Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com to THE POLICE PROBLEM@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoAmazonquokk.auimagemessage-square94linkfedilinkarrow-up1821arrow-down17file-text
arrow-up1814arrow-down1imageAmazonquokk.auViking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com to THE POLICE PROBLEM@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square94linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squarePolisheocket@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 month agoI think they’re implying that Bezoes doesn’t pay taxes and they very well could be right
minus-squareim_fine_sandy@nord.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down6·1 month agoThat’s the witty snarky lemmy-ism I’m referring to. I get it. Obviously the guy should pay taxes. No one should be able to accumulate wealth in that way. My point is, it’s daft to suggest the police should make an assessment about whom they ought to protect, without reference to the law.
minus-squareCorkyskog@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 month ago it’s daft to suggest the police should make an assessment about whom they ought to protect, without reference to the law. … But they already do…
minus-squareim_fine_sandy@nord.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down4·1 month agoSo you simultaneously do and do not what them to be selective in their policing?
minus-squareim_fine_sandy@nord.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down4·1 month agoThey either are or are not selective in policing. Mutually exclusively options. They can’t be both and you can’t want both.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 month agoLol oh that was the “witty snarky lemmy-ism”, but not your reply pretending that you thought they meant homeless people?
minus-squareim_fine_sandy@nord.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down2·1 month agoMy reply about homeless people was pointing out the unintended consequences of their daft “tax payers” assertion. If that’s something you would describe as a witty or snarky response, that’s up to you I guess.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·1 month agoOh fuck off, you know I’m right. You did the exact same thing you were criticizing.
minus-squareim_fine_sandy@nord.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 month agoOk ? I’m criticizing an idiot that said police shouldn’t protect people who don’t pay tax. Clearly a position they hadn’t really thought through.
I think they’re implying that Bezoes doesn’t pay taxes and they very well could be right
That’s the witty snarky lemmy-ism I’m referring to.
I get it. Obviously the guy should pay taxes. No one should be able to accumulate wealth in that way.
My point is, it’s daft to suggest the police should make an assessment about whom they ought to protect, without reference to the law.
… But they already do…
So you simultaneously do and do not what them to be selective in their policing?
They already are
They either are or are not selective in policing. Mutually exclusively options. They can’t be both and you can’t want both.
Lol oh that was the “witty snarky lemmy-ism”, but not your reply pretending that you thought they meant homeless people?
My reply about homeless people was pointing out the unintended consequences of their daft “tax payers” assertion.
If that’s something you would describe as a witty or snarky response, that’s up to you I guess.
Oh fuck off, you know I’m right. You did the exact same thing you were criticizing.
Ok ?
I’m criticizing an idiot that said police shouldn’t protect people who don’t pay tax. Clearly a position they hadn’t really thought through.
I get your point and agree