Anyone ever not want to change because of the people you would be associated with?

[*michaelsean*]

I don’t know if this is a real thing, but as the years go by we change our thinking, which is good, but in most topics we only ever see the die hards. There are some topics I’ve moved on some, but I don’t ever want to be associated them. Does that make sense?

For instance I don’t know that I can ever say I’m pro choice, but I’m pro it’s a done deal let’s move on. But I do not ever want to be associated with the vocal pro choice crowd.

I’ve always been pro 2A so this isn’t a change, but I don’t want to be associated with people who show up to events with rifles slung across their backs.

Is this a thing for anyone else?

[SunsetBengal]

Yes, I support gay rights, but I don't want to march in the gay pride parade.

[Au165]

After re-reading your post I think I understand a bit better. Yea I get it. I support the police as oddly as it probably sounds to some here but at the same time, I think there is a huge cultural issue in the current policing ranks that is ugly that I have seen first hand.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2021, 12:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t know if this is a real thing, but as the years go by we change our thinking, which is good, but in most topics we only ever see the die hards. There are some topics I’ve moved on some, but I don’t ever want to be associated them. Does that make sense?

For instance I don’t know that I can ever say I’m pro choice, but I’m pro it’s a done deal let’s move on. But I do not ever want to be associated with the vocal pro choice crowd.

I’ve always been pro 2A so this isn’t a change, but I don’t want to be associated with people who show up to events with rifles slung across their backs.

Is this a thing for anyone else?

Sure.  No on wants to be associated with the fringe members of any group we belong to.

You picked two excellent examples that I agree with you on but if we got into a more nuanced discussion one or the other (or both) of us would be labeled as "baby killers" or all in favor of a gun grab or all in favor of wild west in the streets.

Totally get it.

[Mer]

(01-15-2021, 12:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: After re-reading your post I think I understand a bit better. Yea I get it. I support the police as oddly as it probably sounds to some here but at the same time, I think there is a huge cultural issue in the current policing ranks that is ugly that I have seen first hand.

I think the "Defund the Police Crowd" have it totally wrong. I do believe some type of reform is needed but not defunding them. I actually think more money should be allocated to the police for training and therapy. Now if I'm wrong and someone knows more about this please KINDLY let me know. I don't think police have any type of institution that follows them around. For instance, teachers and nurses have a board that keeps track records on what they've done. So therefore they can't do something terribly wrong in one state and just move to another and get a new job without their record following them. I've heard that police officers can move without their record following them to a new force in a new state. Again, I'm not completely sure if that's true but I'd appreciate it if someone here that has more knowledge on the subject would enlighten me.

[KillerGoose]

(01-15-2021, 02:00 PM)Mer Wrote: I think the "Defund the Police Crowd" have it totally wrong. I do believe some type of reform is needed but not defunding them. I actually think more money should be allocated to the police for training and therapy. Now if I'm wrong and someone knows more about this please KINDLY let me know. I don't think police have any type of institution that follows them around. For instance, teachers and nurses have a board that keeps track records on what they've done. So therefore they can't do something terribly wrong in one state and just move to another and get a new job without their record following them. I've heard that police officers can move without their record following them to a new force in a new state. Again, I'm not completely sure if that's true but I'd appreciate it if someone here that has more knowledge on the subject would enlighten me.

I agree. If we believe that there is an issue with our police force, taking money away from them only serves to exacerbate the problem. They need better training and that requires more money.

[hollodero]

(01-15-2021, 02:19 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I agree. If we believe that there is an issue with our police force, taking money away from them only serves to exacerbate the problem. They need better training and that requires more money.

I just feel like adding that the "defund the police" thing was not so much about just taking away money from police, but first and foremost to take additional responsibilities off their plate. And fund other organizations that take over those responsibilities.

Also, of course, worst slogan ever.


--- As for the OP: I always wondered why many Americans seem to think in such absolutes. You can be in favor of something woithout having to take over or associate with all antics from other people sharing that stance.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2021, 02:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: I just feel like adding that the "defund the police" thing was not so much about just taking away money from police, but first and foremost to take additional responsibilities off their plate. And fund other organizations that take over those responsibilities.

Also, of course, worst slogan ever.

"Stop the Steal" would like to have a word about that....

[hollodero]

(01-15-2021, 02:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Stop the Steal" would like to have a word about that....

Well... at least this slogan clearly und unambiguously states what it's about. Those who shout it believe there's a steal to be stopped. 
The people that share the defund the police idea don't actually want poorer pay and inferior equipment for police. And have to explain how defund does not really mean defund in a conventional sense. While being constantly misunderstood. That makes a slogan bad, independent from substance.

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 02:19 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I agree. If we believe that there is an issue with our police force, taking money away from them only serves to exacerbate the problem. They need better training and that requires more money.

The issue is training isn't fixing the bad people that are there, which isn't a majority by any means but it's enough. Self-monitoring and policing does not work and that is the system that needs to be fixed. Licensing to be a police officer should occur at the state levels. These boards then also handle all investigations of complaints against officers with the ability to suspend or revoke licenses. Those boards then need to file all infractions into a national database that follows an officer to other states and is reviewed before being licensed to be an officer in the new state. When sued, the individual officers who violated the law should be subject to paying out of their own pension the damages with the department/city only being brought in when the individual officer's pension does not sufficiently satisfy the damages.

In my mind, it's an accountability issue and by removing the ability for relationships to cover the misdeeds and the accountability being personally damaging, you will see less of an interest to escalate things beyond reason. Some officers won't like it, and that probably tells you all you need to know about them, but as many people like to say "if you got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about".

[KillerGoose]

(01-15-2021, 02:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: The issue is training isn't fixing the bad people that are there, which isn't a majority by any means but it's enough. Self-monitoring and policing does not work and that is the system that needs to be fixed. Licensing to be a police officer should occur at the state levels. These boards then also handle all investigations of complaints against officers with the ability to suspend or revoke licenses. Those boards then need to file all infractions into a national database that follows an officer to other states and is reviewed before being licensed to be an officer in the new state. When sued, the individual officers who violated the law should be subject to paying out of their own pension the damages with the department/city only being brought in when the individual officer's pension does not sufficiently satisfy the damages.

In my mind, it's an accountability issue and by removing the ability for relationships to cover the misdeeds and the accountability being personally damaging, you will see less of an interest to escalate things beyond reason. Some officers won't like it, and that probably tells you all you need to know about them, but as many people like to say "if you got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about".

I agree with all of this. More training, requiring licenses to work as an officer with periodic retesting/evaluations, independent oversight committees that handle the licensing etc. 

[BmorePat87]

I didn't register Democrat until after 2016. Before then I would have called myself a social libertarian or independent. I can't stand most progressives and they can be some of the most vocal democrats.

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 03:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't register Democrat until after 2016. Before then I would have called myself a social libertarian or independent. I can't stand most progressives.

I actually either used to vote Republican or not vote up until recently. Two-party system is horrible.

[BigPapaKain]

(01-15-2021, 02:19 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I agree. If we believe that there is an issue with our police force, taking money away from them only serves to exacerbate the problem. They need better training and that requires more money.

They could always stop buying military surplus and reallocate those funds into better training.

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 04:07 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: They could always stop buying military surplus and reallocate those funds into better training.

Most the time that stuff gets paid for via grants from the federal government.

[BigPapaKain]

(01-15-2021, 04:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: Most the time that stuff gets paid for via grants from the federal government.

The federal government paying the federal government. ***** A that's broken.

My point still stands, btw. That grant money could be reallocated to training.

[Mer]

(01-15-2021, 03:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: I actually either used to vote Republican or not vote up until recently. Two-party system is horrible.

This, I absolutely agree with.

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2021, 03:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: I actually either used to vote Republican or not vote up until recently. Two-party system is horrible.

I wrote in Fred Thompson in 2008 and voted Gary Johnson in 2012. In my first election, 2006, I voted for former RNC chair Michael Steele to the Senate. 

[Belsnickel]

I actually stopped volunteering with our Democratic committee, here, because of how toxic they were. I'm a progressive, but Rooseveltian, and my country boy ways didn't really fit with them. Meetings were like the academic circle jerks I'd see at the university, and I get enough of that during the day.

Here's the thing, though, what you're describing is what makes up the actual silent majority in this country. A bunch of people who are like "yeah, I kind of agree with them, but I have zero interest in being associated with their shenanigans." That's how most people roll, and it's completely respectable. It doesn't matter whether or not you associate with any group. Look at the candidates in an election and vote with the one that most aligns with how you think. If there is a referendum on the ballot, run it through your ideological process and vote how you feel. **** what a political party says about it or any candidate.