So what's plan B if defunding cops creates anarchy?

[Liriena]

So we're hearing a lot of talk about defunding police and putting that money into social services instead. The idea, presumably, is that if these "social services" could somehow address every other possible motive for committing crime in the first place, we wouldn't need as much policing.

Here's the problem with that proposal... since when was anyone any good at predicting anyone else's motives for what they do?

No, really. I recall 2016, when the notion that respondents who claimed they'd vote Clinton if she were the candidate were lying through their teeth were met with "why would they lie"? Doesn't matter. They did. People do what they do for reasons neither you nor I nor the so-called "experts" who got it wrong could ever hope to comperehend. The delusion that if you do not anticipate their motives, such motives cannot exist, feels like a false dichotomy fit to rival "God of the gaps."

So now proposals to defund the police invoke the delusion that they have every possible motive for crime figured out; and they want us to, based on this tenuous reasoning, weaken the one institution known to hold crime back.

My question to them is; what if you're wrong? What is your plan B, if people have reasons for committing crimes that you fail to anticipate, predict, or comprehend, and these reasons are all unleashed? Is a return to policing as it was before possible, or would the change, or at least some of the effects thereof, be permanent? Is there a third option you could jump to from there, that might be relatively safer? If so, what is it?

My alternative? If we think we know why crime happens, then rather than defunding the police, why not address those supposed motives first, and then weaken police presence very slowly and gradually so if it works out badly we can reverse the trend before it's too late?

Do you understand that defunding the police does not mean getting rid of them entirely?

You kind of have to admire how obstinately wrong police propaganda has been about what defunding the police means.

[La Xinga]

1. Is that a question? If it's a statement, I'm confused. If it's a question, it's simple. Media needs proof, of course more toasted with biased, but in this case, it's simple common sense. Read EM's quote too.

"Common sense" is not proof. "Common sense" is a thought terminating cliché.

It was a question, but I forgot to use a question mark.

It's not just media that needs proof. Rational people know that they need actual, reliable proof of the claims they hear.

2. Broad claim? If you were a cop, would you be scared to fight the mob?

I would never be a cop. I'd rather sell crack than be a cop.

And A GOOD THING? You would prefer crime?

This is a false dichotomy. We can have a society with little to no crime without relying on an almighty, unaccountable police force that can murder you on camera and retroactively justify it by claiming to be the most paranoid pieces of shit who ever lived.

3. All your wordy stuff.

What I was trying to say is: if you're going to claim that defunding the police leads to more crime, you have to actually prove that it does. At least, if you want to be believed. An increase in crime in cities where police wasn't defunded doesn't prove it.

Common sense is not proof? Says you!
Sounds like you're avoiding the Q.
Having little to no crime would be better, at least for me.
Anti-crime force was disbanded, 1 billion dollars was taken out. Crime went up. There's no reason to think otherwise.

[Liriena]

If you defund them, it will obviously mean an increase in crime.

I recommend reading this.

[Estanglia]

That crime can randomly have spikes, and it's a coincidence?

There's one I can think of.

And another: some people might be thinking that "oh, the funding's reduced, I might have a better chance at getting away with this!", and crime has increased not because police capabilities have been reduced, but that more people are thinking that police capabilities are reduced, even if they're not.

coincidence?

Yes, coincidence. Is there something ridiculous about the idea that some things just happen, and have no deeper meaning beyond timings?

If we are giving the impression that it is, crime will go up.

Yes, it will, but it's not the increase in crime that stems from the police not policing as much. In other words, it's not the problem OP is talking about with regards to defunding the police (though it is somewhat related).

[La Xinga]

coincidence?

Yes, coincidence. Is there something ridiculous about the idea that some things just happen, and have no deeper meaning beyond timings?

If we are giving the impression that it is, crime will go up.

Yes, it will, but it's not the increase in crime that stems from the police not policing as much. In other words, it's not the problem OP is talking about with regards to defunding the police (though it is somewhat related).

Just a bunch of people: OKAY! Let's commit crime now! With no regards to the situation now!

Okay, but if we give the impression that we are making them stronger, chances are crime will go down.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

The military leans pretty damn libertarian/apolitical.

It does? I guess that makes some sense, and technically the military as an organization should be apolitical. So is the stereotype of the ultra-right wing military generally false, then? It’s good to hear such news.

Maybe you should serve, it’s more about discipline and physical fitness. Sport is good for building up your mental, social and physical capabilities - military does the same but more so, depending on branches and tours probably.

I’ve never heard that stereotype. There is no ideology in anything like that to begin with. The people I’ve heard from just have stories about medical anus and ball checks.

[Superduperkid]

If you defund them, it will obviously mean an increase in crime.

I recommend reading this.

And did they ever abolish? No, they did not. They may have defunded, but that does not necessarily mean a success. At the same time, Seattle seemed to start off well with CHAZ, but it didn't turn out so well, did it?

[Liriena]

"Common sense" is not proof. "Common sense" is a thought terminating cliché.

It was a question, but I forgot to use a question mark.

It's not just media that needs proof. Rational people know that they need actual, reliable proof of the claims they hear.


I would never be a cop. I'd rather sell crack than be a cop.


This is a false dichotomy. We can have a society with little to no crime without relying on an almighty, unaccountable police force that can murder you on camera and retroactively justify it by claiming to be the most paranoid pieces of shit who ever lived.


What I was trying to say is: if you're going to claim that defunding the police leads to more crime, you have to actually prove that it does. At least, if you want to be believed. An increase in crime in cities where police wasn't defunded doesn't prove it.

Common sense is not proof? Says you!

"Common sense" is just hegemony. Hegemony isn't inherently true.

Sounds like you're avoiding the Q.

To answer your question... if by "the mob" you mean protesters? Yeah, maybe I'd be scared. And that would be a good thing. People in positions of authority, if they must exist, should never feel like they are immune to the discontent of those they supposedly serve.

Having little to no crime would be better, at least for me.

Same, but to me that would have to include not suffering under an authoritarian, unaccountable police force.

I don't want to live in fear of random thieves and murderers, but I also don't want to live in fear of some idiot asshole in uniform who can choke me to death and maybe get away with it because I might have tried to use a fake $20.

Anti-crime force was disbanded, 1 billion dollars was taken out. Crime went up. There's no reason to think otherwise.

That's a correlation. You'd have to actually show that it was the less of those resources and that force that primarily led to a spike in crime. Which might be true, but other things might be true: that other social, economic and political factors also played a role.

[Liriena]

I recommend reading this.

We already have experiences with police free zones in Seattle and it didn't really work out so well. No amount of blogs are going to change that.

Are you arguing that a hand-picked anecdote supersedes a broader volume of research?

[Liriena]

I recommend reading this.

And did they ever abolish? No, they did not. They may have defunded, but that does not necessarily mean a success. At the same time, Seattle seemed to start off well with CHAZ, but it didn't turn out so well, did it?

What does CHAZ have to do with defunding the police as a policy?

[Liriena]

You think these people have a plan B? They don't think that far ahead if CHOP is any indication.

Trash talking is not an argument.

[La Xinga]

Common sense is not proof? Says you!

"Common sense" is just hegemony. Hegemony isn't inherently true.

Sounds like you're avoiding the Q.

To answer your question... if by "the mob" you mean protesters? Yeah, maybe I'd be scared. And that would be a good thing. People in positions of authority, if they must exist, should never feel like they are immune to the discontent of those they supposedly serve.

Having little to no crime would be better, at least for me.

Same, but to me that would have to include not suffering under an authoritarian, unaccountable police force.

I don't want to live in fear of random thieves and murderers, but I also don't want to live in fear of some idiot asshole in uniform who can choke me to death and maybe get away with it because I might have tried to use a fake $20.

Anti-crime force was disbanded, 1 billion dollars was taken out. Crime went up. There's no reason to think otherwise.

That's a correlation. You'd have to actually show that it was the less of those resources and that force that primarily led to a spike in crime. Which might be true, but other things might be true: that other social, economic and political factors also played a role.

How is that hegemony?
They'd probably be scared to act!
Of course, I agree with you, but I don't think we should take away money. At least not now, in the time they need it most.
I don't know any political, economically may be due to no business in Corona, but why when they are beginning to open stuff up? And social, it's possible people influenced them, due to the current situation.

[West Leas Oros 2]

It does? I guess that makes some sense, and technically the military as an organization should be apolitical. So is the stereotype of the ultra-right wing military generally false, then? It’s good to hear such news.

Maybe you should serve, it’s more about discipline and physical fitness. Sport is good for building up your mental, social and physical capabilities - military does the same but more so, depending on branches and tours probably.

I’ve never heard that stereotype. There is no ideology in anything like that to begin with. The people I’ve heard from just have stories about medical anus and ball checks.

Huh. I guess I’m wrong then. I hear people say this sort of thing fairly often, (although not from someone who actually served). It’s not surprising to hear that the military is largely apolitical.

[Last Breath]

Are you arguing that a hand-picked anecdote supersedes a broader volume of research?

How things play out on paper and how they play out in practice are always going to be different. We've transitioned from paper to the real-world and your "research" (a blog) is not holding up.

You do realize that research of this sort is generally based in statistics, i.e. what happens in the real world?

[Vetalia]

You think these people have a plan B? They don't think that far ahead if CHOP is any indication.

Trash talking is not an argument.

Rugged isn't wrong. Fact is, people have been throwing around these platitudes and slogans about "defunding the police" without actually thinking about how this would actually work or be implemented in a way that would prevent out-of-control crime.

[Katganistan]

I recommend reading this.

We already have experiences with police free zones in Seattle and it didn't really work out so well. No amount of blogs are going to change that.

Clearly you didn't bother to read it, then.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I've gotta say, watching communists rediscover how society works on the most basic level is always a hoot.

"What? You mean you actually need people to enforce rules and laws? They don't always just follow them on their own?"

It's a bit like watching a toddler learn how to walk.

Slow down McCarthy. You can’t just blame every idiotic LARPer in black as some kind of communist. That’s mainly anarchists you’re thinking of, and plenty of us commies have beef with those fools. Although, even then, some anarchists are pretty cool, and many are at least reasonable. But for every sensible anarchist I’ve seen, I’ve seen two that were apeshit.

[Liriena]

Are you arguing that a hand-picked anecdote supersedes a broader volume of research?

How things play out on paper and how they play out in practice are always going to be different. We've transitioned from paper to the real-world and your "research" (a blog) is not holding up.

You didn't read it did you?

[Superduperkid]

We already have experiences with police free zones in Seattle and it didn't really work out so well. No amount of blogs are going to change that.

Are you arguing that a hand-picked anecdote supersedes a broader volume of research?

Are you trying to say there aren't other broader volumes of research against CHAZ?

[Estanglia]

Yes, coincidence. Is there something ridiculous about the idea that some things just happen, and have no deeper meaning beyond timings?



Yes, it will, but it's not the increase in crime that stems from the police not policing as much. In other words, it's not the problem OP is talking about with regards to defunding the police (though it is somewhat related).

Just a bunch of people: OKAY! Let's commit crime now! With no regards to the situation now!

I mean, it's possible. Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible.

It's perfectly possible for a spike in crime around the time of something that looks like it should increase crime to be pure coincidence.

Okay, but if we give the impression that we are making them stronger, chances are crime will go down.

Potentially.

But, since there are more reasons to commit crime than "the police look weak right now", making the police look strong might not be the most effective course if the end goal is reduced crime.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Are you arguing that a hand-picked anecdote supersedes a broader volume of research?

Are you trying to say there aren't other broader volumes of research against CHAZ?

Considering how recently it existed, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the research hasn’t been written yet.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Maybe you should serve, it’s more about discipline and physical fitness. Sport is good for building up your mental, social and physical capabilities - military does the same but more so, depending on branches and tours probably.

I’ve never heard that stereotype. There is no ideology in anything like that to begin with. The people I’ve heard from just have stories about medical anus and ball checks.

Huh. I guess I’m wrong then. I hear people say this sort of thing fairly often, (although not from someone who actually served). It’s not surprising to hear that the military is largely apolitical.

It’s fine bro, the things more of a career path or a quick few month draft (in some countries) then anything else. Of course in life there will always be a bad apple in everything, but I never let that ruin the whole apple tree.

[La Xinga]

Just a bunch of people: OKAY! Let's commit crime now! With no regards to the situation now!

I mean, it's possible. Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible.

It's perfectly possible for a spike in crime around the time of something that looks like it should increase crime to be pure coincidence.

Okay, but if we give the impression that we are making them stronger, chances are crime will go down.

Potentially.

But, since there are more reasons to commit crime than "the police look weak right now", making the police look strong might not be the most effective course if the end goal is reduced crime.

'
It's about as likely as Biden winning Missouri in November. Not likely, but possible. However, if it is a coincidence, it's probably one large group, not individuals.
True, all true.

[Katganistan]

Trash talking is not an argument.

Rugged isn't wrong. Fact is, people have been throwing around these platitudes and slogans about "defunding the police" without actually thinking about how this would actually work or be implemented in a way that would prevent out-of-control crime.

Because literally, you don't understand what "defund the police" means.

It does not mean abolish the police force.
It does mean taking some of the money that they use to buy military-grade weapons like the cars that can permanently deafen people away, as well as take away responsibility for removing homeless people and the mentally ill, who often end up hurt or killed in an escalation that trained EMTs, nurses and social workers often do not see.

The money taken away is then given to the EMTs and social workers who then deal with the homeless, mentally ill, and non-violent domestic disturbances, and also is put into the community to relieve the causes for homelessness, drug use, etc.

This will free up police to actually deal with violent crime, robberies, and the like.

But apparently, some are so focused on OMG DEFUND THE POLICE ANARCHY COMMUNISTS that they would rather not even understand what it is they are arguing about, and instead spew insults, refuse to educate themselves, and simply appear to be foolish in their ignorance.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Huh. I guess I’m wrong then. I hear people say this sort of thing fairly often, (although not from someone who actually served). It’s not surprising to hear that the military is largely apolitical.

It’s fine bro, the things more of a career path or a quick few month draft (in some countries) then anything else. Of course in life there will always be a bad apple in everything, but I never let that ruin the whole apple tree.

Certainly. Can’t let a few fools ruin it for everybody else. My brother is a lot more interested in the military than I am though, and I don’t know that it’s quite for me. I’ve always wanted to practice law, myself.