Re:The Capitol Attack Doesn’t Justify Expanding Surveillance
by TeaDrunk on Saturday January 09, 2021 @02:32PM
(#25703754)
My speculation is that the actual phasing means very different things to very different people, and thus the actual nuance of what people believe in aggregate to be useless to discern by their agreement or disagreement with singular phrases. For example, "abolishing the police, with context that they would be replaced with equally strong mutual support systems, social workers, mental and physical health workers" could be a vast majority of that 15%, or it could be the vast minority of that 15%. We just don't know.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Capitol Attack Doesn’t Justify Expanding Surveillance
by Aunche on Saturday January 09, 2021 @02:51PM
(#25704001)
Social workers aren't going to stop people from breaching the Capitol.
Re:The Capitol Attack Doesn’t Justify Expanding Surveillance
by notahacker on Saturday January 09, 2021 @03:33PM
(#25704421)
No, but it's pretty normal to think that the people attending domestic incidents to identify whether a crime has committed and the people guarding the legislature should have different rules of engagement, training and quite possibly uniforms.
I'm the first person to argue that 'defund the police' was a terrible slogan to adopt, but that's precisely because everyone jumps to saying "but we don't actually mean have no publicly subsidised law enforcement". Even if the rafts of related reform proposals are still far too idealistic for the real world, it's not a position comparable to the Q faithful having the numbers to win primaries.