zlacker

[return to "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone"]
1. conroy+fz1[view] [source] 2020-06-11 23:32:43
>>obilgi+(OP)
A friend lives in Seattle and texted me today about his visit last night:

> I was there last night and it's such a cool pseudo utopian place

> The media coverage of it is WILD

> People on the internet are convinced it's protected by armed guards and people are dying of hunger and instead its...like a music festival campground

> There are speakers, musicians, art walls. I took a group pic for a bunch of black guys last night and they were so proud of what was built because they felt like they fought for it, which in a sense, they did.

◧◩
2. solida+HB1[view] [source] 2020-06-11 23:56:07
>>conroy+fz1
> a music festival campground

Which is fun for a while until people start dying or fighting like they always do and suddenly you need a group of people who spend their time dealing with it. Anarchic utopias do not stay utopic for all that long.

◧◩◪
3. 0xddd+AC1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 00:04:17
>>solida+HB1
What examples do you have in mind when you say this? The main case studies that I see get brought up are Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune, but the wartime pressures that led to their collapse strike me as much different from the present situation. I think the CHAZ will be an interesting experiment given the context.
◧◩◪◨
4. solida+EE1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 00:23:46
>>0xddd+AC1
Specifically the music festivals I've been to. It's fun and a wonderful feeling for a while, but eventually the idiots/assholes will become a problem that needs to be dealt with. Or nature throws a disaster at you and there is chaos.

It's a little hard to come up with historical examples because the utopia portion is often quite short and overshadowed by the negatives that follow. Generally, I would point to almost any historical 'revolution' as a warning that tearing down a system and rebuilding it from scratch does not mean improvement, even if it appears to be at the beginning. You could probably point to the August 1789 period of the French Revolution as an example of the 'utopic' phase, but I'm not certain. The fall of Saddam's government in Iraq would be another example. Kurdish Syria is probably another decent example.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Kye+uF1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 00:31:35
>>solida+EE1
They're trying out the many proposed and proven methods of community management other than armed, poorly-trained cops. Music festivals aren't trying to prove the viability of alternative societal structures. They're different things.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. solida+NF1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 00:34:02
>>Kye+uF1
And I hope it works. But history says it's going to go poorly and they're going to need to end up with something resembling a police force, even if they don't call it that.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Kye+zG1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 00:41:45
>>solida+NF1
I don't know how your interactions with police have gone, but I've never had them show up when I called, and most accounts I hear are that they don't do anything at best when they do. At worst, they kill someone. Most of what they do is not stuff they should be doing.

There's some niche a well-trained police force can fill, but it's a lot smaller than what the poorly-trained forces do now. Almost no one is actually calling for a complete and permanent abolition of police. Just a redefinition of their role.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. solida+hH1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 00:50:37
>>Kye+zG1
The first line of the CHAZ demands:

> The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police

Also, I would look at the Baltimore police/crime post-Freddie Grey to see how diminished police action leads to much increased crime. What the BPD did was horrifying but so was the rise in crime once they became less active.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. deathg+LN1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 01:58:43
>>solida+hH1
With regular assholes you have the right to self-defense. With the police you don't.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. throwa+sO1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 02:09:49
>>deathg+LN1
Without police or “criminal justice apparatus” your rights are merely theoretical.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. jessau+HU1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 03:16:36
>>throwa+sO1
If you feel this insecure, you should purchase firearms and practice using them. Many of your neighbors are doing this.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. liabil+fY1[view] [source] 2020-06-12 03:59:22
>>jessau+HU1
Why not have the government hire people to do that for me? Call it "socialized defense" or something.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲
13. deathg+G12[view] [source] 2020-06-12 04:42:58
>>liabil+fY1
American police departments have no duty to protect you. They are law enforcement officers who choose at their own discretion to arrive at your home seven minutes after you dial 911.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳
14. zaarn+4I2[view] [source] 2020-06-12 12:57:41
>>deathg+G12
Make it their duty to protect you.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿
15. static+EW2[view] [source] 2020-06-12 14:37:35
>>zaarn+4I2
What do you do with all of the people, and the entire system, that's been built and trained for a century to not do that?

I doubt many people are against the idea of a specialized government role that provides protection services.

What they are against is:

* Thinking we can get that role by reforming existing police systems, given how opposed police systems are to such reform

* That these systems need the absurd budgets of police departments

* That the role requires absurd levels of protection for violent actions

* That the role requires armaments in the majority of cases

Going form police to a role that fits those criteria is going to start with not having police.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋
16. zaarn+iX2[view] [source] 2020-06-12 14:41:22
>>static+EW2
You fire them all and rehire the ones that are capable of being proper police officers.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋⬕
17. monoca+P03[view] [source] 2020-06-12 14:59:50
>>zaarn+iX2
It's federal case law that the profession of policing doesn't require what you're asking.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋⬕⬚
18. zaarn+F13[view] [source] 2020-06-12 15:03:22
>>monoca+P03
Then you make it law that it becomes required.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋⬕⬚⧄
19. monoca+pB3[view] [source] 2020-06-12 18:27:28
>>zaarn+F13
I guess I'm just on the side of: if the only thing we think police should be doing is something they already legally don't have to do, achieving the goal of getting that covered is better handled by tearing the entire system down and building a new system with a new name and new members than trying to force reform on orgs that have fought it tooth and nail. The actors that have gotten rulings like Warren v. District of Columbia obviously don't want reform in this area, and I don't see much success in forcing it on them. They have the time, resources, and inclination to fight it at every step, and piecemeal subvert the spirit of the reforms as they occur.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋⬕⬚⧄⧅
20. zaarn+k75[view] [source] 2020-06-13 08:58:17
>>monoca+pB3
That's what I pointed out upthread, tear it down and rebuild it.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋⬕⬚⧄⧅⧆
21. monoca+dP5[view] [source] 2020-06-13 16:45:22
>>zaarn+k75
I guess the point I'm dancing around is that words have power, and rebuilding a force called police is still a half measure. Don't just rebuild, but instead create a new force with a new name as part of gaining new semantics. People bring baggage with them when you use the same words.
[go to top]