welcome to my lawn

Christians have committed multiple genocides throughout history.

The bible condones slavery, genocide and owning uterus havers as property.

Entire cultures have been destroyed and colonised due to Christianity.

Christianity has left people with trauma.

Christianity teaches people to be ashamed of normal things such as their own bodies, sexual feelings, being queer and being disabled.

Christianity has been and is being used to spread fascism.

Christianity actively doesn't promote critical thinking and sets you up to be subservient to a master without even questioning their decisions or doctrine.

Christian organisations constantly demand and steal money from people.

Christianity gives people free passes to be bigots.

Christianity stops people from believing in and understanding basic science.

Christianity makes people so incredibly focused on the afterlife, which can stop them from caring as much about problems and other people in the world.

Christianity was and still is being used to oppress people.

Rapists can get away with their crimes because of Christianity.

i was working at a little cafe where I could deny service over bad behavior, harassment etc. & mask mandates had just ended a week before & already people were being weird about me still wearing mine—an N95, the kind shaped kinda like a duckbill.

so this man walked in, looked at me sooo scathingly, laughed at me, and said “damn. never known a woman to choose…practicality over looks.”

And I just said, “oh. you can go, you’re not getting a drink.” And he said, “what???”

I said, “sir, you just walked in at 6 am & called women impractical and me ugly in one sentence.”

Right now there's an expectation from most owners that it's your job to do whatever you can to get those precious dollars. And that's largely accepted because yeah obviously the business needs money to survive, and you need to keep your job for the same reason. But in a world where that's not true (or to a smaller degree where the boss cares more about the employees than profit maximization) these kinds of consequences could be the standard method of attitude correction.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

Direct: we leave them there

Indirect: we have to work with each child and whatever records we have to find the best situation for each one that prioritizes their safety and wellbeing

"How do I complete my maths homework?"

Direct: write numbers

Indirect: you have to look at the problems and solve them based on the information provided

"How do I practice piano?"

Direct: you press keys

Indirect: you should play your scales and any pieces you're working on while paying extra attention to the more challenging parts

Do you see how because I lack specifics on what they're working on I'm not able to say exactly what they should do? I just have to give a vague outline of what is typically done. If I were teacher talking to a student, I would be able to look at the homework and walk them through the first couple problems for them to prepare them to do the rest on their own.

However, that's not the case. I have no reason to believe you're a student or a prison warden or a legislator needing guidance on a particular issue you have on your desk. I know I'm not a teacher or a legislator or a lobbyist here to give you step by step instructions on how to perfectly fix the situation we're in. We are 2 strangers on the internet philosophizing on how the world ought to be. If you ask a broad question, you get a broad answer.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

Direct: we leave them there

Indirect: we have to work with each child and whatever records we have to find the best situation for each one that prioritizes their safety and wellbeing

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

Direct: we leave them there

Indirect: we have to work with each child and whatever records we have to find the best situation for each one that prioritizes their safety and wellbeing

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

1m

1)What evidence is there, Beyond a reasonable doubt who's making the accusation 2) We're not at the making the accusation stage, that's called alleged murder or alleged murder, we're at the convicted murderer stage 3), how long ago was it, The deed that led to the death, within a year and a day of the death 4)what was the motivation, murder doesn't mean any old killing 5) what are the ages of the individuals, wtf who cares? what about the countless other specifics that can change the situation in so many different and unpredictable ways? Again, murder is not any old killing Also, how do you define prison? Involuntarily detaining someone.

If you look at my first reblog, I said things like "something like prison abolition" and "that sort of abolition". Which indicate that I'm using prison abolition as an example for the real point I'm trying to make.

Also, I didn't say that.

Also also, there's a difference between waiting a few days for a response and waiting more than 6 months, just like there would be a difference between a 5yo committing murder vs a 35yo.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

1m

1)What evidence is there, Beyond a reasonable doubt who's making the accusation 2) We're not at the making the accusation stage, that's called alleged murder or alleged murder, we're at the convicted murderer stage 3), how long ago was it, The deed that led to the death, within a year and a day of the death 4)what was the motivation, murder doesn't mean any old killing 5) what are the ages of the individuals, wtf who cares? what about the countless other specifics that can change the situation in so many different and unpredictable ways? Again, murder is not any old killing Also, how do you define prison? Involuntarily detaining someone.

If you look at my first reblog, I said things like "something like prison abolition" and "that sort of abolition". Which indicate that I'm using prison abolition as an example for the real point I'm trying to make.