|
Jaxyon posted:Polls don't actually say that, they say that if you ask it slightly differently people support it very well. "let the police do their jobs" is incredibly tonedeaf to sell to a community that knows that the job of police is to harass them. There, you’ve reduced the budget for actual cops, repurposed that money towards programs you want, removed cops from the more delicate jobs that are better handled by trained professionals, made the cops feel all manly and tough and reassured their supporters that what you’re doing is actually supporting them AND fighting violent crime, all while making your opponents the ones who have to argue ‘no, DON’T let the cops do their jobs’ which sounds really bad to the 60% of people who oppose defunding them and they’re the ones stuck explaining what they REALLY mean. quote:And I can tell you in LA police reform activist groups support defunding, and those groups are predominately people of color. quote:The job of the police is to harass and hurt minorities, Oracle. What the gently caress made you think that is a good slogan? quote:Crime isn't "really bad". It's at a statistical low point following a trend for decades. Areas that are "high crime" don't need more police because they're already overpoliced. There's a significant amount of time and money spent on propaganda that says that crime is bad and police are the solution. quote:And when crime is "really bad" under a "tough on crime" regime, people don't question whether or not "tough on crime" is effective, they just try and get tougher on crime. People do not have clear ideas on how bad crime is and what can be done to fix it. quote:The are told that more cop spending is always the answer, constantly, and so they are resistant to any idea that reducing spending. The best slogan in the world isn't going to change the fact that a significant portion of TV time is spent scaring people about crime and glorifying police.
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
theCalamity posted:Want to hear something worse? This is circulating around Twitter today because it is catchy and enraging to imagine that Alito is saying "we need to ban abortion to ensure a steady supply of adoptive infants to white people". That's not what it is saying, as one may suspect from the fact that it is a footnote. If one scrolls ever so slightly up the page - mere inches above the Angry-Making twitter screenshot cutoff - it is a footnote contemplating the argument that women who must bear their child to term will have difficulty getting their child adopted into another home. Alito's being enough of a shithead on that page, or the other 97, without resorting to this out of context dumbassery and flying into a rage about a CDC line in a footnote. helpful link to the opinion: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft#document/p35/a2102422 quote:Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern develop- ‘ments. Theynotethatattitudes aboutthepregnancyofun- ‘married women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis ofpregnancy, thatleave forpregnancyandchildbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases, that the costsof medical care asso- ciated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or govern- ment assistance; that States have increasingly adopted “safe haven laws, which generally allow women to drop off babiesanonymously;and thatawomanwhoputs hernew- born up for adoption today has little reasontofoar that the baby will not find a suitable home. no, i will not be editing the quote, if you wanted it to be more legible you should read the page in question instead of relying on Angry Twitter or Sleepy Goon Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 07:17 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 07:12
|
|
FOOTNOTE FORTY-SIX THAT HAS TWITTER AGHAST IS ATTACHED TO THIS SENTENCE
|
theCalamity posted:Want to hear something worse? I'm guessing they were wanting to include "white" in there as well, but figured they still weren't quite safe enough to go that far mask off, even though they'd officially given the boulder that one last push needed to start rolling down the hill.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 07:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1522660584881328129 i know its disclose.tv, but there is literally zero context that could excuse this comment seriously gently caress this guy (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I hadn't heard this, so I looked it up. It seems defund the police rhetoric hasn't caused an increase in violent crime (or at least homicides) but a three to one majority of Americans believe it has. The number of murders per year is skyrocketing, what are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 08:02
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Want to hear something worse? There's a whole loving layer cake of misrepresentations here, none of which redeem the Alito decision (of course), but which pointlessly confuse the claim (and slander the root cited text) several ways at once. The tweet is citing a footnote from page 34 of the draft decision - it's something Alito wrote, not Barrett. The citing paragraph is as follows (internal citations omitted): quote:Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that attitudes about the pregnancy of unmarried women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases, that the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance; that States have increasingly adopted “safe haven" laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.(footnote citation here) They also claim that many people now have a new appreciation of fetal life and that when prospective parents who want to have a child view a sonogram, they typically have no doubt that what they see is their daughter or son. So the purpose of this citation is not to say that there needs to be a domestic supply of infants, but rather that there is existing demand for children to adopt, and that therefore the burden of a pregnancy isn't so terrible. In the context of the broader opinion, this is also not Alito expressing his own opinion or analysis; instead, it's part of Alito giving a both-sides-have-different-opinions equivocation about developments in society since Roe, and the next couple paragraphs he says all these opinions on both sides don't effect the court's decision and will instead be reflected in state law once Roe is gone. To be clear, all of this is horrible and also terrible legal reasoning, but it's not what the tweet's saying it is. But it gets even more convoluted: The cited quote, including the supposedly damning "domestic supply of infants," isn't coming from a brief or a pro-abortion source of any kind; it's from page 23 of a completely anodyne CDC report, Vital and Health Statistics, from 2008 (being cited as a book, it looks like, instead of a periodical). The report is using the language about domestic supply in a completely neutral sense as part of the conclusion paragraphs on historical trends in adoption demography. The footnote also appends a citation to unrelated data from CDC, and botches the web address, which is actually https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/a-keystat.htm#adoption. As far as I can tell, Barrett never wrote any kind of brief on this; the closest I can find is that she raised the general "modern adoption policies mean forcing women to give birth isn't so bad!" claim during oral arguments in this case last year. So to be clear, this is a tweet misattributing a footnote to a misrepresented claim from a moot section of an opinion by a different person, which is itself mis-citing two separate sources of information. All of which is to say, that twitter account probably shouldn't be treated as a good source for legal analysis...or probably anything else. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:28 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 08:04
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The number of murders per year is skyrocketing, what are you talking about? Rape has also been on an upwards trajectory since 2014 and only went down in 2020 due to most being stuck at home with their rapist that they probably didn't want to get murdered by them if they reported it. Murder I have no idea what is going on, but rape I can guess that most of it is due to people catching on that the consequences for rapists are almost none, which is terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 08:29
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The number of murders per year is skyrocketing, what are you talking about? Could you explain how the graph disproves the claim "It seems defund the police rhetoric hasn't caused an increase in violent crime (or at least homicides)"? It's not very clear how it shows that just talking about defunding the police has directly led to a large increase in homicides and violent crime.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Could you explain how the graph disproves the claim "It seems defund the police rhetoric hasn't caused an increase in violent crime (or at least homicides)"? It's not very clear how it shows that just talking about defunding the police has directly led to a large increase in homicides and violent crime. Seems like a bad idea to defund law enforcement in the middle of a huge increase in murder.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 08:50
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Seems like a bad idea to defund law enforcement in the middle of a huge increase in murder. No, that's not what you were arguing. You responded to someone who said "It seems defund the police rhetoric hasn't caused an increase in violent crime (or at least homicides)" with "The number of murders per year is skyrocketing, what are you talking about?" and a graph. There was no claim about whether or not the number of murders per year was changing, it was about whether the rhetoric has caused an increase in violent crime. How did what you posted argue against that?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 08:56
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Seems like a bad idea to defund law enforcement in the middle of a huge increase in murder. Considering how many murders they commit, it seems like a good idea if you want murder to start going down. Also, you still need to explain how that graph disproved the claim that defund rhetoric didn't cause that increase.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 08:56
|
|
|
Is there a feedback thread for mods back up yet? Because we’ve got another mod banning people in c-spam for basic reading comprehension issues (on the mods end). That’s the kindest way of wording it btw.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 11:45
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:So is there any real chance of of the "women's health protection act" being voted into law or should I just give up on hope now and save myself some time? even if it is, the Supreme Court as it's currently made up would probably strike it down this doesn't end until the Court is reshaped
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 11:49
|
|
|
Democrats control some of the states with the worst police departments like California and New York, as well as Minnesota where the Floyd murder happened. If they wanted to take the wind out of the Defund The Police slogan, they could just implement all their so-called better ideas to fix policing and then the incidents of police brutality driving the activism to defund the police would stop. But they don't do this, I wonder why that is.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 13:48
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Seems like a bad idea to defund law enforcement in the middle of a huge increase in murder. "So these guys keep the murder rate low?" "Nah, mostly they just absorb immense quantities of public funds from city budgets while eroding public faith and abusing the populace wantonly until costly civil unrest explodes through metropolitan riots" "Wow, sounds like they need to have their purse strings cut" "We can't do that, what about the murders"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Seems like a bad idea to defund law enforcement in the middle of a huge increase in murder. Uh huh. And, how would the presence of more police decrease the number of murders? That's the part of this logic that never gets explained, it's just meant to be taken axiomatically that more cops == less murder, despite there being no particularly good reason why this should be the case. "I'm gonna kill you! Oh no, wait, that cop is watching, never mind." -- no one ever
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Seems like a bad idea to defund law enforcement in the middle of a huge increase in murder. You know cops don't stop murders (they often do the murder), right? Stats are at about half for "solved" murders and a lot of the "solved" ones are police pinning it on the wrong people (or the "right" people for the openly racist types). Boomer logic is brain poison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuzQrbio2Qw The Sean fucked around with this message at 14:25 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
And that's when Rachel said to Jacob give me a child or I will die Under his eye
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1522660584881328129 Everywhere at the End of Time moment
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
Oracle posted:No poo poo. That’s probably because that slogan isnt meant for that audience, it’s meant for the blue lives matter flag flying audience, whose first response to hearing it is going to be ‘yeah!’ and when you frame it as taking the pussy feel good touchy feely bullshit off the cops already overfull plates and giving it to some bleeding heart liberal instead both cops (who really do not actually like dealing with that poo poo) and their toxic masculinity cop worshipping throngs are going to again say ‘yeah that makes sense’ because, again, it fits into the common Hollywood portrayal of cops charging heroically into gun fights not mediating domestic disputes. Then when you further point out that those social worker types are going to need and want cop backup and since you don’t want to add to the already too big government bureaucracy so put them all in the same department and just fund it all out of the same pot and call it public safety so the social workers can’t be all ‘we’re police too!’ and steal that cop valor and free up the cops to fight the REAL crime (aka violent crime that everyone’s actually worried about). The slogan is not just neutral to people who have been struggling against police violence, it's actively repulsive. "Let the Police Do Their Job" is indistinguishable from a right-wing rallying cry to allow police to continue their overreach and brutality, are you gonna sit down with all of these victims one by one and explain how it's actually about reducing their responsibilities and hoping it somehow also reduces their ability to oppress the population? It is not worth gaining popular support to alienate the principal stakeholders, the people who have been most affected by the violence of cops. Not only that but for these reasons it's an incredibly easy slogan for right-wingers to co-opt. They will easily drown out anyone who uses your definition and substitute their own of not questioning police action and increasing their authority. Catgirl Al Capone fucked around with this message at 14:50 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1522660584881328129 The segregationist looks back fondly on the days of segregation.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:The segregationist looks back fondly on the days of segregation. Oh, glory days In the wink of a young staffer's eyes, glory days
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Kaos_Vs_Control/status/1522904456098111488?s=20&t=9SUQZM2LqJfKNu8uVtS4jQquote:A Trump-loving candidate for Michigan state representative who came under fire earlier this year for making jokes about his own daughters getting raped has gone down in defeat. quote:"Having three daughters, I tell my daughters, 'if rape is inevitable, you should just lay back and enjoy it,'" he said.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:The segregationist looks back fondly on the days of segregation. Well, he didn't have to worry about where he was allowed to eat lunch at.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:https://twitter.com/Kaos_Vs_Control/status/1522904456098111488?s=20&t=9SUQZM2LqJfKNu8uVtS4jQ That "if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it" quote isn't even original, it's from some other GOP pol, I believe, who embarrassed themselves years ago saying it, but I can't remember who it was at the moment. Edit: Apparently it was former Hoosier basketball coach Bobby Knight. Zwabu fucked around with this message at 16:29 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:That "if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it" quote isn't even original, it's from some other GOP pol, I believe, who embarrassed themselves years ago saying it, but I can't remember who it was at the moment. Todd Akin, he said "if it's a legitimate rape, the body has ways of shutting it down".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Kavros posted:"So these guys keep the murder rate low?" Another thing that I think tends to get overlooked as far as defunding the police or otherwise making them experience something less than 100% slavish devotion: Their union is very good at their job. If anyone in a position to actually act on it even sniffs at the idea of the cops losing a dollar of funding or maybe prosecuting a cop for filming themselves doing a murder while bragging about how much they love doing murders, the union heads come out and start threatening strikes, and very rarely is anyone willing to call them on that bluff, plus it's a great scare tactic for the average person.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Another thing that I think tends to get overlooked as far as defunding the police or otherwise making them experience something less than 100% slavish devotion: Their union is very good at their job. If anyone in a position to actually act on it even sniffs at the idea of the cops losing a dollar of funding or maybe prosecuting a cop for filming themselves doing a murder while bragging about how much they love doing murders, the union heads come out and start threatening strikes, and very rarely is anyone willing to call them on that bluff, plus it's a great scare tactic for the average person. They also push back by slowing and stopping response in the districts of city politicos who complain or even discuss cutting funding. Cops believe you either give them everything they want, or you get nothing from them. They are willing to let us be killed, raped and robbed as a negotiating tactic.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
selec posted:They also push back by slowing and stopping response in the districts of city politicos who complain or even discuss cutting funding. Whoa, hey. It's not just a negotiating tactic. It's also because they're lazy or too cowardly to stop it from happening.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The number of murders per year is skyrocketing, what are you talking about? He's talking about cause and effect. What makes you say that spike is due to defund the police rhetoric?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:Whoa, hey. It's not just a negotiating tactic. It's also because they're lazy or too cowardly to stop it from happening. Or they're actively doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Seems like a bad idea to defund law enforcement in the middle of a huge increase in murder. Seems like a much better idea to use that money to help people and prevent murder instead of arming more murderers.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Also, and I can't stress this enough, I saw a guy get shot and killed about maybe 100 feet away from a group of State Police in Mexico. They sure as gently caress caught the murderer quickly, but they didn't and could not reasonably have prevented poo poo. And they were practically right there. Cops cannot prevent serious crime. At most, increasing the probability of getting caught discourages some amount of crime, but that's about it, and I don't see any evidence that cops will help with that situation.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
selec posted:They also push back by slowing and stopping response in the districts of city politicos who complain or even discuss cutting funding. I mean, the fact you've phrased it this way actively showcases how good they are at their jobs. Cops don't actually stop those things. At best, they investigate them. In my line of work I do have to begrudgingly call the police occasionally and the number of crimes they have stopped hovers at a solid zero percent.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
There's a really good show up on HBO Max right now from the creators of The Wire called "We Own This City". It's based on real events in Baltimore and takes a strong look at a lot of the poo poo we've been talking about here; corrupt cops and the system that perpetuates it all. I recommend it if anyone is looking for some new poo poo to watch.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The number of murders per year is skyrocketing, what are you talking about? Right but that's not caused by "Defund the police" a thing that has not happened.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Is there a feedback thread for mods back up yet? Because we’ve got another mod banning people in c-spam for basic reading comprehension issues (on the mods end). Uh oh! If D&D mods are banning people in CSPAM that is a pretty serious problem, yes. I'll alert Koos. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The number of murders per year is skyrocketing, what are you talking about? As the link says, Mr. Cat, there's no association between which cities cut or changed police funding or had more of a movement to do so and how much crime rose, and the link acknowledges the crime did indeed rise. Historically, the connection also doesn't appear to exist between decreased arrest rates and homicides, according to a paper mentioned in the same link. Other factors, such as unemployment and higher number of firearm purchases, are associated with higher homicide rates and increased due to covid in the same time period. It may be true that defunding the police in the sense of completely eliminating their budgets would lead to an increase in overall crime. We don't know with absolute certainty since we've never done this, but it is suggested by the same paper I just linked, as evidence shows proactive policing measures such as targeted patrols do reduce crime, and it's not absurd to assume if the police had no budget they would no longer engage in these. However, my claim was specifically that the rhetoric did not cause an increase in crime, which was stated by both myself and Gumball Gumption, and the data I linked strongly supports that contention.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Missed NV at first. Thoughts? https://twitter.com/katieglueck/status/1522987997200896001
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Missed NV at first. Thoughts? only that New Jersey is the early primary state we deserve
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 00:59
|
|