I strongly believe what is needed in the moment is debate towards good, solid ideas.
So let's get on with that discussion now, without further distraction. Do you think that there is, in broad terms, any proportion of the current police budget that could be spent on other measures with greater effects on reducing crime than current arrangements?
I know the image was big with lots of text. But I posted it because I agreed with it.
You could start with demilitarizing local law enforcement, removing upkeep and replacement costs for paramilitary equipment and training.
Without argument, legalizing drug use and sales to divert funds for policing drug laws to rehabilitation and care for people self-, medicating is high on the list.
A lot of people mocked Cam for bringing up community social workers who respond to help people with mental health needs where the police are currently the ones doing that job. But it's one of the most obvious areas where we are asking law enforcement to wear too many hats.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
I know the image was big with lots of text. But I posted it because I agreed with it.
My apologies - I had not noticed that you were the original poster. I saw it through Gunnar's re-post, and generally found myself nodding as I read it.
That low, low figure of crimes solved by the police (22% of violent crimes. 7% of property crimes) certainly suggests that the increasing amount of money spent on the police is not doing a lot of good.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap: I don’t think you’re wrong on either point. Having a for-profit prison industry that has profit motive to keep prisons full is idiotic. And the health insurance industry is simply a layer of bureaucracy that adds no value to health care. If we’re going to make up jobs to employ people, let’s make up productive ones.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Chap: I don’t think you’re wrong on either point. Having a for-profit prison industry that has profit motive to keep prisons full is idiotic. And the health insurance industry is simply a layer of bureaucracy that adds no value to health care. If we’re going to make up jobs to employ people, let’s make up productive ones.
Yeah, prisons and healthcare are the two shining examples where taking a privatized, profit-motive approach is counterproductive (or overextending the value of capitalistic/free market ideas), because the profit-motive in these industries is in direct conflict with the service they are supposed to be providing.
Insurance companies improve their bottom line by NOT paying for medical services. It's unbelievable to me that so many people don't seem to care about that in the US.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Honor: how many times do I have to say I’m talking about how I think about myself? Me deciding not to nitpick over a slogan is not me stifling debate. We use terms like “free speech” and “democracy” as broad umbrella terms that encompass a broad spectrum of concrete ideas. I don’t see it as different than any other political movement: loud voices at the extremes and more support for more moderate positions.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Honor: how many times do I have to say I’m talking about how I think about myself? Me deciding not to nitpick over a slogan is not me stifling debate. We use terms like “free speech” and “democracy” as broad umbrella terms that encompass a broad spectrum of concrete ideas. I don’t see it as different than any other political movement: loud voices at the extremes and more support for more moderate positions.
Saying, Well I for one am not about to tell people x y z? That's a move to control and direct the discussion. I don't think you're stupid, please don't play like I am with arguments like the above.
As to parallels, I see it more like the "Believe All Women" slogan that inserted into the much needed MeToo. It's interpretation ranged from not ignoring a woman who brought forward claims of sexual harassment or assault all the way to basically saying the claim alone served as judge, jury, and executioner because once made we as a society should just accept it and act on it as true.
I think with some time and more recent examples we can see that provocative messaging combined with extreme interpretations being mainstreamed by friend and foe in place of more considered discussion has resulted in it being weaponized for and against both sides.
I don't know, man. Choosing extreme provacative slogans is self destructive.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Your false accusation is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to stifle my expression of ideas.
See how that works.
What I posted is literally how I think through this particular issue. If you find my description of my thought process so personally threatening that you have to accuse me of being dishonest, why is that? You and I have argued about dozens of topics, during which I’ve talked about how I think about a topic. What is it about this topic that leads you to accuse me of deliberately trying to stifle you ability to express your opinion (which obviously has not happened in the slightest)?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Your false accusation is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to stifle my expression of ideas.
See how that works.
What I posted is literally how I think through this particular issue. If you find my description of my thought process so personally threatening that you have to accuse me of being dishonest, why is that? You and I have argued about dozens of topics, during which I’ve talked about how I think about a topic. What is it about this topic that leads you to accuse me of deliberately trying to stifle you ability to express your opinion (which obviously has not happened in the slightest)?
Ok, we are sideways for no real benefit here.
So I don't accuse you of trying to stifle debate.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
I don't think you can really argue against a slogan that emerges organically and then sticks. We may not think it's the most effective slogan, but it's literally been determined by an implicit vote. It's being widely used.
Sure it could have unintended consequences, the very concerns we've mentioned in this thread, but what's the solution?
Hey organic protest movements all over the country! People... could we workshop that slogan a bit?
We should try to let the emotional steam of the slogan drive us toward the actual policy changes that make practical sense, even if those changes can't be specifically mapped to the slogan itself.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.