1255
Bottom right (file.garden)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

I’m not sure where anyone suggested that people had to trust that crime doesn’t exist.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago

Its one of the major themes of the thread you're replying to.

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's one of the major themes of the source that you linked.

The many stories, past and present, that demonstrate how anarchy works have been suppressed and distorted because of the revolutionary conclusions we might draw from them. We can live in a society with no bosses, masters, politicians, or bureaucrats; a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals, no rich or poor; a society free of sexism, homophobia, and transphobia; a society in which the wounds from centuries of enslavement, colonialism, and genocide are finally allowed to heal. The only things stopping us are the prisons, programming, and paychecks of the powerful, as well as our own lack of faith in ourselves.

Every society is going to have some criminals. Lack of access to things people need to survive is a major reason for commission of crimes, but it is not the only reason. Plenty of people do illegal things just because they feel like it. Some people are pathological liars. If a society cannot deal with those, it will eventually fail. Obviously crime will go down by (throwing a number out) a factor of at least five once the magical socialist utopia is in place, but to argue that it will entirely disappear is hopelessly naive.

Again, I'm not sure why you think anyone is saying that crime won't exist or that people won't have to deal with criminals.

You know, its almost, almost as if you're making up a position no one is taking and then arguing against that instead.

Well, I say almost.....

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

maybe if i make this short enough you'll actually read the whole thing

a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals

how

Oh, I read the whole thing. I'm just dodging and evading in the same way you do. Turns out, you find your behaviour quite annoying too.

I'm not sure why you think I have to answer for an ideology to your satisfaction or I have to abandon any agreement I might have with it.

What is it about you that makes you think thr only options are the police, exactly as we have them now, or we just have to trust crime won't exist?

Why do you have to pretend these are the only two options?

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

"Just because I don't fully understand my own ideology doesn't mean you shouldn't agree with me"?

That's the argument you're going with?

Also please show me where I said "the police exactly as we have them now". The police exactly as we have them now fucking suck, but you seem to think they should be abolished rather than reformed, and I'm still waiting for you to tell me how, why, and what they should be replaced with.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Haha, sure, if thats what you need it to be. You figured it out. Its actually that I don't understand what I'm talking about and not that your debatebro crap doesn't work on me.

So, just to confirm, you're saying that there are only two options for dealing with crime.

A) We have the police exactly as they are now

B) We pretend crime doesn't exist

And me asking questions about this false dichotomy you're trying to force here is because I, not you, don't understand a problem here?

I just need to check thats what's going on here and that you're OK with that being your position. If its not, please feel free to let me know.

I hope you can understand that I'm hardly going to have an open conversation with someone who won't even admit that a third option can exist here.

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So, just to confirm, you’re saying that there are only two options for dealing with crime.

A) We have the police exactly as they are now

B) We pretend crime doesn’t exist

You are literally replying to a comment explaining that I do not believe that! Here is what I said again, since you clearly didn't read it the first time:

The police exactly as we have them now fucking suck, but you seem to think they should be abolished rather than reformed, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me how, why, and what they should be replaced with.

What is it with leftists and never reading past the first sentence?

I have repeatedly explained that I am open to the possibility of a third option, and repeatedly asked you what it is. You have yet to do anything other than stall the conversation and deliberately misrepresent my position. I am forced to conclude that you have no argument to present and are simply trolling.

If this is not the case, let me know. If it is the case, just make one more comment not answering the goddamn question so I can finally block you with a clean conscience.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The problem is that I did read it and, as such, I know that (the police) "fucking suck" doesn't mean that you've accepted that something other than what we have now could exist, in the same capacity. Its actually, specifically that I did read it and saw that you once again evaded backing down from a silly false dichotomy you attempted to defend.

More so, you've decided that my argument is proving something, rather than what it actually was "calling out someone else's false dichotomy and the false need for a state" ,one that you seemed fine with. Thats why you've had to attempt to change the conversation and then claim me to be a troll for point out invalid arguments. If you cared, you'd Google it and it wouldn't take two seconds to find communial restorative justice where the focus in on restitution for the victim and not punishment of the offender.

As it is, you're just mad that I won't play your game. I've come accorss people like you before and I won't be going along with those cheap tricks.

Please, block away. The less bad faith debatebros I come into contact with, the better. Honestly, you'll be doing me a favour and you don't need to announce it. All you had to do was actually climb down from an invalid argument and you refused, claiming me to be the problem. But no, you had to claim saying the correct situation is bad is the same thing as that.

Yeah, you won't be missed and you shouldn't threaten people with a good time.

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 2 days ago

Literally all I asked you to do was say what changes you would make to our current law enforcement strategy and you couldn't even do that.

Goodbye, troll.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You're just having a strop because I won't have a grown up conversation with someone who won't even walk back an utterly invalid argument. Dont pretend its you taking the high road.

When you won't be missed, you don't have do announce it. You can just leave.

this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
1255 points (98.5% liked)

Political Memes

5376 readers
2768 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS