iNow

Wow. 10 neg reps all at once, exactly when drumbo then replied. Must have hit a nerve

But this is untrue and remains a false dichotomy regardless of how frequently you reintroduce it

No, it doesn’t. At least here we can finally agree

No I’m really not bothered by being at odds with just about anyone, especially not with the political classes. I also am not refusing to acknowledge anything. I’m simply poking at obvious holes in your rather remedial and illogical arguments. As I said. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Would it perhaps be easier for you if I used fat crayons and construction paper instead?

More interactions with police increase the odds of a poor interaction occurring. That does not, however, mean additional interactions lead to negative outcomes. It’s not a function in the way approach, technique, and style of police engagement are. Hundreds of thousands of cops manage to have positive outcomes every day and often across their entire careers, so now you’ve added the hasty generalization error and confirmation bias to your use of fallacies. Just because you hear more about negative interactions on the news does not mean they’re occurring everywhere all of the time, yet that’s the core of your current position. While I acknowledge it’s more common in some communities than in others, violence with the police is the exception yet you keep asserting it’s the rule. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

Those outcomes are not a function of how many police there are or how many interactions with police there are. Those outcomes are a function of how the interaction goes and what steps the officers take to de-escalate. I’m hearing / reading you just fine, but merely repeating inaccurate points and incorrect assertions doesn’t magically render them valid. Perhaps, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with rehabilitation or the original point you were trying (and failing) to make. Stop trying to move the goal posts.

Or hire more social workers and substance abuse & related counselors (or all of the above)

More police bring more people into the system. Rehabilitation begins after the system has been entered. This isn’t exactly rocket science. Also, property can be protected in other ways. More police is not the only option.

Of course you can. Why do you keep asserting otherwise?

No, it's actually not. Hmm... I'm surprised it's that low, TBH

No, they are not. You're introducing a false dichotomy.

It was counter intuitive to me, too. Where I landed as I worked through that in my own mind was that they want “effective” police presence and “appropriate” police presence and “just” police presence, while in parallel not just wanting more of the “current” or “bad” or “asymmetric” police presence. Just because the umpires in a baseball game aren’t calling balls and strikes fairly doesn’t mean we can’t still want to play or attend a game. I suspect that sentiment largely applies here on the policing question.

You know me better than that, MigL. We’re now on page 7 of this thread. My position should be clear and has been articulate. Summarized: Defund the police is stupid branding for a set of otherwise good ideas. The idea is to focus dollars into approaches which are more effective and which more efficiently help us improve. Throwing the mentally handicapped and drug addicted and poverty stricken into cells and fining the poor forcing them to pay into a system thousands of dollars they simply don’t have doesn’t achieve that. The idea is to increase social and anti-poverty programs and reduce asymmetric punishment; to reduce the way black communities are more heavily punished for the exact same crimes committed by white communities. The idea is to eliminate qualified immunity so police can still be held accountable for their actions when they do something wrong; so police are no longer treated as above the law in the US just because they’re a key part of the apparatus which enforces it. Specifically to the survey, of course people want their communities to be safe. Of course they want help from the police when things go wrong. Of course they want bad actors removed from their environment. Those facts are not mutually exclusive with being tired of getting targeted by police or being treated asymmetrically by the justice system at large due solely to the color of ones skin. Yes, defund the police is a dumb slogan. It’s ignorant marketing and bad branding for a set of otherwise good ideas which would almost certainly help us to realize and achieve a massively improved ROI if we actually implemented them. Also yes, of course people want the police to be more respectful. We all surely agree there, and that respect is critical. More than that, it’s foundational, but also currently lacking. Good policing is about trust and community, and respect is the glue which binds those things together. We need to reduce the funding for those who can’t be respectful and who fail to EARN that trust. So I sigh because so many of us keep focusing on HOW people are protesting and by doing so we keep ignoring the reasons WHY. Focusing on the HOW is a distraction. See also: The focus on Kapernick kneeling at football games instead of the focus on black families consistently being torn apart when US police officers keep murdering (or locking up for eye rolling reasons) key members of them. So what if the slogan is dumb? It’s not as dumb as the tea party morons who said “keep the governments hands off my Medicare!” When we focus on the slogan we forget the reason it’s being chanted or supported in the first place and we make it more likely that we’ll all simply continue on with the current unacceptable status quo. There is merit worth discussing on this topic, but we never will if we keep getting triggered when we hear/read the word “defund” and keep short circuiting the conversation any time that word gets introduced. Abolish. Defund. Whatever. We need to fundamentally improve how policing happens in the United States, and we need to transfer a significant amount of the revenues they receive instead into social, rehabilitation, and anti-poverty programs. It makes me sigh because even people I very much like, enjoy, and respect seem to keep doing it... to keep focusing on HOW the protests are happening instead of WHY. But sure... this is clearly all about me ignoring points which don’t conform to my personal narrative because I’m incapable of having a mature discussion on an online discussion forum. 🙄

An even more practical question is whether punishment really reduces crime and actually improves our society, or if instead our money would be better spent on rehabilitation and anti-poverty programs.

Sigh

I just got kicked out of a flat earth Facebook group because I asked if the 6 foot social distancing guideline had pushed anyone over the edge yet.

My intended point relates most closely to overcrowding and proximity. It's embedded within the system itself, as well as the culture and how/where people spend time. When eating, when in markets, when sleeping or on trains, when scavenging if they're destitute, bathing in the Ganges, etc.

Fair enough

It looks like our policy of, “Don’t worry bro, it’s just the flu” didn’t work. This is pretty funny, but does have some salty language.

Their reporting system is less relevant to me than their lifestyle. Close communal living and lack of education or hygiene are frustratingly common across the subcontinent.

As bad as US has been, India seems likely to surpass given their sheer size

Ok. Maybe.

My bigger point is that your mention of restrictions is interesting, but not relevant since they’re unenforceable and ignored by many.

You mean like all those millions of Americans who refuse even to wear a simple mask?

Bah. I can drive to Hawaii.. if my car is cool enough.