4 ms·
> If you say "We're going to have a special mental health response team to deal with suicidal people and the non-violent mentally ill." Who would oppose that?
by geofft 5y ago
> If you say "We're going to have a special mental health response team to deal with suicidal people and the non-violent mentally ill." Who would oppose that?
A lot of people! One of the standard arguments is, mentally ill people are by definition unpredictable, so you can't classify then as "non-violent," so all responders must be armed and trained in the use of force for at least their own protection if not the protection of others.
Note that this is the actual argument as to why traffic cops are armed in the US. Erratic drivers are considered unpredictable, and anyone in the US could easily have a gun, so there isn't a special team for handling "non-violent" traffic offenders. It's the regular cops with their regular authorization to use deadly force.
Or put another way - if it were such an obviously good idea to the whole political spectrum, why hasn't it happened before?
"The police are racist murderers" is, first of all, objectively true and facts don't care about your feelings, but more importantly, it's objectively better rhetoric. Problems with inappropriate police responses have been around for a long while - and, unsurprisingly, they affect whites too (Ryan Whitaker was killed by officers investigating a noise complaint, and six-year-old Jeremy Mardis was killed by officers after chasing the car he was in the back seat of). But there hasn't been any real movement to change things.
Meanwhile, a whole lot of local governments are making good and meaningful changes thanks to people saying things like "The police are racist murderers" and "Defund the police." So while you may not like the slogans, they definitely seem to be working.
- betwixthewires 5y agoYour definition of objectivity on both counts seems to be subjective. If someone said "black people kill each other for crack corners, facts don't care about your feelings" you'd at the very least say they were painting with a broad brush. I'd agree with you. There's a difference between a race and a profession, sure, but you're generalizing a diverse group of people. And is it objectively better rhetoric? Objectively? Empirically I see it has a very divisive effect, much more prominent than any positive effect you can find examples of. But say it is effective, that's more important to you than it's truthfulness? Do you want to live in a world where we pretend to believe lies because they're effective at achieving some end? I'm all about reigning in the police, cutting budgets, cutting staff, whatever, not because they're racist (as a group they're not) but because they're goons for the state, it is their job to go sniff your butthole and ask you what you've been doing under implied threat of violence. That's objectively better rhetoric because it's true, and it's all inclusive because they do this to all of us equally.
- geofft 5y agoAt least among the NYPD, which is what this article about, it's not actually true that police are "goons for the state." The state has no effective control over what the police do. They quite literally turn their backs on elected leadership. They engage in all sorts of petty abuse of power like parking illegally in ways that are bad for the ends of the state (like promoting commerce). Police are, if anything, goons for themselves. I agree that if it were untrue that the police are racist murderers, then building public policy on it would be bad for society. But it's true, so it's fine to base policy on it.
- betwixthewires 5y agoBut it's not true though. You saying it is true doesn't make it true. It's about as true as the statement "black people kill each other over crack corners." Sure, some do, but most don't, most just live their lives like the rest of humanity.
- whateveracct 5y ago> And is it objectively better rhetoric? Objectively? A lot of liberal politics nowadays makes claims of "facts" when it's actually..just politics and opinions and all that ends up matter is a mix of philosophy and public opinion.
- grumblenum 5y ago>"The police are racist murderers" is, first of all, objectively true and facts don't care about your feelings Um. No? Drawing a hard line on the facts is understandable, but you sound completely out of touch. >So while you may not like the slogans, they definitely seem to be working. I take it you don't live near "the hood." De-policing is a luxury ideology for political dilettantes well insulated from the consequences of their juvenile theories.
- throwawaysea 5y agoIn the US, there are hundreds of thousands of police officers who have hundreds of millions of public interactions a year. Almost 100% of those interactions are fair, just policing and not an instance of racism or brutality or some other offense. Also consider that an overwhelming majority of black Americans want policing to increase or stay the same (https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...).
- geofft 5y agoSure - I think that reinforces my point that there isn't and won't be any political will to send unarmed social workers instead of cops on mental health calls solely on the abstract merits. Almost 100% of cases where the police check in on mental health cases end up fine, even though the cops are armed. If the attempted rhetoric is that sending in armed cops is a bad idea, the evidence suggests that it's generally fine in practice and probably does not warrant a change. What is new about the "defund the police" and "racist murderers" rhetoric is that it suggests that almost 100% is meaningfully different from actually 100%. Almost 100% of interactions Jack Ruby had with people ended up with them surviving, but he is still a "murderer."
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]