Jaicee said:
[3] You make a concession and then claim I disagree with it. *shrugs* I don't. In any event, I don't need an alternative, sweeping, systemic theory of the world to disagree with critical race theory regardless. I don't view the color of people's skin as the most important thing about them, let alone believe that ideas should be accepted or rejected based on the skin color of those who conceive them. It's not on me as a naysayer to disprove CRT any more than it is on me as an atheist to disprove God's existence. It is on you, as the affirmative proponent thereof, to demonstrate its correctness. That's how that works. [4] I think we're at least largely in agreement on this point, at this point, save 1) the idea that only one force here is responsible for the current levels of violent crime we're seeing in many parts of the U.S., and 2) that I still don't see the merit of generally decreasing funding for police forces. I think we've had out the first argument. Concerning the second remaining area of disagreement, proponents of this line (de-fund the police) contend that doing so frees up financial resources necessary to invest in proper social work that could serve as a healthier, and safer, substitute for much of the work that police departments currently do. I just don't see the point in viewing it as an either-or proposition. I see no reason why we can't just tax the wealthier segments of the population more and use those resources to fully fund both. Aside from this, we agree: there should be more accountability for police officers, and indeed for entire departments as needed, which is why I strongly support the legislation I've mentioned earlier on this thread. |
[3] I believe I have been fairly consistent on this point, so I'm not sure what concession you believe I made. Either way, I'm glad that we agree.
As for your assessment of CRT, I am not an expert on the subject, but the writings I have read have not been incompatible with your criticisms. I similarly don't agree with these ideas (at least in the manner you have stated them) and as you said, it is on the individual making the claim to prove the claim. It may very well be true, however I have yet to see evidence of these claims being fundamental to CRT.
[4]: I agree that we largely agree. I don't disagree with your first point (and I said explicitly in my last post that I agree that there is not one single cause) and your second point is...complicated. It is a nuanced position and I would be the first to say that the simple slogan does little to convey that nuance. I'll just run through a couple thoughts real quick:
-"Defunding the police" to me, largely means shrinking the responsibilities of the police. The police should not be tasked with solving every societal ill, and we as a society need to decide what needs an armed response and what doesn't. For example, I don't believe traffic enforcement needs an armed response. "Defunding the police" is largely about expanding the ecosystem of law enforcement (and thus expanding it's funding), with separate bodies taking certain responsibilities away from the police, allowing the police to decrease in size.
-"Defunding the police" also reflects the long-term goal of reducing the necessity of reactive crime prevention. By investing more in proactive crime prevention (improving education, housing etc), the goal is that crime and other societal ills will decrease which will allow an organic decrease in police funding.
-"Defunding the police" speaks to our societal priorities and is largely about deprioritizing policing as a means of fighting crime. It seems that the response to crime is always "throw some cops at it", which has led to massive police budgets paired with underspending relative to many other priorities that should be considered important. Policing should never really be seen as a long term solution so at some point, we as society need to agree to invest in our communities instead of policing them (I believe the difficulty of this comes in part from racist ideas about "the dangerous minority"). This speaks to your last point. I agree that in theory it shouldn't be an "either-or" proposition, but in reality, I don't believe it is feasible to increase spending to the ideal levels without making cuts.
