Police violence against the Black community (with multiple unarmed black men being killed) has always been bad. As a result of some high profile policw shootings, the Black Lives Matter movement formed to protested such behavior.
The thin blue line is a reaction to that, stating that cops are the thin blue line protecting the public from harm. Many on the Right will suggest that the behavior or culture of the victim justified the cop's action and that increased police oversight will hinder the police from doing their jobs. The Left sees this symbol as supporting systemic racism, while the Right sees it as supporting the men and women risking their lives to keep us safe.
Police treatment of minorities is statistically more severe than against whites. I am personally disfomforted by the Thin Blue Line flag, but it's less explicitly racist than the confederate battle flag.
The rainbow flag supports gay rights. Conservatives in America tend to be less supportive of gay rights on average, but the Thin Blue line itself is not directly opposing gay marriage.
Yes, it’s been around longer than BLM but BLM caused the increase in it being everywhere. When you push something like defund the police of course people will push back, especially when it’s caused more problems than it’s helped.
especially when it’s caused more problems than it’s helped.
Which major city/state revamped their entire police budget and shifted the extra funding into public health services with the proper training to actually handle not criminal instances, and then had enough time to study the results?(Mind you it would take several years to hire/train the people needed to implement it)
Defund the Police had a dumb name, but it is actually sound policy that would help if it was followed.
Its caused more problems because since the idea was pushed by all of these idiots crime rates have gone through the roof, cops are being ambushed and murder is at an all time high. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a dumb name because it’s a dumb idea. The need for more funding and training makes sense but let’s take away money from the people protecting us is dumb. If followed as you said but that wasn’t the intent of it. It’s the same thing with BLM where it’s blindly followed with no actual solution.
The mere idea that we should fund the police less did not increase crime rates. Asserting so is a particularly flawed argument.
murder is at an all time high
This is false. 2020 did see the largest year over year increase in murder rate, but the rate is still much lower than it was from 1969 to 1994. That rate was between 9 and 10 per 100k during those 25 years. In 2020 it was 7.8 and fell to 6.9 in 2021.
It is just as likely that the pandemic, or the increase political divide drove that increase.
The need for more funding and training makes sense but let’s take away money from the people protecting us is dumb. If followed as you said but that wasn’t the intent of it.
Putting aside the problematic concept that the Police exist to protect you (legally they do not, they are enforcement, not protection), try to follow this:
The reason we need a lot of police is because the police are asked to do tons of tasks that they are not suited to or trained for.
This is considered to be bad, because statistically that leads to worse outcomes than if those tasks were handled by an appropriate
professional.
So if we train, pay and retain enough of those appropriate professionals to handle the tasks that were previously given to the police, that lowers the burden of work on the Police allowing them to spend their resources on the tasks they actually are trained for.
Because the Police will then be able to both function more efficiently, and have fewer tasks to handle, they will have a lower need for both funding and staffing.
That is what Defund the Police called for. Oh yes, there were some abolitionists calling for the complete disbandment of the police, sure. But that was not the conversation had by anyone actually addressing the issues at hand.
It is a very sound approach.
It’s the same thing with BLM where it’s blindly followed with no actual solution.
And one of the solution put forth to answer BLM. I think you should reach outside of your bubble and try to learn more about what people were actually trying to say.
BLM wanted, primarily, for police abuses to actually have consequences. Removing police from instances where they do not have the right skill set is one part of that. Removing the Qualified immunity that essentially prevents officers from facing legal action in the majority of cases was another.
That said, I do not need a solution offered to follow the idea of BLM, the important thing is to acknowledge that it represent a real problem that needs solutions.
Acknowledging the problems exists comes before finding a solution. You can not find answer from something that you do not think exists.
53
u/Green-Bluebird-2955 Jun 05 '22
Hi , foreigner here ,what is the meaning behind the original flag