4 ms·

>The "people in power" don't want unarmed black people getting shot. >police are abusive because ordinary people want it that way What?? How am i getting a b

>The "people in power" don't want unarmed black people getting shot. >police are abusive because ordinary people want it that way What?? How am i getting a benefit from unarmed black people getting shot anymore than a senator? No if anything it comes down to misguided incentives (broken window policing, drug policies, police and attorneys wanting to forward their political aspirations, etc) This is all controlled by the government (which is of course controlled by moneyed interests.

rayiner 10y ago
Why are broken window policing and drug policies a thing? Why does "tough on crime" further DAs' political ambitions? Because that's what ordinary people demand. I grew up in the 1990s. When kids would be called to assembly on a regular basis and teachers would shriek at them "just say no!" Drugs and were destroying our children, in their opinion, and no measures were too extreme to stop that. Those same people voted for mandatory minimums, three strikes laws', elimination of parole, etc. California's unjust three strikes law, which imposed life sentences for a third non-violent felony, was a ballot initiative. Trump and Romney didn't give us the justice system we have. My third-grade teacher did.
- zzzcpan 10y ago
  No. Ordinary people don't demand stupid things like that, but governments want those things. So governments invent narratives about the children or whatever is the easiest for people to get emotional and protective about and push their agendas onto them. People, of course, being so easily influenced, buy this and approve government initiatives.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I recommend you watch the PBS special Prohibition. It does a great job of explaining how the prohibition on alcohol was a grass-roots movement by women and Protestants. It was actually against the government's interest, because alcohol taxes at the time made up 1/3 of federal revenue. It'll disabuse you of this notion that "government" is always to blame for how people vote.
- unprepare 10y ago
  > Please explain to me how "moneyed interests" are to blame for all that Well, in michigan we had a petition to allow voting on legalization recreational marijuana. It received far in excess of the required signatures, and then weeks later a very old rule was applied to the petition by discretion of the government to invalidate the entire petition and leaving not enough time to have it redone before the election deadline. (as in the rule did not legally have to be applied, but government officials decided to apply it anyways) So this is an example of the government acting opposite of the interests of the people it claims to represent. > Because from where I'm standing, it sure looks like my third-grade teacher is responsible. And what gave your third grade teacher that idea? did she watch a movie called reefer madness? The problem is this back and forth can go all day. You say that people elected those politicians, and passed those policies, and i would say the reason they held those beliefs is a result of someone else influencing them through half truths, propaganda, etc. You could say, well people choose the media they consume, but i would say the conglomeration of media companies, and the methods through which information has historically been distributed have always been controlled by moneyed interests. (reefer madness being a perfect example of a propaganda movie that influenced nearly an entire generation) There are quotes from the nixon era from aides saying that the war on drugs was designing explicitly to fight racial minorities and 'hippies'[1] Obviously the nature of all of these things is so interconnected, thats its impossible to unravel and reach an objective conclusion. In my opinion its pessimistic to believe that people are so inherently against other people - there is usually some more learned reason that someone would believe things like 'black people are dangerous' or 'all mind altering substances are bad (wait, except caffeine alcohol prescription medications etc.)' I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat and saying george soros or whoever is controlling the world, just that people's relationship to the truth and their perceptions of things outside of their lived experiences are heavily influenced by the information they consume, which has been controlled by companies since the printing press [1]http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Why are broken window policing and drug policies a thing? Why does "tough on crime" further DAs' political ambitions? Because that's what ordinary people demand. Ordinary people didn't came up with the "broken window theory" etc. Some guys with PhDs did, and some rich politicians pushed them...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 10y ago

Why are broken window policing and drug policies a thing? Why does "tough on crime" further DAs' political ambitions? Because that's what ordinary people demand. I grew up in the 1990s. When kids would be called to assembly on a regular basis and teachers would shriek at them "just say no!" Drugs and were destroying our children, in their opinion, and no measures were too extreme to stop that. Those same people voted for mandatory minimums, three strikes laws', elimination of parole, etc. California's unjust three strikes law, which imposed life sentences for a third non-violent felony, was a ballot initiative. Trump and Romney didn't give us the justice system we have. My third-grade teacher did.

zzzcpan 10y ago
No. Ordinary people don't demand stupid things like that, but governments want those things. So governments invent narratives about the children or whatever is the easiest for people to get emotional and protective about and push their agendas onto them. People, of course, being so easily influenced, buy this and approve government initiatives.
- rayiner 10y ago
  I recommend you watch the PBS special Prohibition. It does a great job of explaining how the prohibition on alcohol was a grass-roots movement by women and Protestants. It was actually against the government's interest, because alcohol taxes at the time made up 1/3 of federal revenue. It'll disabuse you of this notion that "government" is always to blame for how people vote.
unprepare 10y ago
> Please explain to me how "moneyed interests" are to blame for all that Well, in michigan we had a petition to allow voting on legalization recreational marijuana. It received far in excess of the required signatures, and then weeks later a very old rule was applied to the petition by discretion of the government to invalidate the entire petition and leaving not enough time to have it redone before the election deadline. (as in the rule did not legally have to be applied, but government officials decided to apply it anyways) So this is an example of the government acting opposite of the interests of the people it claims to represent. > Because from where I'm standing, it sure looks like my third-grade teacher is responsible. And what gave your third grade teacher that idea? did she watch a movie called reefer madness? The problem is this back and forth can go all day. You say that people elected those politicians, and passed those policies, and i would say the reason they held those beliefs is a result of someone else influencing them through half truths, propaganda, etc. You could say, well people choose the media they consume, but i would say the conglomeration of media companies, and the methods through which information has historically been distributed have always been controlled by moneyed interests. (reefer madness being a perfect example of a propaganda movie that influenced nearly an entire generation) There are quotes from the nixon era from aides saying that the war on drugs was designing explicitly to fight racial minorities and 'hippies'[1] Obviously the nature of all of these things is so interconnected, thats its impossible to unravel and reach an objective conclusion. In my opinion its pessimistic to believe that people are so inherently against other people - there is usually some more learned reason that someone would believe things like 'black people are dangerous' or 'all mind altering substances are bad (wait, except caffeine alcohol prescription medications etc.)' I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat and saying george soros or whoever is controlling the world, just that people's relationship to the truth and their perceptions of things outside of their lived experiences are heavily influenced by the information they consume, which has been controlled by companies since the printing press [1]http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
coldtea 10y ago
>Why are broken window policing and drug policies a thing? Why does "tough on crime" further DAs' political ambitions? Because that's what ordinary people demand. Ordinary people didn't came up with the "broken window theory" etc. Some guys with PhDs did, and some rich politicians pushed them...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]