I think we should stop talking about LAW and ORDER...

[Jeebo]

...and start talking instead about JUSTICE.

-- Ron

[brooklynite]

1. Are we talking about law and order?

I'm only aware that Trump is.

[Jeebo]

2. I meant "we" collectively...

...as a society.

-- Ron

[brooklynite]

4. I'l repeat my comment...

I'm not aware that we "as a society" are...

[Jeebo]

12. I merely meant that I hear that phrase all the time...

...and I think that the word "justice" and the concept it represents is what we all should be concerned about promoting. I thought everybody on Democratic Underground would be receptive to that idea. And to responding that way whenever we hear the phrase "law and order" out in the world. Part of the misunderstanding between you and me apparently derives from your misidentification of the antecedent of that first person plural pronoun I used. When I used that pronoun, I intended its antecedent to be ALL of us, ALL of the people in the United States of America, and I am sorry if I didn't make that clear, maybe in the future I should use the noun itself instead of a pronoun that represents it. You apparently misidentified the antecedent of that pronoun as all of us here on Democratic Underground. But among that group which was my intended antecedent to the pronoun "we", the phrase "law and order" is used all the time. I was trying to make the point that "justice" is a word that represents something much more noble and honorable than the phrase "law and order". And I thought everybody here would understand that point, WITHOUT me having to explain it, and that everybody here would agree with it.

-- Ron

[lame54]

3. I thought that was cancelled...

Along with Paw Patrol

[Ms. Toad]

5. I don't know any progressive individual who talks about law and order.

It seems pretty clear to me it is code for authoritarian rule.

[Jeebo]

6. That's my point.

That's why, when they say "law and order", we should respond that the discussion should instead be about JUSTICE. That's the whole point I was trying to make in my original post. And in that original post, when I said "we", i meant the collective "we", the one that includes all of the people in the United States.

-- Ron

[Ms. Toad]

7. That's not what came through.

It appeared you were addressing DU members and suggesting that we change how we talk about law and order - something many of us have not done. So it seemed odd.

[Jeebo]

8. I'm thinking about that corollary to Murphy's Law.

The one that goes, You can explain something to somebody unambiguously and meticulously and in great detail, so much so that nobody could possibly misunderstand it, and yet, somebody will.

Well, I didn't think I had to explain my original post to y'all that meticulously. I didn't think y'all would read something into it that wasn't there. But you did. I have a tendency to get very wordy when I start trying to say something, but this time was one of those relatively rare occasions when I stated it succinctly. And I obviously should have spelled it out clearly, unambiguously, at great length, to make SURE that nobody misunderstood me. And even then, somebody would have.

-- Ron

[Ms. Toad]

9. The others who responded read it the same way.

The problem isn't the message, so much as the audience. If you'd said it to a bunch of Reblicans it would have been clear. They use the phrase law and order.

But you suggested to a group that has been talking about justice for decades - and suggested that we should stop using the phrase law and order (which I don't believe I've ever used, and I don't recall it being used in a positive way on DU), and start using the term justice instead.

You don't see the disconnect?

[Jeebo]

11. Pronouns are sometimes ambiguous.

The audience I was addressing is one that I expected would be receptive to the idea that the term "justice" is very much preferable to the term "law and order". I used the latter phrase not in any positive sense, but simply because I had to use it to reference it. I hear the phrase "law and order" all the time on MSNBC and Thom Hartmann's radio show, which is the only news I ever listen to. They don't use it in any positive sense and neither do I, but how can you reference that phrase without actually vocalizing or writing it?

I still think y'all read something into my original post that WAS NOT THERE. But in the future, I will try to be more careful when I use that first person plural pronoun, as well as any other pronoun, to be sure there is no confusion about what its antecedent is.

-- Ron

[Ms. Toad]

13. It's not a pronoun issue.

We, the audience you were addressing, have not used "law and order" for decades (I don't believe I have ever used it). Your post implied you believed you were suggesting something new that we could use going forward to make a difference.

It is a bit like you suggested using zippers to keep pants closed as an alternative to buttons, and then got frustrated because the group replied "we've been using zippers for decades." If you're addressing a group that is already using zippers, you're going to get a strange reaction when you suggest it to that group as if it was a new thought.

Trump is deliberately using "law and order" as a dog whistle to justify beating up on poor, minority, democratic, etc. communities, in the same way he uses "China Virus." It is a deliberate choice. No one is going to change his mind because the language he uses serves his purpose of creating division and distrust of poor, minority, and democratic communities. It is like the deliberate choice to use the phrase pro-life rather than anti-abortion. The Mainstream media is reporting what Trump (and his minions) say. They have picked the phrase that tests well in their target population, and the Mainstream media will continue to echo it, since the MSM version of fair is to use the phrase that the party saying it uses.

[Jeebo]

14. I will respond to each paragraph in turn.

Responding to your first paragraph, first sentence, I was not claiming that the audience I was addressing uses that phrase. I was suggesting an alternative to the phrase when encountering somebody else who does use that phrase. Second sentence ... well, on reading it a second time, yes, I was suggesting something new that we could use going forward to make a difference, in your words. I spend a lot of time on these message boards and I can't think of a time when I heard somebody suggest using the word "justice" as a much better alternative to "law and order," but that doesn't mean I was claiming or believed that people who post regularly on these message boards use the latter phrase. Because I haven't heard anybody else on these boards use the preferable term, I thought it was appropriate for me to suggest using the former term as a much preferable alternative. Again, you read something into my words in my original post that was not there. Except in your own imagination.

Second paragraph: I'm sorry, but after reading that paragraph several times, I am not sure that I understand the analogy.

Third paragraph: I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said in that paragraph, but I don't know why you found it necessary to say it. Do you think I disagree? If you do, well, then, again, you're reading something into my words that is not there.

We're on the same side, you and I, and we are arguing about something that is ultimately trivial and meaningless. The original problem apparently was caused by my poor choice of words in my original post. Instead of using the first person plural pronoun "we" in my original post, I wish I had used different pronouns, so that my original post would have read:

When they say "law and order", we should correct them and say that's not what it's about, it's about JUSTICE.

I wish I had said it like that the first time. You would have been clear then about what the antecedents of the pronouns were, wouldn't you? Which illustrates that it IS a pronoun issue.

-- Ron

[Ms. Toad]

15. Your next to last paragraph says it all.

That changes what you said by making it a conversation between two groups, instead of telling the group you were addressing to do what we were already doing. I wouldn't have responded (and I suspect the others wouldn't have, as well).

(And no, it's still an audience issue, not a pronoun issue.)

[cry baby]

10. We are talking about justice.

It’s trump that talks law and order.