5 ms·

What is horseshit? Nothing in your response is contrary to anything the person said that you're responding to

• Misdicorl 6y ago
  >There's a worrying trend in the conversation these days that has shifted from "there's a serious problem with racism in how police go about their job" to "we need less police". Folks in neighborhoods living with the constant threat of gang violence don't have the luxury to sit in their aeron chairs and argue about defunding the police. They face the very real threat of themselves or their loved ones being shot on the streets and statistically not by police. This is horseshit. The premise is false. The conclusion is misleading. It is FUD
  • ryankemper 6y ago
    So, you haven't provided _any_ citations or even vague references to Wikipedia articles, rather you just called their opinion FUD and left it at that. How am I, a 3rd-party observer of this thread, supposed to extract any value from such statements? The person you were quoting did not provide rock-solid proof that having police helps reduce violence, but they did provide a citation showing that: > Violence against persons in poor (51%) and low-income (50%) households was more likely to be reported to police than violence against persons in mid- (43%) and high-income (45%) households from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf So you could certainly argue that they are actually irrational to call the police and thus the higher rate is explained by them incorrectly thinking police would help them. But it's tricky to argue that with no data :) Cheers
    • Misdicorl 6y ago
      My job isn't to respond in detail to FUD. Thats how trolls win; by engaging people who are willing to put in that effort while they can respond with anything resembling coherence. My job is to point out the FUD so people might not notice (for whatever reason) can at least be aware of its presence (or if in doubt, check some other reputable source themselves). You don't need data on this one though. What the fuck is calling the police going to do to prevent violence after a gang has done a drive by shooting? Use your god damn brain
      • banads 6y ago
        >What the fuck is calling the police going to do to prevent violence after a gang has done a drive by shooting? To find the criminals that did that and put them in prison to prevent them from doing that again?
        • Misdicorl 6y ago
          But the original argument is talking about worrying response times, not conviction rates!
          • merpnderp 6y ago
            Crimes often leave evidence of which much is time sensitive. Responding in a timely manner to crimes are often critical to finding the perpetrators.
            • mike741 6y ago
              how often?
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
  • Misdicorl 6y ago
    I'm done responding to the FUD hydra here. If someone wants to come up with a single consistent argument for why above isn't bs, I'll engage with them
    • nitrogen 6y ago
      We're all on the same side here. We all want more opportunity and more safety for everyone, especially those who have the least of either. Talking past one another and not reading the best intentions behind each comment hinders that shared goal.
• adamsea 6y ago
  Yes it is man.
  • banads 6y ago
    Quote which part was contrary
    • adamsea 6y ago
      Original/parent comment for this conversation said: > There's a worrying trend in the conversation these days that has shifted from "there's a serious problem with racism in how police go about their job" to "we need less police". Folks in neighborhoods living with the constant threat of gang violence don't have the luxury to sit in their aeron chairs and argue about defunding the police. They face the very real threat of themselves or their loved ones being shot on the streets and statistically not by police. The contrary part: > The threat of gang violence is not mitigated by police response. The threat of gang violence is mitigated by providing much better options for people who would otherwise join gangs. Police presence is immaterial to the lack of gangs in affluent neighborhoods. Original comment basically said "police are important to protect against violence in neighborhoods where there's a lot of it. W/the implication that said violence is gang violence. The response argued that if we want to decrease or eliminate gang violence, we have to address the root issue, which is basically criminal neglect of neighborhoods (lack of schools, hospitals, entire communities systematically oppressed, disenfranchised, and neglected, etc) b/c of systemic racism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698742/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698742/ 'Conclusions. Relative “trauma deserts” with decreased access to immediate care were found in certain areas of Chicago and adversely affected mortality from GSWs. These results may inform decisions about trauma systems planning and funding.' Where's the funding for hospitals where it's needed? Or. Let's look at the LA uprising (aka the LA riots). Let's look at Ferguson. Let's look at the riots in Baltimore. Those communities clearly had very strong feelings about the police.