News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If you're making wild suggestions, you should probably care about the effects it will have
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
You're not familiar with prison abolition? I have some links if you'd like to educate yourself. :)
the reason for my latter sentence is that any impediment stops this goal from materializing. the right will always have a worry, or question, or addition, or delay, and each of these impediments prevents achieving the end goal. that latter sentence is strictly necessary to achieve the result.
You're either being hyperbolic or you're willfully ignorant about what would happen if we did that, neither of which help your case
Your failure to imagine a successful alternative doesn't mean that the person you're talking to is ignorant.
Your imagination seems to only go as far as 'the prison doors open and anarchy occurs'. There are many alternatives to changing people's behavior that isn't simply locking them into boxes for decades at a time.
Nobody is saying that justice shouldn't be done, only that the current system is not just and doesn't improve the people that are put into it.
Why should this person need to use their imagination to legitimize someone else's argument, especially one so absurd? OP should make their own argument.
This is a person making a point. What they're talking about is pretty obvious from the text.
This is a person making an implication. They never define what 'the effects' are, they simply hanging an implication. What they mean is left up to the imagination of the reader.
Once again, they're not actually saying anything. They're not saying "what would happen if we did that" they're implying the the Person A is hyperbolic or willfully ignorant for believing... something. Something that they won't actually define.
Again, this isn't a point, this is the person implying something but never actually saying what it is.
This is a shitty conversational tactic where the person never has to take a position that can be argued against but can appear, to the ignorant, as if they are actually saying something cynical and intelligent.
I'm replying to the most obvious reading of the implication which is "If you abolish the police and prisons then there will just be criminals everywhere".
But, because of this shitty conversational tactic, of not actually stating their position, Person B can simply come back and say "Oh I didn't mean that" and move the goalposts elsewhere.
It is that person who's arguments are left to the imagination. Since they never actually say what they mean.
The first person in the conversion was pretty explicit about their position.
This isn't a "point" it's just an empty statement devoid of any reason or logic.
It's pretty damned obvious what will happen if you abolish all enforcement of the law, people will engage in more crime because there will be little to no consequences for said crime. This is basic reasoning that doesn't require fantastical leaps of the imagination to figure out like Person A's statement does. We can use history as our guide for this as this has happened numerous times in places where the government has collapsed. Places like Somolia where roving gangs controlled local territories with lots of blood and violence. What historical reference can you give where all laws were abolished and something good happened?
This sound like a description of Person A's statement to me.
I love how you can write a book length comment on all the reasons why it's wrong to argue against you and the OP but have yet to give a single actual argument for why your position makes any sense or will improve anything for anyone but criminals. You can't even describe basic concepts like how any of this would work.
Don't get angry. Abolition is a good thing. It helps you. Instead, try to envision what the goal is. What do you think I'd like to achieve?