It means when granny calls 911 because she thinks her dead husband is haunting her toaster you send a social worker. You buff up social services and reduce the militarized police. Police respond with violence. When your a hammer everything looks like a nail. Police are overstressed responding to stray dogs and everything else in some places.
Is this really the problem though? When, in any of these wrongful killings would a social worker have been called? Floyd was accused of using counterfeit currency. Other incidents happened in traffic stops.
None of the parts of policing that actually matter are being served by what police spent MOST of their day doing, which is harassing minority and poor neighborhoods with charges and fines on petty bullshit, sitting at speed traps for hours at a time with a radar gun and a watchful eye for seat-belt usage, or running random license plates to see if they can funnel more money into the municipality they WORK for (because most often, they don't LIVE there, which makes them little more than mercenaries). This isn't even getting into the horrific physical and mental abuse we have seen them rain down on people the last month.
Some of what you said I agree with, but I want to push back on one thing. Sitting at speed traps is a good thing! And it's one of the most important life-saving work a state police force can actually conduct. Traffic accidents cause tens of thousands of deaths every year. In fact, it's probably the number one non-disease related cause of death every year, by a decent margin.
Some of that is safer vehicles, safer design of roads, intersections. But some of that is enforcement, for example drunk driving enforcement became much tougher.
Never thought this would happen, but seriously?! Abolish the police? Not to call people out but...
...
Fix it, change it, do whatever it needs to make it better but the human race is not yet evolved enough to let them do whatever they want. It will too often end up with one person violating another, in whatever way you wish to name.
Much of this is well said. The state monopoly on legitimate use of force is a good thing. It's as fundamental to a healthy society as the right to vote. Even putting aside the specter of evil criminals, a world without police, or a much reduced police force, is a world filled with private security firms, barbed wire around every buildings, and even deeper segregation between the rich and the poor. It's not a more progressive world.
I don't doubt that some police departments have become corrupt in a deep way and maybe need to be totally rebuilt. But you're not going to attract high quality individuals to the job with meager salaries, the opposite in fact. And salaries are by far the biggest expense within police departments.
I'd also add that I think people are maybe enjoying a period of time in US history where violent crime is low. Homicides have been roughly cut in half from where they were in the 80s and 90s. Also perhaps a sign that the police aren't totally ineffective as some are claiming.
It means when granny calls 911 because she thinks her dead husband is haunting her toaster you send a social worker. You buff up social services and reduce the militarized police. Police respond with violence. When your a hammer everything looks like a nail. Police are overstressed responding to stray dogs and everything else in some places.
Is this really the problem though? When, in any of these wrongful killings would a social worker have been called? Floyd was accused of using counterfeit currency. Other incidents happened in traffic stops.
Atiana Jefferson was an example of a welfare call gone horribly wrong. Her neighbor made a non emergency call because her front door was open.
There have been three incidents in Canada within the space of a week where wellness checks have resulted in deaths.
None of the parts of policing that actually matter are being served by what police spent MOST of their day doing, which is harassing minority and poor neighborhoods with charges and fines on petty bullshit, sitting at speed traps for hours at a time with a radar gun and a watchful eye for seat-belt usage, or running random license plates to see if they can funnel more money into the municipality they WORK for (because most often, they don't LIVE there, which makes them little more than mercenaries). This isn't even getting into the horrific physical and mental abuse we have seen them rain down on people the last month.
Some of what you said I agree with, but I want to push back on one thing. Sitting at speed traps is a good thing! And it's one of the most important life-saving work a state police force can actually conduct. Traffic accidents cause tens of thousands of deaths every year. In fact, it's probably the number one non-disease related cause of death every year, by a decent margin.
Some of that is safer vehicles, safer design of roads, intersections. But some of that is enforcement, for example drunk driving enforcement became much tougher.
Note how a person who can think for themselves responds. Pay particular attention to the “Some of what you say I agree with” part. I am good with that, even if someone disagrees with me, which I don’t think is happening there. Talking to anyone who can’t be open minded is like talking to a wall, if I am being honest here, I have better things to with my time. Teaching a frog how to do taxes, counting every blade of grass on my lawn, try to lasso a cloud, you know, the important things.
It means when granny calls 911 because she thinks her dead husband is haunting her toaster you send a social worker. You buff up social services and reduce the militarized police. Police respond with violence. When your a hammer everything looks like a nail. Police are overstressed responding to stray dogs and everything else in some places.
Is this really the problem though? When, in any of these wrongful killings would a social worker have been called? Floyd was accused of using counterfeit currency. Other incidents happened in traffic stops.
Atiana Jefferson was an example of a welfare call gone horribly wrong. Her neighbor made a non emergency call because her front door was open.
There have been three incidents in Canada within the space of a week where wellness checks have resulted in deaths.
This case is close, but the neighbor called because a front door had been left open. I'm not sure that's a case a social worker would respond to -- it could have been a possible break-in, not a situation you send a social worker to. The case does highlight the seeming lack of training many officers have and the unfortunate readiness to use deadly force. I'd say the Floyd case shows that as well, I don't think the officers believed they were killing him.
It means when granny calls 911 because she thinks her dead husband is haunting her toaster you send a social worker. You buff up social services and reduce the militarized police. Police respond with violence. When your a hammer everything looks like a nail. Police are overstressed responding to stray dogs and everything else in some places.
Is this really the problem though? When, in any of these wrongful killings would a social worker have been called? Floyd was accused of using counterfeit currency. Other incidents happened in traffic stops.
Atiana Jefferson was an example of a welfare call gone horribly wrong. Her neighbor made a non emergency call because her front door was open.
There have been three incidents in Canada within the space of a week where wellness checks have resulted in deaths.
This case is close, but the neighbor called because a front door had been left open. I'm not sure that's a case a social worker would respond to -- it could have been a possible break-in, not a situation you send a social worker to. The case does highlight the seeming lack of training many officers have and the unfortunate readiness to use deadly force. I'd say the Floyd case shows that as well, I don't think the officers believed they were killing him.
It was a non emergency call, though.The neighbor who called it in didn't seem to think that it was anything particularly threatening.
In that particular instance, having a social worker on hand to at least initiate contact might have prevented things from escalating. Had the social worker determined that a crime was taking place, then the cops could have stepped in.
It certainly beats entering through the backyard without identifying one's self and opening fire as soon as someone appears in the window.
It means when granny calls 911 because she thinks her dead husband is haunting her toaster you send a social worker. You buff up social services and reduce the militarized police. Police respond with violence. When your a hammer everything looks like a nail. Police are overstressed responding to stray dogs and everything else in some places.
Is this really the problem though? When, in any of these wrongful killings would a social worker have been called? Floyd was accused of using counterfeit currency. Other incidents happened in traffic stops.
Would sending social workers instead of or at minimum with cops solve everything? No of course not. But it might be a tangible improvement. There is a time and place for cops, but right now they are a crutch for too many situations and totally unaccountable. They can get away with murder. Something's got to give.
[quote="DinoDin;c-1136525"I don't doubt that some police departments have become corrupt in a deep way and maybe need to be totally rebuilt. But you're not going to attract high quality individuals to the job with meager salaries, the opposite in fact. And salaries are by far the biggest expense within police departments.[/quote]
Ugh. I hate this argument and there is no proof that just paying a person more prevents them from being corrupt nor prove that it attracts better candidates. It takes one personality trait, greediness, and makes it trump every other trait that might be important to do the job properly.
Salaries do not attract a person to a job. A person should want to become a police officer because of their desire to serve and protect their community. A reasonable salary will keep a majority of these people employed while higher end security firms may pry one or two away with better pay but not an entire force.
I am also not saying “pay cops minimum wage.” A community should know what it’s cost of living is. A slight increase to that for police just entering the force should be a reasonable starting point for salaries.
Ugh. I hate this argument and there is no proof that just paying a person more prevents them from being corrupt nor prove that it attracts better candidates. It takes one personality trait, greediness, and makes it trump every other trait that might be important to do the job properly.
Salaries do not attract a person to a job. A person should want to become a police officer because of their desire to serve and protect their community. A reasonable salary will keep a majority of these people employed while higher end security firms may pry one or two away with better pay but not an entire force.
I am also not saying “pay cops minimum wage.” A community should know what it’s cost of living is. A slight increase to that for police just entering the force should be a reasonable starting point for salaries.
Paying people well to do a job that requires a high degree of training is something we do in every other field. And what people want, it seems, are better trained police officers. So I don't see how we get there by disregarding the logic of how we attract high caliber people in every other walk of life.
"A person should want to become a police officer because..." sounds great but frankly it's meaningless from a point of practical policy. A number of the controversial killings aren't because the officers involved were bullies, some are. But many cases are because the officers got scared and are poorly trained. No amount of good intentions is going to change that. Moreover, there's no good way to test if our officers have these good intentions you're talking about. So frankly, that kind of litmus test is just a terrible standard to concern ourselves with.
Again, personnel is the biggest expense of really any labor in our society. But especially of highly-skilled labor. If we want a bunch high-skilled officers, we'll need training programs staffed by good people as well. None of this stuff, to me, seems consonant with defunding the police.
Ugh. I hate this argument and there is no proof that just paying a person more prevents them from being corrupt nor prove that it attracts better candidates. It takes one personality trait, greediness, and makes it trump every other trait that might be important to do the job properly.
Salaries do not attract a person to a job. A person should want to become a police officer because of their desire to serve and protect their community. A reasonable salary will keep a majority of these people employed while higher end security firms may pry one or two away with better pay but not an entire force.
I am also not saying “pay cops minimum wage.” A community should know what it’s cost of living is. A slight increase to that for police just entering the force should be a reasonable starting point for salaries.
Paying people well to do a job that requires a high degree of training is something we do in every other field. And what people want, it seems, are better trained police officers. So I don't see how we get there by disregarding the logic of how we attract high caliber people in every other walk of life.
"A person should want to become a police officer because..." sounds great but frankly it's meaningless from a point of practical policy. A number of the controversial killings aren't because the officers involved were bullies, some are. But many cases are because the officers got scared and are poorly trained. No amount of good intentions is going to change that. Moreover, there's no good way to test if our officers have these good intentions you're talking about. So frankly, that kind of litmus test is just a terrible standard to concern ourselves with.
Again, personnel is the biggest expense of really any labor in our society. But especially of highly-skilled labor. If we want a bunch high-skilled officers, we'll need training programs staffed by good people as well. None of this stuff, to me, seems consonant with defunding the police.
Proper training does not equal salary. If it did, Teachers would have a higher starting salary than Police Officers and Fire Fighters would be on par with officers. None of this is true. These are mostly higher paying jobs for one reason: Unions, as a job such as Pharmacy Technician, which also requires a high degree of training, would also be on par with the three listed above.
And defunding the police, once again has nothing to do with completely scrapping a police department. It has to do with restructuring. Instead of 500 cops, have 450 cops with 50 social workers varying in different specialities. It has to do with taking part of their bloated budget and using it for other social means like this Ben and Jerry's cartoon suggests. Note one of the 'scoops' is for training.
Again, personnel is the biggest expense of really any labor in our society. But especially of highly-skilled labor. If we want a bunch high-skilled officers, we'll need training programs staffed by good people as well. None of this stuff, to me, seems consonant with defunding the police.
I dont disagree with a lot of what you've said, but I do think it is somewhat contradictory. You mainly seem to be putting forward the thesis that better training and funding would improve policing by improving how well they can do their job. I dont think that's at odds with "defund the police" necessarily. Defunding the police is about taking a series of responsibilities that are currently expected of the police and transfering those responsibilities to other organizations.
So rather than spending time training a police officer to both be effective in a live shooting situation at a school and be effective at wellfare calls/dealing with issues of public intoxication, you're only training them for the former. They'll be more specialized and more effective in dealing with that situation than they will be if we ask them to deal with everything (By specializing them, they'll be better trained).
So "defund the police", at its core, is looking to ensure that cops are more specialized and therefore more well trained to deal with a particular set of issues rather than being expected to deal with a myriad of issues for which they are perpetually going to be inadequately trained.
To use a hypothetical: It wouldnt make a lot of sense to expect a police officer to be a fire fighter. They're two different skill sets. I'm sure plenty of police officers are volunteer fire fighters, but I dont want to conflate those organizations. By keeping them separate, they are able to specialize in their own responsibilities.
We are back to having a serious COVID-19 problem. Not that we ever HAVEN'T been at that point, but we now have a couple straight days of being back at 30,000+ cases. This has not happened for awhile. Arizona, Texas, and Florida have serious problems coming. There have been some preliminary studies done on the effect the protests may have had. So far, protesters are testing positive at a rate that is less than that of the general population. Based on what we know so far, the fact that the vast majority of them were wearing masks and were outside mitigated the risk. The REAL risk was reopening indoor businesses, which these 3 states did, despite warning after warning after warning. Arizona is now at 90% ICU capacity. Parts of Texas and Florida are now at over 80%.
Meanwhile, this is where we're at from a leadership perspective:
Understand that what he is saying here is functionally NO DIFFERENT than saying as long as someone who is pregnant doesn't take a pregnancy test, they aren't really pregnant and won't have a baby. At least 40% of voters are going to pull the lever for this kind of thinking. That explains why we are where we are better than anything.
I get what you guys are saying and I don't think we're terribly at odds. Two things need to be said though. One is that above, someone did call for abolishing the police. That needs to be pushed back on. Second, another called for removing a pretty core responsibility of the police imo (speeding violations).
Thirdly, I don't think y'all need to defend the language of "defund the police". In fact, you should abandon it. Personally, I'm not sure the eventual solution to the issue of policing involves police departments getting less money in the long run. Or even staffing fewer officers. There's not actually evidence that this is true. In fact, there are some international studies that indicate fewer employees within the criminal justice system actually leads to more crime and fewer solved cases. For example, I think "defund the police" arguers on here are probably in favor of more resources spent on murder investigations than say, street policing. But hiring effective homicide detectives and training them isn't going to be cheap! That's high level work on par with an engineer or a doctor. Training, also, is going to be an ongoing personnel issue. You have to hire effective trainers and constantly update training. It's not a one-time investment.
And again, I don't think the social worker instead of police is going to work for alot of the issues we're seeing. Social workers already have very difficult jobs. I don't like the idea of tossing more responsibility on them. And, very very few of the controversial killings have been cases where their intervention would have happened. It seems like a bit of a red herring to throw into the discussion. "Defund the police" implies that fewer resources to police departments is going to be the benchmark for success. But there's not good evidence that this is true. The problem of policing in black neighborhoods is a combination of the obvious over policing we're all cognizant of, but it's also an under-policing, of the high-level, investigative quality I'm talking about. "Defund the police" doesn't make room for tackling the problem in that way. It's also simply Orwellian to insist on "Defund the police" and then tell me that it doesn't preclude the police possibly getting more net resources.
Lastly, "Defund the police" is a loser in polling. It isn't even popular among black Americans.
It is semantics at this point. "Defund the Police" really should be read as "Restructure how municipalities allocate funds directed at preventing crimes."
Police are not the only resource available at preventing crimes. They are also a reactionary measure instead of a preventive measure. You call the police while or after a crime is/was being committed. If you can apply resources to prevent why people are committing crimes to begin with, then less crimes would be committed in the long run.
Regardless, the status quo isn't working. It has never worked to be honest. Something needs to change or 6 months from now we'll have another cell phone video of another person's death at the hands of another police officer and we'll be having the same conversation we've been having since before Rodney King, which is now 30 years ago.
Hmm... I disagree that the status quo isn't working. Again, people need to check how much violent crime has declined from its highs in the 80s and 90s. The idea that our criminal justice system is a complete failure falls apart with even a cursory look at the overall crime numbers over time. That doesn't preclude reform. But it can be true that the police have been both 1. racially biased and 2. somewhat effective at reducing crime rates.
Edit to add: Also disagree that the police are purely reactionary. Again, the simple example of traffic violations. Yes the work of police enforcing traffic laws is reactionary. But their presence is unarguably preventative. A similar dynamic exists in other police work. I think some folks are sinking into a black & white thinking on this issue, which, frankly is often the province of extreme anti-government conservatives and libertarians.
It is semantics at this point. "Defund the Police" really should be read as "Restructure how municipalities allocate funds directed at preventing crimes."
Yeah, because that rolls right off the tongues of the average American. Again, Liberals need to study psychology. Sorry, but it should be a prerequisite to liberal studies...
The branding of "you're evil if you don't agree with me" is doomed to failure in this country. I'm conservative, and a scientist and can agree with a lot of the liberal base to some degree. However, being raised conservative, I can empathise with how they think as well. CNN and their like are not helping by demonizing conservatives. Likewise Fox News and their belittling of the liberals. There is a middle-ground where rationality can prevail, but our polarization makes it almost impossible. There has to be a way to de-polarize thinking on purely scientific subjects, but that would take both sides deciding that there are some subjects that transcend politics. Without some kind of meeting the opponents in the middle, that will never happen. In the USA, it's becoming whoever has control right now gets their way and fuck the opponents. It's really sad...
I do still thing we have some rather large disagreements, but I am content knowing that we at least understand each other's points.
I will posit that I bet we are not at or near some tipping point in which a smaller police force may end up causing more corruption (if that is indeed the case. I havent seen any evidence to support or refute the idea, so I'm not knowledgeable about it).
I also personally wouldnt argue that the status quo is "working" at the moment, despite a reduction in violent crimes. That's certainly once metric to use, but there seem to be a plethora - and as long as there is a strong and obvious bias of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, I wouldnt consider it to be working.
Anyways - I'm trying not to come off as argumentative here, just reflecting on my initial opinions to what is being said.
It is semantics at this point. "Defund the Police" really should be read as "Restructure how municipalities allocate funds directed at preventing crimes."
Yeah, because that rolls right off the tongues of the average American. Again, Liberals need to study psychology. Sorry, but it should be a prerequisite to liberal studies...
I dont know about psychology, but I agree it's pretty awful branding...
I do still thing we have some rather large disagreements, but I am content knowing that we at least understand each other's points.
I will posit that I bet we are not at or near some tipping point in which a smaller police force may end up causing more corruption (if that is indeed the case. I havent seen any evidence to support or refute the idea, so I'm not knowledgeable about it).
I also personally wouldnt argue that the status quo is "working" at the moment, despite a reduction in violent crimes. That's certainly once metric to use, but there seem to be a plethora - and as long as there is a strong and obvious bias of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, I wouldnt consider it to be working.
Anyways - I'm trying not to come off as argumentative here, just reflecting on my initial opinions to what is being said.
It is semantics at this point. "Defund the Police" really should be read as "Restructure how municipalities allocate funds directed at preventing crimes."
Yeah, because that rolls right off the tongues of the average American. Again, Liberals need to study psychology. Sorry, but it should be a prerequisite to liberal studies...
I dont know about psychology, but I agree it's pretty awful branding...
You actually come across to me as being pretty rational about the situation. I'm not generally one of the more popular viewpoints in this thread though, so take that with a grain of salt...
I do still thing we have some rather large disagreements, but I am content knowing that we at least understand each other's points.
I will posit that I bet we are not at or near some tipping point in which a smaller police force may end up causing more corruption (if that is indeed the case. I havent seen any evidence to support or refute the idea, so I'm not knowledgeable about it).
I also personally wouldnt argue that the status quo is "working" at the moment, despite a reduction in violent crimes. That's certainly once metric to use, but there seem to be a plethora - and as long as there is a strong and obvious bias of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, I wouldnt consider it to be working.
Anyways - I'm trying not to come off as argumentative here, just reflecting on my initial opinions to what is being said.
It is semantics at this point. "Defund the Police" really should be read as "Restructure how municipalities allocate funds directed at preventing crimes."
Yeah, because that rolls right off the tongues of the average American. Again, Liberals need to study psychology. Sorry, but it should be a prerequisite to liberal studies...
I dont know about psychology, but I agree it's pretty awful branding...
You actually come across to me as being pretty rational about the situation. I'm not generally one of the more popular viewpoints in this thread though, so take that with a grain of salt...
Thanks - I appreciate that.
Let me ask you a question about that last post you made, because I'm not sure I understand where it is coming from. I'll quote it real quick
The branding of "you're evil if you don't agree with me" is doomed to failure in this country. I'm conservative, and a scientist and can agree with a lot of the liberal base to some degree. However, being raised conservative, I can empathise with how they think as well. CNN and their like are not helping by demonizing conservatives. Likewise Fox News and their belittling of the liberals. There is a middle-ground where rationality can prevail, but our polarization makes it almost impossible. There has to be a way to de-polarize thinking on purely scientific subjects, but that would take both sides deciding that there are some subjects that transcend politics. Without some kind of meeting the opponents in the middle, that will never happen. In the USA, it's becoming whoever has control right now gets their way and fuck the opponents. It's really sad...
First - I do just in general agree that we are too polarized, and would love for more scientific arguments to be used to determine policy (Some of the time, at least. More than it currently is. Maybe a lot more).
My question is: Where did you get the "evil if you dont agree with me" vibe from that article? I'll readily admit that CNN is center left and very (very) anti Trump - but aside from calling him out on on the voter fraud thing (I think they're right. Scientifically - there's no evidence to support his argument) and referencing (accurately, I think?) that he's made the mask wearing thing political - what was anti-conservative?
I do still thing we have some rather large disagreements, but I am content knowing that we at least understand each other's points.
I will posit that I bet we are not at or near some tipping point in which a smaller police force may end up causing more corruption (if that is indeed the case. I havent seen any evidence to support or refute the idea, so I'm not knowledgeable about it).
I also personally wouldnt argue that the status quo is "working" at the moment, despite a reduction in violent crimes. That's certainly once metric to use, but there seem to be a plethora - and as long as there is a strong and obvious bias of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, I wouldnt consider it to be working.
Anyways - I'm trying not to come off as argumentative here, just reflecting on my initial opinions to what is being said.
It is semantics at this point. "Defund the Police" really should be read as "Restructure how municipalities allocate funds directed at preventing crimes."
Yeah, because that rolls right off the tongues of the average American. Again, Liberals need to study psychology. Sorry, but it should be a prerequisite to liberal studies...
I dont know about psychology, but I agree it's pretty awful branding...
You actually come across to me as being pretty rational about the situation. I'm not generally one of the more popular viewpoints in this thread though, so take that with a grain of salt...
Thanks - I appreciate that.
Let me ask you a question about that last post you made, because I'm not sure I understand where it is coming from. I'll quote it real quick
The branding of "you're evil if you don't agree with me" is doomed to failure in this country. I'm conservative, and a scientist and can agree with a lot of the liberal base to some degree. However, being raised conservative, I can empathise with how they think as well. CNN and their like are not helping by demonizing conservatives. Likewise Fox News and their belittling of the liberals. There is a middle-ground where rationality can prevail, but our polarization makes it almost impossible. There has to be a way to de-polarize thinking on purely scientific subjects, but that would take both sides deciding that there are some subjects that transcend politics. Without some kind of meeting the opponents in the middle, that will never happen. In the USA, it's becoming whoever has control right now gets their way and fuck the opponents. It's really sad...
First - I do just in general agree that we are too polarized, and would love for more scientific arguments to be used to determine policy (Some of the time, at least. More than it currently is. Maybe a lot more).
My question is: Where did you get the "evil if you dont agree with me" vibe from that article? I'll readily admit that CNN is center left and very (very) anti Trump - but aside from calling him out on on the voter fraud thing (I think they're right. Scientifically - there's no evidence to support his argument) and referencing (accurately, I think?) that he's made the mask wearing thing political - what was anti-conservative?
By demonizing Trump in general, CNN misses any chance of reaching his base. That's great from their point of view of solidifying their viewership, but it falls flat as far as reaching anybody else. I watch CNN, they preach to the choir just like Fox News. Nobody preaches to the people in the middle that I can see (other than maybe Reuters and Politico but they only appeal to people who give a shit about politics).
A media outlet that only focuses on facts would be very refreshing. Unfortunately, without hyperbole, conspiracy theory and/or emotional manipulation, I'm not sure anybody but me would watch...
I mean, I'm sorry, but only one side is taking their position on masks because they are trying to make a political point. I don't wear my mask to say "I hate Trump", I wear it for the reasons which are patently obvious. I don't think anyone is WEARING a mask as a political statement. However, many people are NOT wearing them as a political statement. And we all know why that is. I don't think it helps to pretend otherwise. Trump has signaled they are a "weakness". Masks being prevelant in public also reminds people that COVID-19 is, and always was, very real, very bad, and very, VERY mismanaged. Which those same mask opponents denied for about two months, before shifting to other reasonings when the "hoax" bullshit became untenable. Again, this issue has been politicized by the Trump base, no one else.
Their guy fucked up in a historic way, and they can't handle it. For christ sakes, he is arguing we should be doing LESS testing even now, on June 23, when cases are surging. Wearing a mask would be admitting the god emperor has no clothes, and that they were dead wrong about "just the flu". And the venn diagram of gadsen flag waving mask opponents and people who used that as their personal mantra for all of March is a perfect fucking circle. They're being asked to wear a mask in grocery store, not house British soliders in their guest room.
The thing I love about this thread is that there are multiple viewpoints and it's generally friendly. Most media outlets have shut down their forums because of trolls. There have been a fair amount of posters banned over the years (and I have objected to many of the bannings to no avail) but I'm not a moderator so I'm not privy to the specifics of why they were banned. I've actually been warned a few times myself when debates have gotten heated. Personally, I find posting here pretty safe and cathartic and I hope most others do as well...
Edit: And I missed it when it was shut down for almost 3 weeks a while ago.
I mean, I'm sorry, but only one side is taking their position on masks because they are trying to make a political point. I don't wear my mask to say "I hate Trump", I wear it for the reasons which are patently obvious. I don't think anyone is WEARING a mask as a political statement. However, many people are NOT wearing them as a political statement. And we all know why that is. I don't think it helps to pretend otherwise. Trump has signaled they are a "weakness". Masks being prevelant in public also reminds people that COVID-19 is, and always was, very real, very bad, and very, VERY mismanaged. Which those same mask opponents denied for about two months, before shifting to other reasonings when the "hoax" bullshit became untenable. Again, this issue has been politicized by the Trump base, no one else.
Their guy fucked up in a historic way, and they can't handle it. For christ sakes, he is arguing we should be doing LESS testing even now, on June 23, when cases are surging. Wearing a mask would be admitting the god emperor has no clothes, and that they were dead wrong about "just the flu". And the venn diagram of gadsen flag waving mask opponents and people who used that as their personal mantra for all of March is a perfect fucking circle. They're being asked to wear a mask in grocery store, not house British soliders in their guest room.
This is the main reason I won't be voting for Trump in the next election. Biden will have to somehow earn my vote, but Trump has lost it.
I mean, I'm sorry, but only one side is taking their position on masks because they are trying to make a political point. I don't wear my mask to say "I hate Trump", I wear it for the reasons which are patently obvious. I don't think anyone is WEARING a mask as a political statement. However, many people are NOT wearing them as a political statement. And we all know why that is. I don't think it helps to pretend otherwise. Trump has signaled they are a "weakness". Masks being prevelant in public also reminds people that COVID-19 is, and always was, very real, very bad, and very, VERY mismanaged. Which those same mask opponents denied for about two months, before shifting to other reasonings when the "hoax" bullshit became untenable. Again, this issue has been politicized by the Trump base, no one else.
Their guy fucked up in a historic way, and they can't handle it. For christ sakes, he is arguing we should be doing LESS testing even now, on June 23, when cases are surging. Wearing a mask would be admitting the god emperor has no clothes, and that they were dead wrong about "just the flu". And the venn diagram of gadsen flag waving mask opponents and people who used that as their personal mantra for all of March is a perfect fucking circle. They're being asked to wear a mask in grocery store, not house British soliders in their guest room.
This is the main reason I won't be voting for Trump in the next election. Biden will have to somehow earn my vote, but Trump has lost it.
I'm not saying there arent liberals who don't wear masks, or that there aren't TONS of conservatives who are. But the specific political aspect of it that has been weaponized (stupidly, mind you) has been done so by Trump. And I can't fathom why this is the fight he has picked. Though I don't like Joe Scarborough much as I don't really trust former Republican Congressman on my so-called "liberal" channel (MSNBC), he is dead on about one thing. Trump has decided to not run against Biden, but to run against the pandemic. And he can't win that battle.
BTW, I wear a mask in public so I don't have to worry about the remote chance I might infect somebody else. It's not a FU to Trump or a Hell yeah to Biden. It's just common courtesy and basic human decency. It doesn't cost me anything either...
BTW, I wear a mask in public so I don't have to worry about the remote chance I might infect somebody else. It's not a FU to Trump or a Hell yeah to Biden. It's just common courtesy and basic human decency. It doesn't cost me anything either...
You might find this worth your time. The host, Kyle, HATES Biden for being too centrist, and has a solid grasp about what eeked Trump over the finish-line in 2016 and why he's losing right now:
Sometimes I think Americans need to take a look outside their country on some issues. Mask wearing is definitely one of those. People didn't start wearing masks in other countries because of some political statement. And the evidence, so far, indicates their use has been helpful.
I think some American conservatives especially would do well to practice this on issues that have a scientific basis. Climate change isn't politically controversial in most other countries. Mask wearing isn't politically controversial in most other countries. The reason these became politically controversial in the US, is because of conservatives. I think it's quite accurate for a news outlet to lay the blame on leaders of that movement for stoking controversy when there isn't one.
@jjstraka34
I would feel much better about Trump not being elected again if the Dems had picked Sanders rather than Biden. Sorry, I was totally ready to vote for Bernie as the outsider on the other side of the spectrum. Maybe I just like outsiders, but I'm not the only one. I'm quite sure most, if not all, of the liberals in this forum would have voted for Bernie. A fair amount of conservatives on this forum also leaned his way. I think a historic election might have been sunk by the DNC. Just sayin'...
Comments
Is this really the problem though? When, in any of these wrongful killings would a social worker have been called? Floyd was accused of using counterfeit currency. Other incidents happened in traffic stops.
Some of what you said I agree with, but I want to push back on one thing. Sitting at speed traps is a good thing! And it's one of the most important life-saving work a state police force can actually conduct. Traffic accidents cause tens of thousands of deaths every year. In fact, it's probably the number one non-disease related cause of death every year, by a decent margin.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/traffic-deaths-in-u-s-exceed-40-000-for-third-straight-year (40,000+ in 2016, 17 and 18)
It's boring, unsexy, unheroic work. But it's important. And it's worked, despite increasing numbers of vehicles on the road every year, per mile number of deaths has dropped over time. As this chart shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png
Some of that is safer vehicles, safer design of roads, intersections. But some of that is enforcement, for example drunk driving enforcement became much tougher.
Much of this is well said. The state monopoly on legitimate use of force is a good thing. It's as fundamental to a healthy society as the right to vote. Even putting aside the specter of evil criminals, a world without police, or a much reduced police force, is a world filled with private security firms, barbed wire around every buildings, and even deeper segregation between the rich and the poor. It's not a more progressive world.
I don't doubt that some police departments have become corrupt in a deep way and maybe need to be totally rebuilt. But you're not going to attract high quality individuals to the job with meager salaries, the opposite in fact. And salaries are by far the biggest expense within police departments.
I'd also add that I think people are maybe enjoying a period of time in US history where violent crime is low. Homicides have been roughly cut in half from where they were in the 80s and 90s. Also perhaps a sign that the police aren't totally ineffective as some are claiming.
Atiana Jefferson was an example of a welfare call gone horribly wrong. Her neighbor made a non emergency call because her front door was open.
There have been three incidents in Canada within the space of a week where wellness checks have resulted in deaths.
Note how a person who can think for themselves responds. Pay particular attention to the “Some of what you say I agree with” part. I am good with that, even if someone disagrees with me, which I don’t think is happening there. Talking to anyone who can’t be open minded is like talking to a wall, if I am being honest here, I have better things to with my time. Teaching a frog how to do taxes, counting every blade of grass on my lawn, try to lasso a cloud, you know, the important things.
This case is close, but the neighbor called because a front door had been left open. I'm not sure that's a case a social worker would respond to -- it could have been a possible break-in, not a situation you send a social worker to. The case does highlight the seeming lack of training many officers have and the unfortunate readiness to use deadly force. I'd say the Floyd case shows that as well, I don't think the officers believed they were killing him.
It was a non emergency call, though.The neighbor who called it in didn't seem to think that it was anything particularly threatening.
In that particular instance, having a social worker on hand to at least initiate contact might have prevented things from escalating. Had the social worker determined that a crime was taking place, then the cops could have stepped in.
It certainly beats entering through the backyard without identifying one's self and opening fire as soon as someone appears in the window.
Would sending social workers instead of or at minimum with cops solve everything? No of course not. But it might be a tangible improvement. There is a time and place for cops, but right now they are a crutch for too many situations and totally unaccountable. They can get away with murder. Something's got to give.
Ugh. I hate this argument and there is no proof that just paying a person more prevents them from being corrupt nor prove that it attracts better candidates. It takes one personality trait, greediness, and makes it trump every other trait that might be important to do the job properly.
Salaries do not attract a person to a job. A person should want to become a police officer because of their desire to serve and protect their community. A reasonable salary will keep a majority of these people employed while higher end security firms may pry one or two away with better pay but not an entire force.
I am also not saying “pay cops minimum wage.” A community should know what it’s cost of living is. A slight increase to that for police just entering the force should be a reasonable starting point for salaries.
Paying people well to do a job that requires a high degree of training is something we do in every other field. And what people want, it seems, are better trained police officers. So I don't see how we get there by disregarding the logic of how we attract high caliber people in every other walk of life.
"A person should want to become a police officer because..." sounds great but frankly it's meaningless from a point of practical policy. A number of the controversial killings aren't because the officers involved were bullies, some are. But many cases are because the officers got scared and are poorly trained. No amount of good intentions is going to change that. Moreover, there's no good way to test if our officers have these good intentions you're talking about. So frankly, that kind of litmus test is just a terrible standard to concern ourselves with.
Again, personnel is the biggest expense of really any labor in our society. But especially of highly-skilled labor. If we want a bunch high-skilled officers, we'll need training programs staffed by good people as well. None of this stuff, to me, seems consonant with defunding the police.
Proper training does not equal salary. If it did, Teachers would have a higher starting salary than Police Officers and Fire Fighters would be on par with officers. None of this is true. These are mostly higher paying jobs for one reason: Unions, as a job such as Pharmacy Technician, which also requires a high degree of training, would also be on par with the three listed above.
And defunding the police, once again has nothing to do with completely scrapping a police department. It has to do with restructuring. Instead of 500 cops, have 450 cops with 50 social workers varying in different specialities. It has to do with taking part of their bloated budget and using it for other social means like this Ben and Jerry's cartoon suggests. Note one of the 'scoops' is for training.
John Oliver talked about this 4 years ago:
And again recently:
I dont disagree with a lot of what you've said, but I do think it is somewhat contradictory. You mainly seem to be putting forward the thesis that better training and funding would improve policing by improving how well they can do their job. I dont think that's at odds with "defund the police" necessarily. Defunding the police is about taking a series of responsibilities that are currently expected of the police and transfering those responsibilities to other organizations.
So rather than spending time training a police officer to both be effective in a live shooting situation at a school and be effective at wellfare calls/dealing with issues of public intoxication, you're only training them for the former. They'll be more specialized and more effective in dealing with that situation than they will be if we ask them to deal with everything (By specializing them, they'll be better trained).
So "defund the police", at its core, is looking to ensure that cops are more specialized and therefore more well trained to deal with a particular set of issues rather than being expected to deal with a myriad of issues for which they are perpetually going to be inadequately trained.
To use a hypothetical: It wouldnt make a lot of sense to expect a police officer to be a fire fighter. They're two different skill sets. I'm sure plenty of police officers are volunteer fire fighters, but I dont want to conflate those organizations. By keeping them separate, they are able to specialize in their own responsibilities.
Meanwhile, this is where we're at from a leadership perspective:
Understand that what he is saying here is functionally NO DIFFERENT than saying as long as someone who is pregnant doesn't take a pregnancy test, they aren't really pregnant and won't have a baby. At least 40% of voters are going to pull the lever for this kind of thinking. That explains why we are where we are better than anything.
Thirdly, I don't think y'all need to defend the language of "defund the police". In fact, you should abandon it. Personally, I'm not sure the eventual solution to the issue of policing involves police departments getting less money in the long run. Or even staffing fewer officers. There's not actually evidence that this is true. In fact, there are some international studies that indicate fewer employees within the criminal justice system actually leads to more crime and fewer solved cases. For example, I think "defund the police" arguers on here are probably in favor of more resources spent on murder investigations than say, street policing. But hiring effective homicide detectives and training them isn't going to be cheap! That's high level work on par with an engineer or a doctor. Training, also, is going to be an ongoing personnel issue. You have to hire effective trainers and constantly update training. It's not a one-time investment.
And again, I don't think the social worker instead of police is going to work for alot of the issues we're seeing. Social workers already have very difficult jobs. I don't like the idea of tossing more responsibility on them. And, very very few of the controversial killings have been cases where their intervention would have happened. It seems like a bit of a red herring to throw into the discussion. "Defund the police" implies that fewer resources to police departments is going to be the benchmark for success. But there's not good evidence that this is true. The problem of policing in black neighborhoods is a combination of the obvious over policing we're all cognizant of, but it's also an under-policing, of the high-level, investigative quality I'm talking about. "Defund the police" doesn't make room for tackling the problem in that way. It's also simply Orwellian to insist on "Defund the police" and then tell me that it doesn't preclude the police possibly getting more net resources.
Lastly, "Defund the police" is a loser in polling. It isn't even popular among black Americans.
Police are not the only resource available at preventing crimes. They are also a reactionary measure instead of a preventive measure. You call the police while or after a crime is/was being committed. If you can apply resources to prevent why people are committing crimes to begin with, then less crimes would be committed in the long run.
Regardless, the status quo isn't working. It has never worked to be honest. Something needs to change or 6 months from now we'll have another cell phone video of another person's death at the hands of another police officer and we'll be having the same conversation we've been having since before Rodney King, which is now 30 years ago.
Edit to add: Also disagree that the police are purely reactionary. Again, the simple example of traffic violations. Yes the work of police enforcing traffic laws is reactionary. But their presence is unarguably preventative. A similar dynamic exists in other police work. I think some folks are sinking into a black & white thinking on this issue, which, frankly is often the province of extreme anti-government conservatives and libertarians.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/world/meanwhile-in-america-june-23-intl/index.html
The branding of "you're evil if you don't agree with me" is doomed to failure in this country. I'm conservative, and a scientist and can agree with a lot of the liberal base to some degree. However, being raised conservative, I can empathise with how they think as well. CNN and their like are not helping by demonizing conservatives. Likewise Fox News and their belittling of the liberals. There is a middle-ground where rationality can prevail, but our polarization makes it almost impossible. There has to be a way to de-polarize thinking on purely scientific subjects, but that would take both sides deciding that there are some subjects that transcend politics. Without some kind of meeting the opponents in the middle, that will never happen. In the USA, it's becoming whoever has control right now gets their way and fuck the opponents. It's really sad...
I will posit that I bet we are not at or near some tipping point in which a smaller police force may end up causing more corruption (if that is indeed the case. I havent seen any evidence to support or refute the idea, so I'm not knowledgeable about it).
I also personally wouldnt argue that the status quo is "working" at the moment, despite a reduction in violent crimes. That's certainly once metric to use, but there seem to be a plethora - and as long as there is a strong and obvious bias of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, I wouldnt consider it to be working.
Anyways - I'm trying not to come off as argumentative here, just reflecting on my initial opinions to what is being said.
I dont know about psychology, but I agree it's pretty awful branding...
You actually come across to me as being pretty rational about the situation. I'm not generally one of the more popular viewpoints in this thread though, so take that with a grain of salt...
Thanks - I appreciate that.
Let me ask you a question about that last post you made, because I'm not sure I understand where it is coming from. I'll quote it real quick
First - I do just in general agree that we are too polarized, and would love for more scientific arguments to be used to determine policy (Some of the time, at least. More than it currently is. Maybe a lot more).
My question is: Where did you get the "evil if you dont agree with me" vibe from that article? I'll readily admit that CNN is center left and very (very) anti Trump - but aside from calling him out on on the voter fraud thing (I think they're right. Scientifically - there's no evidence to support his argument) and referencing (accurately, I think?) that he's made the mask wearing thing political - what was anti-conservative?
By demonizing Trump in general, CNN misses any chance of reaching his base. That's great from their point of view of solidifying their viewership, but it falls flat as far as reaching anybody else. I watch CNN, they preach to the choir just like Fox News. Nobody preaches to the people in the middle that I can see (other than maybe Reuters and Politico but they only appeal to people who give a shit about politics).
A media outlet that only focuses on facts would be very refreshing. Unfortunately, without hyperbole, conspiracy theory and/or emotional manipulation, I'm not sure anybody but me would watch...
Their guy fucked up in a historic way, and they can't handle it. For christ sakes, he is arguing we should be doing LESS testing even now, on June 23, when cases are surging. Wearing a mask would be admitting the god emperor has no clothes, and that they were dead wrong about "just the flu". And the venn diagram of gadsen flag waving mask opponents and people who used that as their personal mantra for all of March is a perfect fucking circle. They're being asked to wear a mask in grocery store, not house British soliders in their guest room.
Edit: And I missed it when it was shut down for almost 3 weeks a while ago.
This is the main reason I won't be voting for Trump in the next election. Biden will have to somehow earn my vote, but Trump has lost it.
I'm not saying there arent liberals who don't wear masks, or that there aren't TONS of conservatives who are. But the specific political aspect of it that has been weaponized (stupidly, mind you) has been done so by Trump. And I can't fathom why this is the fight he has picked. Though I don't like Joe Scarborough much as I don't really trust former Republican Congressman on my so-called "liberal" channel (MSNBC), he is dead on about one thing. Trump has decided to not run against Biden, but to run against the pandemic. And he can't win that battle.
You might find this worth your time. The host, Kyle, HATES Biden for being too centrist, and has a solid grasp about what eeked Trump over the finish-line in 2016 and why he's losing right now:
I think some American conservatives especially would do well to practice this on issues that have a scientific basis. Climate change isn't politically controversial in most other countries. Mask wearing isn't politically controversial in most other countries. The reason these became politically controversial in the US, is because of conservatives. I think it's quite accurate for a news outlet to lay the blame on leaders of that movement for stoking controversy when there isn't one.
I would feel much better about Trump not being elected again if the Dems had picked Sanders rather than Biden. Sorry, I was totally ready to vote for Bernie as the outsider on the other side of the spectrum. Maybe I just like outsiders, but I'm not the only one. I'm quite sure most, if not all, of the liberals in this forum would have voted for Bernie. A fair amount of conservatives on this forum also leaned his way. I think a historic election might have been sunk by the DNC. Just sayin'...