4 ms·

"Defund" can be a relative term that doesn't necessarily mean to fully remove funding. E.g. we've had decades of hyperbole where relatively small cuts to defen

• panarky 5y ago
  > we've had decades of hyperbole where relatively small cuts to defense funding are referred to by opponents as "defunding" US troops making defense and police funding continue to increase but at a slightly slower rate is referred to by opponents as "defunding"
• bleachedsleet 5y ago
  > On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided. This statement disturbs me. Please clarify.
  • mlyle 5y ago
    If you spend a huge amount of money on police, and get bad outcomes for both crime rate and negative impacts of policing, there's really two options: - The money is poorly spent, and better (perhaps less) spending would obtain better outcomes - Because of other factors, we're doing approximately as well as we can: if we deployed resources away from the authoritarian, heavy-handed mechanisms, we'd have even more crimes and bad outcomes. I think the former is more likely, but I can't entirely exclude the latter.
  • giantg2 5y ago
    There are a number of socioeconomic factors that are believed to be the underlying influence on violent crime. My own personal summary on this is that people tend to become criminals when they lose hope in having a fair shot at a successful life, or see an opportunity that they don't find morally reprehensible ("well, it's really the bank/insurance money so it's not hurting a person"). So I think this hopelessness is mostly what drove the pandemic crime increase.
• batshit_beaver 5y ago
  > On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided. I think people both understate how splintered the US society really is, and overstate the importance of this divide. Imagine a country with a HUGE historical and current influx of immigrants that bring tons of different cultures and ideologies into the mix. The country has traditionally been hard to govern, especially at the federal level, precisely because it encourages freedom of thought and expression through both law and immigration policy. Its economic structure further encourages division by being one of the most meritocratic systems on the planet, where material gains for good decisions are quite the norm, but where the divide between the haves and have nots is always growing, and always on display. In a country I describe, why is it any surprise to anyone that criminal behavior will be more common than in a more cohesive environment, therefore necessitating a more strict policing approach? And in what world does it make sense to reduce police powers in such a country without suffering the obvious increase in crime that will follow that? It's not that US is fundamentally broken or fucked up, it's just a very different place compared to the "liberal utopias" of Northern Europe, so often cited by leftist activists in the states.
  • kraftman 5y ago
    So it's not broken or fucked up, it just: - is splintered - is divided - is hard to govern - has an economic structure that encourages division - has an increasing dive between the haves and have nots
    • batshit_beaver 5y ago
      Correct, but that's just how the country is. If people want cultural changes, they've gotta address the causes of the divides in the US and understand that they'll have massive negative consequences too, not just positive ones. Or they can move to a country that is already more in line with what they want out of society.
      • mlyle 5y ago
        US police kill too many people (including many innocents and especially of lower socioeconomic classes)-- easy solution, move somewhere else!