4 ms·

While I agree with you high level, I heard an argument on a podcast yesterday which resonated with me, which is that we don’t really talk about public safety so

While I agree with you high level, I heard an argument on a podcast yesterday which resonated with me, which is that we don’t really talk about public safety solutions outside of the police. No problem has ever been solved by taking money away from it, but maybe we should look at the list of jobs covered by police and figure out which of those jobs could be handled by a different/new department. Not everything the police does require guns. Instead of defund the police let’s fund public safety solutions that don’t involve law enforcement.

lostlogin 4y ago
The idea that mental health will get properly funded is (sadly) laughable. And I live someone where public healthcare is supposedly a thing.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I never know how to conceptualize my feelings about these things, do you sort of try to talk about and spread ideas about what should happen or what's realistic. Part of what is embedded in the idea that police is the only public safety effort we talk about is that it's the only solution that's politically feasible. shrug?
ok_dad 4y ago
> Instead of defund the police let’s fund public safety solutions that don’t involve law enforcement. This is literally what "defund the police" meant, just that the unfortunate naming caused people to do that thing where you read the headline and not the body. The initial push for "defund police" was to remove their responsibility for mental health calls and things of that nature and send specially-trained personnel to deal with that who had training to de-escalate and help those folks, without needing guns and such.
- aaron695 4y ago
- mikkergp 4y ago
  It is not 'literally' what it means, because it's missing the important distinction of _not defunding the police_. Any definition of defund the police involves something along the lines of "divesting funds from police departments"(wikipedia) Yes I get your point about how defund the police was misinterpreted, by everyone and how really it's a great policy meant to do all the things I mentioned. But we should fund public safety without touching police budgets.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  It is named unfortunately because there are people who are absolutely literal about wanting what the name clearly says, and then maybe people who maybe aren't 100% on board with it but are okay with using piggy-backing off it to achieve their goals and aren't going to get in the way of it as long as their own goals are also achieved. To pretend otherwise is naive at best.
redavni 4y ago
Your point touches on the crux of the problem. How to achieve safe and peaceful communities is not a mystery. Humans have been doing the civilization thing for thousands of years. The problem is people who think that we have been doing it wrong and should stop what we have done for thousands of years, and wave their hands at mysterious other solutions.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  What you're saying we've 'solved' safety? What does this even mean? Scale changes things. What works for 10 people doesn't work for 1000, 10,000, 100,000. Also - You're saying there's nothing new to learn? Also, how to achieve safe and peaceful communities seems like a huge mystery. I'm bewildered by your comment but look forward to being educated.

lostlogin 4y ago

The idea that mental health will get properly funded is (sadly) laughable. And I live someone where public healthcare is supposedly a thing.

mikkergp 4y ago
I never know how to conceptualize my feelings about these things, do you sort of try to talk about and spread ideas about what should happen or what's realistic. Part of what is embedded in the idea that police is the only public safety effort we talk about is that it's the only solution that's politically feasible. shrug?

ok_dad 4y ago

> Instead of defund the police let’s fund public safety solutions that don’t involve law enforcement. This is literally what "defund the police" meant, just that the unfortunate naming caused people to do that thing where you read the headline and not the body. The initial push for "defund police" was to remove their responsibility for mental health calls and things of that nature and send specially-trained personnel to deal with that who had training to de-escalate and help those folks, without needing guns and such.

aaron695 4y ago
mikkergp 4y ago
It is not 'literally' what it means, because it's missing the important distinction of _not defunding the police_. Any definition of defund the police involves something along the lines of "divesting funds from police departments"(wikipedia) Yes I get your point about how defund the police was misinterpreted, by everyone and how really it's a great policy meant to do all the things I mentioned. But we should fund public safety without touching police budgets.
naniwaduni 4y ago
It is named unfortunately because there are people who are absolutely literal about wanting what the name clearly says, and then maybe people who maybe aren't 100% on board with it but are okay with using piggy-backing off it to achieve their goals and aren't going to get in the way of it as long as their own goals are also achieved. To pretend otherwise is naive at best.

redavni 4y ago

Your point touches on the crux of the problem. How to achieve safe and peaceful communities is not a mystery. Humans have been doing the civilization thing for thousands of years. The problem is people who think that we have been doing it wrong and should stop what we have done for thousands of years, and wave their hands at mysterious other solutions.

mikkergp 4y ago
What you're saying we've 'solved' safety? What does this even mean? Scale changes things. What works for 10 people doesn't work for 1000, 10,000, 100,000. Also - You're saying there's nothing new to learn? Also, how to achieve safe and peaceful communities seems like a huge mystery. I'm bewildered by your comment but look forward to being educated.