3 ms·

>The percentages are higher for Black Americans, but White Americans still make up the majority of people shot by police[1]. Yes I never understood this tactic

>The percentages are higher for Black Americans, but White Americans still make up the majority of people shot by police[1]. Yes I never understood this tactic. If you really want citizen support (which is required), you need to show that all citizens are subject to this type of injustice. If leaders just say one group is affected and don't show that all citizens are affected, you won't get change as fast, if at all. It's almost as if there is an ulterior motive to actually solving the problem, or perhaps the leadership just won't look past their own environment. Either way, the shiz is way out of hand and everyone should be afraid of it. I remember reading an article where police were serving a warrant and they straight up shot the guy next to his pregnant girlfriend through the window while they were sleeping. They justified it by saying the room was boobytrapped. The guy was staying at his parents house when this occurred. It was very suspect, but I never saw national media attention it deserved, and I find it highly unlikely a kid living with his parents would place a active, lethal booby trap in his bedroom inside his parent's house. It was an actual murder squad. Pretty crazy. I wish I could find the article (it was local.)

throwaway040922 5y ago
Indeed. If I'm advocating for a project that will bring $10 million in to Town A that has a population of 5,000, and $50 million in to Town B with a population of 50,000, I'm going to be telling both Town A and Town B how the project will benefit them. I'm not going to be telling Town B that this project is only for Town A, and it's not an issue that affects Town B. If someone was saying that, you would expect that they'd be advocating against the project. It's hard to believe that anyone who's actively downplaying the way an issue affects the majority of the population is actually interested in solving the issue.
- bavell 5y ago
  I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion! It's so annoying and sad listening to all the people out there with good intentions who are failing so hard they actually drive people in the opposite direction. They would further their cause more by removing themselves from the discussion entirely.
nootropicat 5y ago
>Yes I never understood this tactic. If you really want citizen support (which is required), you need to show that all citizens are subject to this type of injustice. If leaders just say one group is affected and don't show that all citizens are affected, you won't get change as fast, if at all. It all makes sense if you start from a cynical assumption that the real point of most political activism is exclusively to acquire political capital, then spend it on acquiring power, rather than fixing the issue. In fact fixing the issue would be counterproductive, as that stops power accumulation and requires finding some new issue. Of course, you have to plausibly pretend to actually care about fixing the issue. What's the solution? Demand unworkable and absurd fixes, like 'defund the police'. The social engineering in it was remarkable - its planned ineffectiveness relied on extremist demanding complete abolition of the police to make it unworkable and scare people away, while at the same gaslighting opponents of the absurd extreme it's _really_ only about small redirection of funds to health services and similar. What would a real solution look like? It would try to solve the root of the issue rather than symptoms. One major current cause is that new meth is significantly neurotoxic due to unknown impurities from currently dominating synthesis methods. Good article about the issue: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new... The most effective solution would be to legalize meth and ensure only pure, pharmaceutical grade is being sold. Pure meth isn't especially neurotoxic - and in small doses it's actually neuroprotective due to hormesis. Amount of people with damaged brains would plummet, fewer people would be homeless, fewer people would be violent. Which is exactly the reason it's never going to happen - nobody would gain politically. Same logic for fentanyl and heroin deaths - cheap, pure (consistent purity = much lower risk of accidental overdoses) heroin would reduce fentanyl deaths to near zero, virtually eliminate health damage (pure heroin is relatively safe and can be used for decades) and reduce crimes committed by addicts to near zero (by virtue of being cheap).
- Clubber 5y ago
  I agree with your assessment of "defund the police," but that was an unfortunate slogan that got converted from "reappropriate funds from police to other services like mental health, counseling, etc." I think that was also politicized. I believe many police departments are entities that also fall into the category of self service and self preservation. Our medium town spends $500 million on police and barely a fraction of that on drug rehab, mental health, etc. It certainly seems misappropriated. I don't know much about meth, but concerning the opioid crisis, our solution was to "crack down," on prescriptions, which sounds good to someone who doesn't give it much thought. The actual outcome was people went from using a drug with a dosage printed on the side to stuff made in people's bathrooms and kitchens including god knows what which resulted in many, many more deaths.

throwaway040922 5y ago

Indeed. If I'm advocating for a project that will bring $10 million in to Town A that has a population of 5,000, and $50 million in to Town B with a population of 50,000, I'm going to be telling both Town A and Town B how the project will benefit them. I'm not going to be telling Town B that this project is only for Town A, and it's not an issue that affects Town B. If someone was saying that, you would expect that they'd be advocating against the project. It's hard to believe that anyone who's actively downplaying the way an issue affects the majority of the population is actually interested in solving the issue.

bavell 5y ago
I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion! It's so annoying and sad listening to all the people out there with good intentions who are failing so hard they actually drive people in the opposite direction. They would further their cause more by removing themselves from the discussion entirely.

nootropicat 5y ago

>Yes I never understood this tactic. If you really want citizen support (which is required), you need to show that all citizens are subject to this type of injustice. If leaders just say one group is affected and don't show that all citizens are affected, you won't get change as fast, if at all. It all makes sense if you start from a cynical assumption that the real point of most political activism is exclusively to acquire political capital, then spend it on acquiring power, rather than fixing the issue. In fact fixing the issue would be counterproductive, as that stops power accumulation and requires finding some new issue. Of course, you have to plausibly pretend to actually care about fixing the issue. What's the solution? Demand unworkable and absurd fixes, like 'defund the police'. The social engineering in it was remarkable - its planned ineffectiveness relied on extremist demanding complete abolition of the police to make it unworkable and scare people away, while at the same gaslighting opponents of the absurd extreme it's _really_ only about small redirection of funds to health services and similar. What would a real solution look like? It would try to solve the root of the issue rather than symptoms. One major current cause is that new meth is significantly neurotoxic due to unknown impurities from currently dominating synthesis methods. Good article about the issue: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new... The most effective solution would be to legalize meth and ensure only pure, pharmaceutical grade is being sold. Pure meth isn't especially neurotoxic - and in small doses it's actually neuroprotective due to hormesis. Amount of people with damaged brains would plummet, fewer people would be homeless, fewer people would be violent. Which is exactly the reason it's never going to happen - nobody would gain politically. Same logic for fentanyl and heroin deaths - cheap, pure (consistent purity = much lower risk of accidental overdoses) heroin would reduce fentanyl deaths to near zero, virtually eliminate health damage (pure heroin is relatively safe and can be used for decades) and reduce crimes committed by addicts to near zero (by virtue of being cheap).

Clubber 5y ago
I agree with your assessment of "defund the police," but that was an unfortunate slogan that got converted from "reappropriate funds from police to other services like mental health, counseling, etc." I think that was also politicized. I believe many police departments are entities that also fall into the category of self service and self preservation. Our medium town spends $500 million on police and barely a fraction of that on drug rehab, mental health, etc. It certainly seems misappropriated. I don't know much about meth, but concerning the opioid crisis, our solution was to "crack down," on prescriptions, which sounds good to someone who doesn't give it much thought. The actual outcome was people went from using a drug with a dosage printed on the side to stuff made in people's bathrooms and kitchens including god knows what which resulted in many, many more deaths.