TEXAS LADY JUANITA
Today’s quote is from Lisa Bender, Minnesota City Council President.
“Over last two weeks we’ve seen thousands of people in Minnesota take to the streets and raise their voices for change, telling us that incremental reform has not worked to keep our communities safe. We are also seeing major institutions like the University of Minnesota, our parks and schools, major business, and art institutions ending their relationship with our police department. So, it is clear that we need to make major shifts both in the short term and [abruptly ended that thought]. Our community is ready to reimagine public safety from the ground up to then holistically – to make sure every single member of our community is safe.”
WOW This statement is filled with so many Rhetorical Devices, where do I begin? . . .
“Over last two weeks we’ve seen thousands of people in Minnesota take to the streets and raise their voices for change, telling us that incremental reform has not worked to keep our communities safe.”
This statement suffers from “Proof Surrogate Fallacy” Rhetoric; an expression in place of actual authority. The actual authority lies with the entire community of citizens, not just the ones protesting. Protesters cannot speak for those citizens not present – the actual majority. Should any City Council make major changes without the support of the citizen majority, they will find themselves soon out of a job – and rightly so.
Let us look at what does “incremental reform” mean? I borrowed this example from another industry and changed it to reflect Policing Systems Reform:
Incremental Reforms of the Local Policing System should be offered only within the context of steps toward larger reform goals, so that the local citizen can evaluate the final destination as well as the individual steps.
Preferably, these specific reforms should be discussed as part of a sorely needed local televised debate (beginning early afternoon) about the basic features of the Local Policing Systems (the current system, and any future models proposed to replace current system), which the local city should deliver in stages. Indeed, public understanding of the merits of rival proposals is hardly possible without such an open debate on the fundamentals. Whatever structural reforms we achieve should not be the haphazard result of disconnected incremental actions, nor should they be the undisclosed objectives of step-by-step reforms.
Most incremental reforms under discussion would move the Local Policing System in one of three broad discussion topics:
The first topic of reform would expand on the current system, with varying degrees of changes and, with detailed presentation of alternate proposed future systems.
In the second comparative topic of reform, local government would determine the cost of the current proposed changes to existing system, as well as the cost of alternate proposed systems.
The third topic of reform would involve local policing service to businesses, schools, parks, malls, etc. – full disclosure of current and proposed services including cost analysis.
I like the Incremental Reform Plan which incorporates every citizen involvement as are interested in being involved. I would love to see someone like me organize it – just not me, someone much healthier.
“We are also seeing major institutions like the University of Minnesota, our parks and schools, major business, and art institutions ending their relationship with our police department.”
Common Practice Fallacy argument – just because some historically liberally run organizations are doing something, does not mean the majority are doing it.
“So it is clear that we need to make major shifts both in the short term and [abruptly ended that thought].”
Hyperbole Fallacy, better known as B S.
Clear to who? This small subset of all citizens should never make such a leap without somewhere to leap to AND with the consensus of all citizens. Public debate, then voting should happen.
“Our community is ready to reimagine public safety from the ground up to then holistically – to make sure every single member of our community is safe.”
We have a Line Drawing Fallacy at play; a dash of Subjectivism Fallacy, as well as Argument From Outrage Fallacy; working on a possible Straw Man Fallacy; a Wishful Thinking, and Group Think Fallacies;
not to mention that this whole thing is a huge SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY!
If you let a handful of people disband your law and order AND REPLACE IT WITH THEIR POLITICAL CRONIES ONLY – I cannot imagine anything they would deny themselves afterwards. Yes, this is a huge SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY!
This statement ends in a promise that she cannot possibly keep – Rationalizing Fallacy – appealing to that Group Think Fallacy.
Lisa Bender, Minnesota City Council President.
This is an out of control City Council President – YO! Citizens! You may want to put her on some kind of probation and shorten her authority leash from “Dictator” down to “Public Servant”.
Copyright © 2020 by Juanita Holloway-Walters