I get what you're saying, but this logic doesn't fit to a comparison of women. TL'DR at the bottom last two paragraphs
If the police don't exist as an institution. What happens to somebody who commits a crime?
This has always been an odd conversation because the police were invented almost a century after the country was created, but the police are treated that they have been a staple of all human civilizations since the stone age. Truly, the police were mostly invented to keep immigrant populations from killing each other and inciting rebellion as a result of the crime wave they committed. Police continue to exist for that same reason and because of almost complete and total social collapse of society (by any historical measure).
What used to happen is that neighbors, the militia, and bounty hunters would drag them in front of the magistrate presiding over their case.
Policing doesn't flatten human violence. It out-sources it to a government institution. And really that seems to be your point, but I'll come back to that.
Black people literally existed before the police did, in America, in American cities.
Now, about out-sourcing violence. Yes, a petty thief might be glad that the shopkeep doesn't literally scream "thief" and a spontaneous lynch mob of shop keepers form to stomp him within an inch of his life (as would happen in most parts of the ME, SE Asia, Oceania). However (because context IS relevant) that doesn't mean that he is pro-police. Nor does it mean that he would welcome the police the way that women are alleged to support their own rape and enslavement to a conquering army. No thief will ever support the police, nor will they stop the abolition of police, and the BLM movement proves that, even if a world where police exist is safer in the long-term for thieves; because thieves (by definition) do not engage in long-term time preference.
A woman's violence is already outsourced to every man in her family, and to men generally_. Her brother, son, father, boyfriend, husband, orbiters, and random passersby are all the recipients of her need to inflict violence on an aggressor. A woman is not "trading up" on an outsourcing of violence to a conquering rapist, she is merely responding to a threat to her life with a will to live.
The point isn't what people are pro-police and what are not. The point is biting the hand, and not recognizing that the thing they are calling gross injustice is the only reason they're alive.
First. You missed the point. Its not about what they are, but what they should be.
And second. Because the context isn't paticualrly important. The parallels is people very stupidly being anti-the only reason they are alive.
You're Giz, so I know you won't. But try and think for a second.
If the police don't exist as an institution. What happens to somebody who commits a crime?
Policing flattens the scale of human violence, which if youre a petty thief, should be your absolute thank God nightly favorite of the institutions.
Black people are alive because white people pay taxes. And petty criminals are alive because of the police.
I get what you're saying, but this logic doesn't fit to a comparison of women. TL'DR at the bottom last two paragraphs
This has always been an odd conversation because the police were invented almost a century after the country was created, but the police are treated that they have been a staple of all human civilizations since the stone age. Truly, the police were mostly invented to keep immigrant populations from killing each other and inciting rebellion as a result of the crime wave they committed. Police continue to exist for that same reason and because of almost complete and total social collapse of society (by any historical measure).
What used to happen is that neighbors, the militia, and bounty hunters would drag them in front of the magistrate presiding over their case.
Policing doesn't flatten human violence. It out-sources it to a government institution. And really that seems to be your point, but I'll come back to that.
Black people literally existed before the police did, in America, in American cities.
Now, about out-sourcing violence. Yes, a petty thief might be glad that the shopkeep doesn't literally scream "thief" and a spontaneous lynch mob of shop keepers form to stomp him within an inch of his life (as would happen in most parts of the ME, SE Asia, Oceania). However (because context IS relevant) that doesn't mean that he is pro-police. Nor does it mean that he would welcome the police the way that women are alleged to support their own rape and enslavement to a conquering army. No thief will ever support the police, nor will they stop the abolition of police, and the BLM movement proves that, even if a world where police exist is safer in the long-term for thieves; because thieves (by definition) do not engage in long-term time preference.
A woman's violence is already outsourced to every man in her family, and to men generally_. Her brother, son, father, boyfriend, husband, orbiters, and random passersby are all the recipients of her need to inflict violence on an aggressor. A woman is not "trading up" on an outsourcing of violence to a conquering rapist, she is merely responding to a threat to her life with a will to live.
The point isn't what people are pro-police and what are not. The point is biting the hand, and not recognizing that the thing they are calling gross injustice is the only reason they're alive.