN commentator Scott Jennings on Tuesday, accusing him of falsely claiming Piker advocated for lynching Blac…
The only reason what Hasan said about 9/11 could be considered stupid is because it doesn’t paint the full picture. Much like the term ‘defund the police’ doesn’t mean ‘completely eradicate police departments across the U.S.’, saying ‘America deserved 9/11’ does not mean ‘all the innocent (powerless) people killed in the attack or as a result of the attack deserved it’.
You can accuse him of being tactless, because he is - for someone with a degree in polysci and communications you’d think he’d conjure up a better way to phrase it. Thing is, he’s not wrong.
Much like the term ‘defund the police’ doesn’t mean ‘completely eradicate police departments across the U.S.’,
I have a problem with this kind of double speak - and the average apolitical person won’t give a shit about the intended meaning either. Especially since we absolutely should be talking about how to safely eradicate police departments. We live in a police state that the founding fathers, for all their faults, would absolutely not consider a free society. Police departments as an institution is an aberration in human history. They have not always existed in society, nor will they always exist.
See I disagree, what we should be doing is reforming the police - funding alternative means of intervention with the purpose of reducing the amount of violent crime through the means of de-escalatory strategies.
The founding fathers were slavers. Police in large part were started as a result of Southern states creating units to police slaves, or rather escaped slaves and the rare black person that gained freedom “legitimately”. They’d have no problem with the idea of police as they are.
Most of the police officers I know are keenly aware that violence and incarceration is their main job description. The only thing they like more than their core duties is committing overtime fraud. I do agree that crime can be lessened by making people’s lives objectively less shitty. As for the enforcement arm, do we really trust existing police forces to accept meaningful reforms and and incorporate deescalation as part of their duties? I think it’s far more likely they quiet quit faced with those demands. We have a history of seeing just that in Los Angeles, my hometown, which, to be fair, colors my perception on the role of police in society.
As to the founders problems: Yes, I’m aware of them. They also regularly took pot shots at the uniformed personnel sent to enforce the law, so they’ve at least got that going for them in my book. The founding of the NYPD, the first police force in the USA was very controversial in the 19th century because many elders, who had lived through the revolution, thought it was a tyrranical idea.
The only reason what Hasan said about 9/11 could be considered stupid is because it doesn’t paint the full picture. Much like the term ‘defund the police’ doesn’t mean ‘completely eradicate police departments across the U.S.’, saying ‘America deserved 9/11’ does not mean ‘all the innocent (powerless) people killed in the attack or as a result of the attack deserved it’.
You can accuse him of being tactless, because he is - for someone with a degree in polysci and communications you’d think he’d conjure up a better way to phrase it. Thing is, he’s not wrong.
I have a problem with this kind of double speak - and the average apolitical person won’t give a shit about the intended meaning either. Especially since we absolutely should be talking about how to safely eradicate police departments. We live in a police state that the founding fathers, for all their faults, would absolutely not consider a free society. Police departments as an institution is an aberration in human history. They have not always existed in society, nor will they always exist.
See I disagree, what we should be doing is reforming the police - funding alternative means of intervention with the purpose of reducing the amount of violent crime through the means of de-escalatory strategies.
The founding fathers were slavers. Police in large part were started as a result of Southern states creating units to police slaves, or rather escaped slaves and the rare black person that gained freedom “legitimately”. They’d have no problem with the idea of police as they are.
Most of the police officers I know are keenly aware that violence and incarceration is their main job description. The only thing they like more than their core duties is committing overtime fraud. I do agree that crime can be lessened by making people’s lives objectively less shitty. As for the enforcement arm, do we really trust existing police forces to accept meaningful reforms and and incorporate deescalation as part of their duties? I think it’s far more likely they quiet quit faced with those demands. We have a history of seeing just that in Los Angeles, my hometown, which, to be fair, colors my perception on the role of police in society.
As to the founders problems: Yes, I’m aware of them. They also regularly took pot shots at the uniformed personnel sent to enforce the law, so they’ve at least got that going for them in my book. The founding of the NYPD, the first police force in the USA was very controversial in the 19th century because many elders, who had lived through the revolution, thought it was a tyrranical idea.