"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you."
So it was when the first anti slavery movement started and people said don't anger the slave owners.
Same with civil rights movement when the people of color were told to just give it another century or two rather then risk alienaiteing the white middle class.
Or Gay rights when they were told to just keep it on the down low and don't scare people by being in their faces.
Or even the IWW, whose agenda has been co-opted by liberals in terms of 8 hr work day, mimimuim wages etc, were critized for scaring the rubes.
Just go along to get along has never been a successful stragegy for political or social progress.
It depends what your goal and target is. As I explained in the piece, if your goal is to convince people to agree with you on the need to cut funds for the police, then pissing them off isn't going to do it. On gay rights, I know intimately how we won those battles as I was on the front lines for many of them. We had a combination of carrot and stick. The sticks were generally for companies and politicians, as we were trying to scare them into doing what we wanted. For the public at large, we used carrots -- we did not want to scare the public, we did not want to make them hate us and our cause, we wanted to get them to accept us as "normal" and worthy of equal rights. That's why we'd go on TV and play nice. There is a time and place for both carrot and stick, but they have to be used intelligently and with purpose, and not simply because someone told you that making people "uncomfortable" always works. It doesn't.
Considering how "new" an idea of defunding the Police is coupled with the media's obsession with supporting the police state it is difficult to see how any dramatic reform of the police state can be introduced with out the powers that be framing it as an "offensive" concept that threatens the well being of the comfortable and priviledged.
The concept of police "reform" has been such a failure and what has been aicheved is so incremental as to being slower then tectonic movements.
So to move the Overton window a radical position must be staked out and promoted.
Would the gay rights movement have progressed if ACT Up and been silenced since they just "scared" and pissed off people with their demonstrations?
So it is with changing the Police from a militant occupation force to "Peace" officers serving the public.
I have known several people who joined police forces with the best of intentions with eyes open to the abuses who hoped to reform from the inside. they all ended up quitting out of either frustration or fear of vilent actions from "fellow" officers.
Any number of studies have come to the conclusion that various police departments ( and by extension the entire for profit industry) cultures are so inbred and violent as to be beyond redemption.
You want Police reform ok here is a list.
1) Police can only own "smart" guns so they can never use the excuse of fear that their weapon be taken away to execute someone.
2) any statement by police must be considered to be a sworn statement subject to mandatory perjury prosecution.
3) Any and all settlemnts for police misbehavior must be borne by the police. Either through mandatory personal insurance ( paid by either individual or union)
4) Police unions be prosecuted under RICO statutes for intimidation or cover up of crimes ( i.e. rape cases by police in NYC, police murder of individuals )
5) Police must make immediate official statement on any actions. No more allowing a week and being able to read other statements first to coordinaite lies.
6) No Police official is allowed to resign in order to kill an investigation. any attempt to do so results in immediate loss of LEO license and contempt charges.
7) Police officers surrender all 4th and 5th amendment rights during any investigation of their official actions.
8) No outside employment that relys upon police status and right to carry a weapon. No security gigs at private functions, concerts etc.
9) Any criinal punishment that involves even the hint of abuse of authority is doubled because of the hypocrisy of a law enforcement officer breaking the law.
10) Every 6 months thorough mental health evaluations and testing.
You don't think those reforms would be presented as scary and demonized?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you."
So it was when the first anti slavery movement started and people said don't anger the slave owners.
Same with civil rights movement when the people of color were told to just give it another century or two rather then risk alienaiteing the white middle class.
Or Gay rights when they were told to just keep it on the down low and don't scare people by being in their faces.
Or even the IWW, whose agenda has been co-opted by liberals in terms of 8 hr work day, mimimuim wages etc, were critized for scaring the rubes.
Just go along to get along has never been a successful stragegy for political or social progress.
It depends what your goal and target is. As I explained in the piece, if your goal is to convince people to agree with you on the need to cut funds for the police, then pissing them off isn't going to do it. On gay rights, I know intimately how we won those battles as I was on the front lines for many of them. We had a combination of carrot and stick. The sticks were generally for companies and politicians, as we were trying to scare them into doing what we wanted. For the public at large, we used carrots -- we did not want to scare the public, we did not want to make them hate us and our cause, we wanted to get them to accept us as "normal" and worthy of equal rights. That's why we'd go on TV and play nice. There is a time and place for both carrot and stick, but they have to be used intelligently and with purpose, and not simply because someone told you that making people "uncomfortable" always works. It doesn't.
Considering how "new" an idea of defunding the Police is coupled with the media's obsession with supporting the police state it is difficult to see how any dramatic reform of the police state can be introduced with out the powers that be framing it as an "offensive" concept that threatens the well being of the comfortable and priviledged.
The concept of police "reform" has been such a failure and what has been aicheved is so incremental as to being slower then tectonic movements.
So to move the Overton window a radical position must be staked out and promoted.
Would the gay rights movement have progressed if ACT Up and been silenced since they just "scared" and pissed off people with their demonstrations?
So it is with changing the Police from a militant occupation force to "Peace" officers serving the public.
I have known several people who joined police forces with the best of intentions with eyes open to the abuses who hoped to reform from the inside. they all ended up quitting out of either frustration or fear of vilent actions from "fellow" officers.
Any number of studies have come to the conclusion that various police departments ( and by extension the entire for profit industry) cultures are so inbred and violent as to be beyond redemption.
You want Police reform ok here is a list.
1) Police can only own "smart" guns so they can never use the excuse of fear that their weapon be taken away to execute someone.
2) any statement by police must be considered to be a sworn statement subject to mandatory perjury prosecution.
3) Any and all settlemnts for police misbehavior must be borne by the police. Either through mandatory personal insurance ( paid by either individual or union)
4) Police unions be prosecuted under RICO statutes for intimidation or cover up of crimes ( i.e. rape cases by police in NYC, police murder of individuals )
5) Police must make immediate official statement on any actions. No more allowing a week and being able to read other statements first to coordinaite lies.
6) No Police official is allowed to resign in order to kill an investigation. any attempt to do so results in immediate loss of LEO license and contempt charges.
7) Police officers surrender all 4th and 5th amendment rights during any investigation of their official actions.
8) No outside employment that relys upon police status and right to carry a weapon. No security gigs at private functions, concerts etc.
9) Any criinal punishment that involves even the hint of abuse of authority is doubled because of the hypocrisy of a law enforcement officer breaking the law.
10) Every 6 months thorough mental health evaluations and testing.
You don't think those reforms would be presented as scary and demonized?