Hegelian Dialectic...How the Progressives DID it....SAPs R US

Dialectical method

The Frankfort School reformulated dialectics into a concrete method of investigation, derived from the Hegelian philosophy that an idea will pass over into its own negation, as the result of conflict between the inherently contradictory aspects of the idea.[20] In opposition to previous modes of reasoning, which viewed things in abstraction, each by itself and as though endowed with fixed properties, Hegelian dialectics considers ideas according to their movement and change in time, according to their interrelations and interactions.[20]

In Hegel's perspective, human history proceeds and evolves in a dialectical manner: the present embodies the rational Aufheben (sublation), the synthesis of past contradictions. It is an intelligible process of human activity, the Weltgeist, which is the Idea of Progress towards a specific human condition – the realization of human freedom through rationality.[21] However, the Problem of future contingents (considerations about the future) did not interest Hegel,[22][23] for whom philosophy cannot be prescriptive and normative, because philosophy understands only in hindsight. The study of history is limited to descriptions of past and present human realities.[21] For Hegel and his successors (the Right Hegelians), dialectics inevitably lead to approval of the status quo – as such, dialectical philosophy justifies the bases of Christian theology and of the Prussian state.

Karl Marx and the Young Hegelians strongly criticized that perspective; Hegel had over-reached in his abstract conception of "absolute Reason" and had failed to notice the "real"— i.e. undesirable and irrational – life conditions of the proletariat. Marx inverted Hegel's idealist dialectics and advanced his own theory of dialectical materialism, arguing that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but that their social being that determines their consciousness."[24] Marx's theory follows a materialist conception of history and geographic space,[25] where the development of the productive forces is the primary motive force for historical change. The social and material contradictions inherent to capitalism lead to its negation – thereby replacing capitalism with Communism, a new, rational form of society.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

I don't think you've understood it.

It's more like:

Thesis: George Floyd's death highlights the need to defund and reform the more toxic implementations of law enforcement.

Antithesis: the crap you believe. The police are the thin blue line against law and order, they are accountable enough for their actions as things stand, etc etc. Your argument against the thesis goes here.

The synthesis is then the conclusion you draw from the discussion having learned and critically analyzed both sides, usually but not always reaching a compromise.

It is NOT an action plan in Phase 1/Phase 2/Phase 3 format. You have just not understood what this is, at all - that's just nonsense; what you're doing here is not a dialectal thing.

Softly: dude, you just trashed your own username.

The hell is wrong with your reading comprehension? Finish school. I was trashing what his antithetical arguments would have been, not the concept of an antithesis itself, for all the difference it makes.

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. You defined antithesis as "the crap you believe." That also happens to be your username. Surely the school that you attended did not teach that words have only one definition?

Yes there is: "It's more like" means "here is a better example of" not "we define these terms as follows".

READ! IT IS GOOD FOR YOU!

interpretation....half full, half empty....what's up, what's down...when twisted straight looks crooked...

No. You made a mistake. No two ways about it.

Actually what's garbage is this arrogant mindset that facts can be discerned through nothing more than a narcissist intuition without any facts being brought into the discussion at all not to rain on this fact-free discussion or anything but it's at best anemic on anything resembling fact-based data driven Exchange of ideas in True Hegelian Form so at least you delusional types from the Frankfort School are consistent

Deadbox will never understand that his thesis and antithesis are of the same side, thus leaving his agenda off the example as though it's pure and correct. Clearly a Trumpet (good at drowning out other instruments, bad at everything else) The dialectic provides a theory that there is no red there is no blue. Those colors are required as a means to confuse the people, keeping us divided, allowing the few in power to attain further ownership of our freedoms, our happiness, and our sanity. Cliffnotes...

What purple wants -> what blue says -> what red says -> what purple recieves ( and what we lose)

Dialectics themselves aren't evil, though they may be used to such ends. In fact, dialectics can be a very useful tool for anybody. I don't see how George Floyd's death juxtaposed with the Defund the Police movement leads only to the synthesis of Delegitimization of America. I'm not saying it couldn't happen that way, just that it isn't inevitable.

Because you are taking a limited view.
You need to take into account what happens if you defund the police. No matter how corrupt, they still uphold the basic law most of the time. What happens when no laws are upheld?
Answer: chaos and crime running rampant. Government calling in another group to enforce the law, UN white hats. Who are taken from many different countries with different values and no clue what the law is here.

I admit that what the OP is suggesting is possible, I just don't think it is a guaranteed outcome. Totally defunded police departments nationwide? All 15,400 of them? The cities perhaps, but rural locations are unlikely to allow it, funding depts themselves if need be. And I think that you are more likely to local militias than UN. Also, the thesis and antithesis do not seem contradictory to me. Rather than contradicting, the former would seem to justify the latter -- according to the progressive left extremists.

An amusing thought just occurred to me. If I am taking a limited view, is the OP taking an expansive view? What is the synthesis of the two....😁

They would call in the national guard and when that is not enough they would call in the UN, whom they have treaties with. They would never call on local militias whom they cannot control.