5 ms·

The conservatives are right though. normal liberals are so afraid of agreeing with a conservative that they happily will vote for the destruction of their own n

The conservatives are right though. normal liberals are so afraid of agreeing with a conservative that they happily will vote for the destruction of their own neighborhood. Boudin is not a sudden deviation from the norm. SF and other progressive cities have been on the path of electing these kind of radicals for many years. Boudins election was ultimately the result of not heeding the warnings many pundits gave.

wahern 5y ago
> SF and other progressive cities have been on the path of electing these kind of radicals for many years. Boudins election was ultimately the result of not heeding the warnings many pundits gave. That sounds suspiciously like a slippery slope kind of argument. But slippery slope arguments are rhetorical slights of hand. In the realm of public policy, you can usually stop a slippery slope any time you want. And I have no doubt that if the SF electorate understood what Boudin's precise policies would be, Boudin absolutely would not have won. Having lived in SF for the better part of two decades, IME SF politics is not at all like it's portrayed in the national media. But let's see what happens with the recall. I have exceptional disdain for Boudin precisely because I believe he'll do (and is doing) damage to otherwise constructive and productive criminal justice reform movements. Those movements aren't just composed of liberals. Republicans have supported and helped to pass sentence reductions in Congress.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- perl4ever 5y ago
  You said in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27718636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27718636) that you don't oppose his reforms. I really can't understand your viewpoint at all.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wahern 5y ago
    I generally neither oppose nor support more lenient sentencing as typically proposed in liberal discourse. I think the criminal justice reform movement exaggerates the effects of, e.g., structural racism, particularly as they relate to the finer details of the law and public policy. (IMO structural racism is far more consequential as it relates to economic opportunity, but that's the area least susceptible to legal remediation.) So if, for example, a DA wants to have a policy letting all first time non-violent offenders walk, then so be it. I don't think it'll make a difference one way or another. For the same reason I don't think prosecuting such first time offenses was particularly consequential by itself in terms of creating a criminalized underclass of poor minorities, I don't believe that abstaining from such prosecutions would result in substantial changes in behavior--i.e. more theft. OTOH, there are qualitative boundaries. If you quite literally remove the threat of jail or other serious repercussions regardless of number of offenses, then at the end of the day marginal effects will absolutely dominate. Unlike most crimes of violence, property offenses are principally crimes of opportunity--sociologically speaking, it's far easier to become a serial thief than a serial murderer. At some point the threat of material repercussions is too remote, and so a sizable subset of people will begin taking the opportunities to violate relatively weaker norms regarding inviolability of property. For example, take parking tickets. Parking tickets and towing fees can be a huge, even life-changing, setback for the poor. But what do you think will happen if we tell people that, while we'll still ticket unauthorized parking, failure to pay those tickets would never result in any other consequence--no enforced payment, no wage garnishment, no suspended license? Illegal parking isn't exactly morally reprehensible. It'll skyrocket. But compare that to if you say that material consequences are suspended until the 4th offense? Are a flood of people going to go out and start to park illegally? Probably not. Why change your behavior when after 3 times you're back to the status quo ante? (To be clear, I don't deny that the latter will still see some marginal effects, but it's not the kind of thing I'm going to get worked up over as matter of politics. I'll be happy to let it play out in good faith, if that's what the majority wants, and then discuss policy once we can see the concrete results.)
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      I just feel like you've made a lot of comments against him without being specific on what reforms are going wrong. Here, for instance, you are talking about all sorts of generalities and abstractions and hypothetical situations. But your comment could be written exactly the same no matter who was in office and what they were doing. Here, you paint a picture of a hypothetical line that is crossed, which is all very well, but does this really describe what has happened in SF? None of it appears to be firm statements about what has happened and who it could be attributed to. Someone who lives in SF may have the context that I don't. And it may not be worth your while to provide it. But I'm curious, because I can at least imagine getting a job offer in the bay area and wonder whether/how much of the stuff I read is true. Bail reform is something that's been happening in a number of places, I believe. And it sounds logical to assess the threat to the community instead of arbitrary cash bail, even if implementation is fraught.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > But slippery slope arguments are rhetorical slights of hand. In the realm of public policy, you can usually stop a slippery slope any time you want. Literally all my life experience would seem to disagree. Like take CRT which everyone is mad about now. I told people about it when I was in middle school and the same people against it today didn't believe me then Anyway, I'm not some kind of policy wonk. I'm not a politician. I'm just a guy and it seems to me the slippery slope is real. Maybe others don't see it because we've already hit bottom
  - wahern 5y ago
    CRT went mainstream because many people equivocate CRT with a belief in, e.g., structural racism. Thus, opposition to CRT is now equated by those on the left to a denial of structural racism. The existence of structural racism has been accepted (at least tacitly) by most of American society for generations, which makes CRT on its face seem unobjectionable to non-academics on the left. While I vehemently disagree with actual CRT scholarship because of its race essentialism and rejection of objectivity, it's kind of pointless to take that stance in regular discourse. It's not possible to explain to people that the concept of structural racism predates CRT by at least a decade[1], longer if we don't require literal usage of the phrase "structural racism". MLK, Ralph Ellison, W.E.B. Du Bois, Frantz Fanon, and many other writers were exploring structural racism long before the CRT school assembled. More generally, bifurcation of social analysis into structural and cultural began in the 19th century. (EDIT: There's another vein to CRT related to postmodern structuralism--which is not the same "structuralism" as discussed in earlier race scholarship or generally understood in mainstream sociology. CRT mixes and attempts to synthesize those distinct ideas.) Similarly, CRT on the right has been thoroughly equivocated with Marxism and other radical theories. But Tucker Carlson is talking out his butt because actual Marxists have been scornful of CRT since at least the 1990s. Alot of the lexicon of CRT comes from Marxist discourse, but so what? Libertarianism arose from the American Anarchist movement and would still use a similar lexicon but for self-conscious scrubbing of its language. (The one thing CRT clearly shares with Marxism is belief in a categorical, singular cause of oppression--white supremacy in the case of CRT, class conflict over control of the means of production in Marxism.) "CRT", like many things, has become another empty label thrown around in the culture wars. [1] See pp4-5 of this 1964 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Bulletin: https://25thandclement.com/~william/links/pdf/SDS_Bulletin-19640101.pdf https://25thandclement.com/~william/links/pdf/SDS_Bulletin-1... It was the earliest use of the literal phrase I could find on JSTOR.

wahern 5y ago

> SF and other progressive cities have been on the path of electing these kind of radicals for many years. Boudins election was ultimately the result of not heeding the warnings many pundits gave. That sounds suspiciously like a slippery slope kind of argument. But slippery slope arguments are rhetorical slights of hand. In the realm of public policy, you can usually stop a slippery slope any time you want. And I have no doubt that if the SF electorate understood what Boudin's precise policies would be, Boudin absolutely would not have won. Having lived in SF for the better part of two decades, IME SF politics is not at all like it's portrayed in the national media. But let's see what happens with the recall. I have exceptional disdain for Boudin precisely because I believe he'll do (and is doing) damage to otherwise constructive and productive criminal justice reform movements. Those movements aren't just composed of liberals. Republicans have supported and helped to pass sentence reductions in Congress.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
perl4ever 5y ago
You said in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27718636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27718636) that you don't oppose his reforms. I really can't understand your viewpoint at all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wahern 5y ago
  I generally neither oppose nor support more lenient sentencing as typically proposed in liberal discourse. I think the criminal justice reform movement exaggerates the effects of, e.g., structural racism, particularly as they relate to the finer details of the law and public policy. (IMO structural racism is far more consequential as it relates to economic opportunity, but that's the area least susceptible to legal remediation.) So if, for example, a DA wants to have a policy letting all first time non-violent offenders walk, then so be it. I don't think it'll make a difference one way or another. For the same reason I don't think prosecuting such first time offenses was particularly consequential by itself in terms of creating a criminalized underclass of poor minorities, I don't believe that abstaining from such prosecutions would result in substantial changes in behavior--i.e. more theft. OTOH, there are qualitative boundaries. If you quite literally remove the threat of jail or other serious repercussions regardless of number of offenses, then at the end of the day marginal effects will absolutely dominate. Unlike most crimes of violence, property offenses are principally crimes of opportunity--sociologically speaking, it's far easier to become a serial thief than a serial murderer. At some point the threat of material repercussions is too remote, and so a sizable subset of people will begin taking the opportunities to violate relatively weaker norms regarding inviolability of property. For example, take parking tickets. Parking tickets and towing fees can be a huge, even life-changing, setback for the poor. But what do you think will happen if we tell people that, while we'll still ticket unauthorized parking, failure to pay those tickets would never result in any other consequence--no enforced payment, no wage garnishment, no suspended license? Illegal parking isn't exactly morally reprehensible. It'll skyrocket. But compare that to if you say that material consequences are suspended until the 4th offense? Are a flood of people going to go out and start to park illegally? Probably not. Why change your behavior when after 3 times you're back to the status quo ante? (To be clear, I don't deny that the latter will still see some marginal effects, but it's not the kind of thing I'm going to get worked up over as matter of politics. I'll be happy to let it play out in good faith, if that's what the majority wants, and then discuss policy once we can see the concrete results.)
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I just feel like you've made a lot of comments against him without being specific on what reforms are going wrong. Here, for instance, you are talking about all sorts of generalities and abstractions and hypothetical situations. But your comment could be written exactly the same no matter who was in office and what they were doing. Here, you paint a picture of a hypothetical line that is crossed, which is all very well, but does this really describe what has happened in SF? None of it appears to be firm statements about what has happened and who it could be attributed to. Someone who lives in SF may have the context that I don't. And it may not be worth your while to provide it. But I'm curious, because I can at least imagine getting a job offer in the bay area and wonder whether/how much of the stuff I read is true. Bail reform is something that's been happening in a number of places, I believe. And it sounds logical to assess the threat to the community instead of arbitrary cash bail, even if implementation is fraught.
iammisc 5y ago
> But slippery slope arguments are rhetorical slights of hand. In the realm of public policy, you can usually stop a slippery slope any time you want. Literally all my life experience would seem to disagree. Like take CRT which everyone is mad about now. I told people about it when I was in middle school and the same people against it today didn't believe me then Anyway, I'm not some kind of policy wonk. I'm not a politician. I'm just a guy and it seems to me the slippery slope is real. Maybe others don't see it because we've already hit bottom
- wahern 5y ago
  CRT went mainstream because many people equivocate CRT with a belief in, e.g., structural racism. Thus, opposition to CRT is now equated by those on the left to a denial of structural racism. The existence of structural racism has been accepted (at least tacitly) by most of American society for generations, which makes CRT on its face seem unobjectionable to non-academics on the left. While I vehemently disagree with actual CRT scholarship because of its race essentialism and rejection of objectivity, it's kind of pointless to take that stance in regular discourse. It's not possible to explain to people that the concept of structural racism predates CRT by at least a decade[1], longer if we don't require literal usage of the phrase "structural racism". MLK, Ralph Ellison, W.E.B. Du Bois, Frantz Fanon, and many other writers were exploring structural racism long before the CRT school assembled. More generally, bifurcation of social analysis into structural and cultural began in the 19th century. (EDIT: There's another vein to CRT related to postmodern structuralism--which is not the same "structuralism" as discussed in earlier race scholarship or generally understood in mainstream sociology. CRT mixes and attempts to synthesize those distinct ideas.) Similarly, CRT on the right has been thoroughly equivocated with Marxism and other radical theories. But Tucker Carlson is talking out his butt because actual Marxists have been scornful of CRT since at least the 1990s. Alot of the lexicon of CRT comes from Marxist discourse, but so what? Libertarianism arose from the American Anarchist movement and would still use a similar lexicon but for self-conscious scrubbing of its language. (The one thing CRT clearly shares with Marxism is belief in a categorical, singular cause of oppression--white supremacy in the case of CRT, class conflict over control of the means of production in Marxism.) "CRT", like many things, has become another empty label thrown around in the culture wars. [1] See pp4-5 of this 1964 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Bulletin: https://25thandclement.com/~william/links/pdf/SDS_Bulletin-19640101.pdf https://25thandclement.com/~william/links/pdf/SDS_Bulletin-1... It was the earliest use of the literal phrase I could find on JSTOR.