You mean repeatedly lambasting 70+ million people as racist for the last four years and then screaming "Defund The Police" didn't achieve the ideal electoral outcome? #Mindblown

If all 70 million Trump voters aren’t racist then 69,999,999 are. He started on Birtherism, moved to bad hombre rapists, and finished with the kung flu.

What I’ve said before and I don’t think a lot of people believe me is nobody hates black people more than other black people. Same with other races. If it weren’t for corona’s ageism Trump would’ve won again. Betting on white supremacy in America is a good bet. Well **** Biden is racist as a mother****er.

Sam Harris says it’s just crazy to think 70 million Trump voters aren’t racist but he literally can’t see a racist when one is staring at him in the mirror.

Yep, he has a terrible record of racist remarks: I remember feeling angry about these comments too:
i) a judge's opinion doubted because of his Latino roots
ii) wife in a Gold Star family ridiculed for not commenting while her husband spoke publicly
iii) appalling joke about Pocahontas in front of Native American WWII vets

Regarding Anteater's mention of "Defund The Police":To me, this was a very poorly-chosen slogan, and illustrates the dangers of reducing governance to tweets and electioneering to three-word chants.

The real issue of police funding, as I understand it, is about refunding and re-assigning police tasks. At present they are first responders to such a variety of emergencies, because there aren't on-call specialists to deal with mental-health and other situations that require more in-depth training to handle properly. I think the argument goes, "reduce police funding, and police responsibilities, and have more, better-trained experts who can provide a kind of para-police service, rather like para-medics do for doctors." Unfortunately, that's difficult to explain on a placard, let alone in a three-word chant.

Not like it matters to the trump supporters demanding sainthood from the dnc, but "defund the police" was coined by activists and largely rejected by democratic politicians.

That’s a kind a 50/50 because Warren using false ancestry claims for professional advantage was racist af and condemned by tribal leaders.

That was the neoliberal redefining of it. In fact, the people who coined it meant what they said. They don’t want the police to exist in their communities. That’s why they were burning down police stations. They weren’t stuttering.

Also with changing CHAZ to CHOP. CHAZ meant autonomous. As in NOT A PART OF AMERICA. But then oh no it’s America just occupied. Booooo

@Frownland: yes, I did notice after I wrote it, that a big chunk of my grumble about "Defund The Police" as a slogan was like shooting an arrow at the wrong target. :(

@OH: As we both know, if the destination is anarchy, I'm always going to stop short and try to explain away anything approaching violence.

I’d rather see working class police weaponized against the wealthy, personally.

No worries. I think a lot of talking points are designed to corralle us into that archer's position these days.

There would be violence with anarchism, but we arguably live under a system of monopolized violence that can be swiftly corrupted for insidious means. It's possible that introducing violence from above under the guise of peace creates an expectation of a certain level of violence to maintain stability and causes many to assume that any counter to the monopoly (maybe an oligopoly, same **** imo) is an introduction of even more violence.

I can't say for sure which way it would go tbh. Though I can anecdotally say that the least aggressive, most hospitable people I've ever met were in Slab City where there's no legal infrastructure and crime is resolved "in house". Those who get trouble are usually looking for it. Then I contrast that with the Karens living in ultra-protected police-favoured burbs trying to **** up people's lives and wonder how secure this security is.

Wow.