The Fight Against Fascists (I Can't Believe This Exists)

[CJD]

(06-08-2021, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Therein lies the rub with this type of thing.  You can't target crime without targeting criminals.  If one ethnic group commits a largely disproportionate amount of crime how do you target criminals without disproportionately contacting that group?  Of course, there's a vast range of possible actions within that framework.

I would say target the criminals. I'm confident that police have the ability to set up systems that can identify and target criminals based on their actions without seeing a black person and subconsciously thinking "black guy = crime. I should frisk him."

Quote:They absolutely did not foresee this and are fighting that logical conclusion tooth and nail.

Oh, they absolutely did claim otherwise.  At the very least they will deny any correlation.  Try and find just one Dem politician on the national level who equates the major crime spike with "defund the police", demonizing law enforcement and soft on crime positions.

Well then they need to understand what they're even campaigning for. I am not certain of this, but I find it likely that defunding the police will cause an increase in crime. It's at least a logical expectation. Fewer cops on the streets means fewer boots on the necks of criminals. In the movie, The Dark Knight, the opening scene is criminals seeing the bat signal and stopping crime for the night because they didn't want to risk getting caught by Batman. That is what increased police presence would do as well, at least in theory. (The movie also proposes that this creates "crazier" criminals who have adapted to the new "police state" that Batman creates. I don't know if that would happen in reality, but it's at least interesting to think about.)

The downside, of course, is increased crackdown on communities and disadvantaged groups of people in order to stop and/or catch all the crime will inevitably lead to more crime. If you imprison a man for smoking weed, his child will grow up without a father and the family will grow up without a second source of income. This leads to poverty and instability, which potentially leads to the child getting involved in criminal activity (as gangs and drug dealers prey upon the poor and desperate in their communities) and then the cycle repeats. Repeat this enough times over enough generations, and you can see how "stopping crime" can often times create crime.

Defunding the police, ideally, would address this phenomenon, as the movement generally views crime as a consequence of poverty and racism (such as the War on Drugs) rather than bad people being bad. But, in doing so, you're removing the "bat signal" for the existing criminals...

And then, obviously, being more kind to illegal immigrants (and, in the ultimate goal, making certain forms of "illegal immigration" no longer illegal) will encourage more illegal immigration. That's just a fact. If a politician denies that, then they need to be replaced by a politician who understands cause and effect.

Quote:I've said before that having Trump was worth the conservative SCOTUS.  I can't imagine how severely curtailed our liberties would be if Hillary got to appoint three justices.  To me that was worth four years of Trump.  Also, I don't think Trump did anything but bring people who were already racist out from under their rock, people of all ethnicities btw.  

I suppose that's one way of viewing it. Obviously, I disagree but I understand why you would feel that way. It's true that a lot of what Trump did was lay bare the racism still existing in this country, but I can't help but feel like his presidency will have a negative impact on the next generation. Young, impressionable minds seeing such a disgusting human being as president will inevitably normalize that behavior. Some may even see it as a means to power and replicate him. I don't think we've yet seen the extent of the damage that Trump has caused this country.