Lisa Lawler had no reason to suspect Const. Boris Borissov but now her opinion of police has changed — she’s convinced other grieving families have been victims of similar thefts

  • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Yet another genius who never bothered to learn what “defund the police” actually intended before blathering on about how it’s ridiculous.

    The whole point of defund the police was to remove some of their funding, especially that used to unnecessarily outfit police like paramilitary groups, and use it to fund programs that are better suited than the police to help people in certain situations, like crisis counselors.

    • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yet another genius who never bothered to learn what “defund the police” actually intended before blathering on about how it’s ridiculous.

      I do. I just happen to disagree with it. There isn’t one common denominator of Defund the Police, it means different things to some folk. For example, this local activist who wants to disarm them: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.5594050 Which is asine!

        • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          6 months ago

          Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source for political factoids. As I explained earlier, if ones does any sort of search you’ll find that there isn’t a definition that everyone agrees with.

          • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes, but it’s a great starting point for people who have no idea what they are talking about (you).

            Once you have a basic understanding it’s possible to have more constructive conversations about a topic and branch out into more detailed explanations.

            But if you don’t have the basics down it’s hard to have any real conversation with you (I often describe it as trying to have a conversation with someone who never watched star wars when they are insistent that star wars is a medieval fantasy, so you can converse with them, but if they are unwilling to grasp the basics, the conversation will never go anywhere)

                • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  A single website source like that is even worse of a source than Wikipedia…

                  Not really, it’s as representative as anything else out there, which reinforces my point. There is no common meaning for ‘Defund the Police’. You are just pissing in the wind.

                  • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    I’ll go back to my earlier point. Wikipedia is a fine place to start to get a summary of all the different aspects of defunding the police, you’re focused on a single source when there isn’t a single definition of the movement overall.

          • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source for political factoids.

            factoid: A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.

            So tell me, what is an authoritative source of factoids?

            • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              factoid: A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.

              Actually, this is strictly an American definition. In original English, (Cambridge Dictionary) it means what I used it for: FACTOID | English meaning—Cambridge Dictionary I’m Canadian, and we use/follow the King’s English! July 19, 2023 — FACTOID definition: 1. an interesting piece of information, 2. an interesting piece of information. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/factoid

            • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              So tell me, what is an authoritative source of factoids?

              I like Quora. Encyclopedia’s on print stock used to be the gold standard due to professional fact-checkers, Wikipedia is NOT an alternative to that medium IMHO. BTW, I did not know of the definition of Factoid — Had thought it was slang for Fact.

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        There is and always has been one primary message, as noted above. The mainstream media, which benefits directly from sensational reporting and is owned by people who benefit from an authoritarian police force, likes to muddy the waters with misleading reporting and interviews like the one you linked, which are more extremist and not representative of the core motive.

        Critical thinking, folks. It’s important and never too late to learn. Ask important questions like “are these data representative? If not, why are they being presented to me? Who benefits from this misrepresentation? Which data are actually representative?”

        • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Actually he’s a high profile activist and representative of the movement in Toronto. Many of the young people I’ve personally interacted with, seem to think likewise. As I’m a local man, what people believe locally takes precedence over any Wikipedia article or what Solinvictus believes is correct.

          • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            When someone believes anecdotal evidence is representative of anything, you can be assured anything they say is of equal value.

            • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              When someone believes anecdotal evidence is representative of anything, you can be assured anything they say is of equal value.

              Yes. Like Wikipedia. The video I linked too isn’t anecdotal. I live in the “Hood” and know what black youth think of the coppers and, especially when the movement to ‘Defund the Police’ started, what was the prevailing thought. The fact that someone wrote a Wikipedia article and stated their opinion of what it meant, is anecdotal in and of itself! 🤦‍♂️