This is the police
sorry, wrong link, This is the police
A fun looking game about a police captain managing protecting his city vs the pressure to become corrupt for retirement money.
obviously fiction as the police corruption isn't a thing in the real world.

if one thing in this story is fiction it's definitely the corruption and not the police honestly wanting to protect his city as that is totally the purpose of police, to protect the people and not private property even though scotus has ruled that cops literally don't have to help people and need and can just walk away.

Current events may make the situation in my country look bleak, but at least I can trust the fact that if cops ever did commit any evil actions, such as murdering it's civilians or colluding with a fascist in office to keep him in power by say dispersing their units and physically opening the gates for a mob to prevent the political process to enact our next leader they would be held accountable to the same standards of the civilians they police and prosecuted.

As Always, Fuck boots, Fuck fascists, Fuck Amerikkka and CracknRockSteady y'all!

1 week ago

Comment has been collapsed.

The police (and military) suck... up a lot of national resources that could be better allocated to help people and prevent crime. Defund! Also the way they handled that UPS truck theft was f-d up.

6 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So your idea is to just give the money to the criminals in hopes of them being content with that little? Or let the criminals run rampant when the prevention proves to be impossible? Spoken like a true anarchist.

Military on the other hand is something USA could save trillions on instead of invading every country with oil and calling it democracy and freedom. Just stop selling weapons to 3rd world countries and then being surprised when you're at the wrong end of your own weapons next time. Too bad most politicians are wise enough to invest in oil and weapons industries so they can directly profit from their own wrong doings.

6 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I didn't say I want to give money to criminals, and I feel like you don't know what anarchist means. Anarchy means without a government, or a lack of a ruler. It is the belief that giving one people power over others is inherently bad, and advocates for non hierarchical organization. https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy

What I'd actually do is invest money into communities, most importantly getting people secure access to housing. Reducing poverty is the only thing that's ever reliably reduced crime. The stress of constantly being under threat of being put out on the street leads people to make bad, desperate decisions. We can and should decommodify housing. It's a fundamental human need to have access to shelter and basic housing should be a human right, as it is in many other better functioning countries. Instead we have entire industry built off of predatory exploitation of people's need for shelter to create a profit. This industry is so exploitative it recently crashed the economy during the last housing bubble, and regularly creates boom and bust cycles.

This is because it's a market that does not function well under a laissez faire free market due to price inelasticity. Supply and demand can regulate the prices of most commodities, but when something is necessary for survival the price will slowly climb up and up because people will pay any price to survive. This is what makes it such an exploitative industry, and is the same reason we should decommodify healthcare. Society just functions better this way, and most developed countries have already proven operating this way works better at lower costs.

It's a problem of politicians who are too happy to dump money into the military industrial complex and into policing instead of resources that actually benefit people's basic needs. I completely agree with you on your second point, but it is the same with police. Police are just our domestic military force, and the military is how we police the world, the two arms of our government's monopoly on violence. We can either try to solve poverty with our resources, or use those resources to kill, imprison, and criminalize people. Except the second option is an endless cycle which only self perpetuates and self justifies in order to create a system of oppression, without ever solving the root causes of crime.

6 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nice attempt, but I doubt he'll understand the concept of anarchy this time. It's the same as chaos for him and anarchists are extreme left people always using violence to just destroy the current system.
In the end it doesn't matter anyway, since it only works for small, closed communities or in a perfect world. Unlike nature, humankind tends to be greedy, jealous and envy, thus law is indispensable.

6 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Because I still use words for what they mean. Or will you believe me when I tell you that nazi means a baby and fascist means a kitten so anyone against them is trying to murder all babies and kittens? Yeah me neither still.

Chaos might not be their goal in their head but it's what it is in reality. They are just too stupid like most people with utopistic left wing ideals to figure out that it just does not work unless shooting kids daily is your idea of order?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/29/chop-chaz-shooting-seattle-police-free-zone

6 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm sure I'm telling you nothing new here, but let me try to break it down for you:

  • a person protesting without harming any law is a peaceful protestor (and that's an important aspect of democracy)
  • a person protesting despite ban on public assembly is not violent yet (it's just an infraction and will usually lead only to arrest or/and a penalty)
  • a person occupying a building without legal ownership/hiring is a squatter (sometimes called autonomists)
  • a person rioting is a rioter
  • a person looting is a looter
  • a person meeting others just for beating each other up in public places is usually called a hooligan
  • a civilist beating up/shooting at another person (except self-defense, own land etc). is a felon

The easiest determination whether something is illegal is if it's violating the rights of another person.
The list describes persons based on their actions, because none of these have a specific political background per se. Some actions are merely used by certain groups, but that's not a way to report objectively about it and the jurisdiction isn't allowed to just assume there either. If you feel the urge to figure out if a person or a group has a certain political background, you will need more information about it (motivation, chants, banners, public documents, personal background).

A self proclaimed "police free zone" doesn't match all criteria of anarchy. Actually not even the lawlessness, because this area still belongs to the territory of the USA. If they can't enforce their law, it's chaotic, for sure, but not yet anarchy. I doubt though that the USA can't enforce it, if they are willing to send the manpower there.
But I get that many people link potential lawlessness with chaos or anarchy. Even ownership of a parcel of a land doesn't enable you to break the law. In the USA or at least several states you might be allowed to shoot someone who enters your land, but that's not personal arbitrariness, it's still USA/state law.
Trying to claim a territorial part of an approved country for yourself will always lead to fights, chaos or - if you think bigger - to war.

Now in your linked report I don't see any person/group calling themselves anarchists (and if they actually do, they would have chosen a wrong way). Instead I read that many protestors are leaving the zone because of the violence. There's just a quote by Trump who stated a full list of terms including this one while not even considering different legal situations.

4 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That looks like an adequate use of a dictionary.

A person doing any of those to oppose the state and in the hopes of it leading to the dismantling of the entire police force because they just happen to kill the occasional criminal junkie is more of an anarchist here, not people who just do them for other selfish reasons. But it doesn't matter what their ideals were behind the actions when the result is always the same, violence and theft. That was just a very small scale attempt and it already caused big problems, the more you scale up the anarchy the worse the problems will get.

What do you call a person who tries to do something good but always fails and gets the same bad result but still keeps repeating it because of a belief that the next time will magically be different? An addict? A fool?

4 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well I mean, they opened with the blatant strawman of : "So your idea is to just give the money to the criminals in hopes of them being content with that little? Or let the criminals run rampant when the prevention proves to be impossible? Spoken like a true anarchist."

It's a long-holding pattern with them, so it's best not to waste too much time on them until they eventually begin engaging with intellectual honesty, or you'll have to do a lot of eating around their hyperbole and projection.

Plus it always strikes me as a red flag when people try to use the 'anarchist' buzzword, yet do things like in the capitol building thread, they spend a heavily disproportionate amount of energy (if not all) in diverting the focus of criticism / discussion towards unrelated individuals or groups, rather than those immediately and literally interfering with the election, and the actors who enabled or even promoted the groups and mentality that led to it. What a person says is important, but it can be revealing when you also note what they do.

5 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Blah blah blah still making up things because you can't win arguments otherwise. You're the one people should stop wasting their time on.

Intellectual honesty sounds like something you should get a healthy dose of. As you can see below some people are perfectly able to answer questions, correct misunderstandings and have a nice civil conversation. Now I wonder why that doesn't include you?

4 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I quoted you directly.
It's an observable ongoing pattern.
You still often open your replies with the "you imagine" strawman so often that its starting to feel like some kind of catchphrase now.

Saying it is "made up" doesn't make it so :
Even within this thread there is a blatant example,

Or that time you edited an opening post with a subject you wanted to raise awareness of, and my suggestion you alter the title to reflect it so people check back to read the OP again... led to a protracted hostile mess,

Or when I was literally tried using screenshots because you kept denying what you said,

Note that this is just for passing readers, so they know what they're probably getting into if they try to take you to task on the strawmen, etc. I don't actually have any real interest in engaging with your floundering right now. This reply is just to blow a hole in your usual 'its made up' jazz so they don't think this is some weird vendetta if they ignore the links for being TL;DR.

3 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You still have absolutely no clue. Learn to discuss things without yelling attack names like a pokemon,..

Uroboros uses Strawman! It is not very effective!

Just get a clue already or just shut up, please? Meanwhile everyone else is able to have a civilized discussion. Maybe stop attacking my person because your arguments are lacking?

Just because you're one of the retarded people too stupid to understand anything doesn't mean you get to take it out on me for free. You still keep on attacking my person because your arguments would be severely lacking without it.

3 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Discussion requires two people, Starwhite. I can only try to offer my half along with whatever facts I might have, but I can't force you to reconcile with them or respond in a lucid manner. This has nothing to do with attacking you as a person, just noting your hypocrisy and inability to reconcile with basic "I didn't say or imply that, here's clarification / direct quote / proof " stuff without drifting into a pointlessly intensifying spiral of "you're making it up" / "you're dumb" / "you're attacking me personally" / "you're trolling" if they don't let it go.

I just stopped caring to soften my words to save your feelings after you made it your go-to strategy to fling random hostility in our previous encounters. If you don't like it being noted, well, you could change how you respond, because people aren't going to stop noticing it while you keep doing it in a public forum. You can claim I'm making stuff up, but unless I managed to hack into SGifts and edit your replies, I'm still operating on the things you keep saying and doing. :P

I mean, I do just expect more of the same stuff in reply to this too, but this was more for others who might wander into the same spiral by not just letting it go when you bluescreen in being caught out.

3 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

OK, I'll leave you to struggle to get a clue alone. But thanks for going to such efforts to prove my points anyways.

I never cared about your feelings to begin with nor did I have any of my own invested in any of this. So maybe less feelings more logic next time for you too? Stop being so angry all the time and it will be a great benefit for your life. To me either is still equally fine.

Fun fact: this very argument and your linking to me winning arguments before led to +2 WL -2BL for me so apparently others get it too.

3 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

'Winning arguments'
Oy vey.

Oh well. I tried.

2 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You tried your best to lose and you succeeded. Great job!

2 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks? :U

2 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I know fully well, they don't. Or I guess belief explains it well since it has no base in reality. This is a great example of what happens when you defund 100%: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/29/chop-chaz-shooting-seattle-police-free-zone

The segregation problem of black house ownership being limited has been a lot in news here too. But since our news tell the truth I know that the problem was made much worse by Obama/Biden because they were trying to wrestle mid class white voters from the Republicans and much improved by Trump/Biden because they needed black voters instead. Here you don't have to own a house because everyone gets a free apartment to live in. https://satwcomic.com/you-get-some-dignity-and-you-get-some-dignity

I agree because I happen to live in one of the countries that does things that way, giving free money, education and healthcare to everyone. We still need a police force but of course it can be smaller and maybe even less heavily armed. It's all paid by taxes either way. I just mistook your Defund! to mean 100% like many have been demanding during the BLM riots and such during 2020 so sorry for comparing you to them.

6 days ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm obviously speaking as an American and I shouldn't have assumed you were an American too. I do think we need some way to respond to violence, so it seems like we mostly agree. Probably not 100% but I'd rather focus on our agreement.

5 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

First just needs to come a period of increased spending to fund the improvements in society so crime rates wills slowly start dropping and you can defund the police accordingly or make them use couple hours per week to help the community. But it can't all happen at once so it requires patience and voters to understand that it needs to continue and not vote against it in the next elections. There are also some cases that seem too far gone for even the Nordic model to help so there will always be some crime.

5 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for the giveaway! I was always a bit conflicted by how much I enjoyed playing this. On the one hand, it clearly doesn't paint the protagonist or his police force in a positive light, but all of the "political" flavor text I saw in it was pretty, uh, dismissive of real issues, or superficial in a way that gives it a House of Cardsesque vibe where it's ultimately not saying anything about anything. Found it really addictive, though. Hopefully there are games out there that can scratch a similar itch while introducing me to rad music.

6 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

thank you and bump

3 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

THIS FASCIST KILLS MACHINES.

XD

3 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.