7 ms·

A major problem as I see it is a lack of nuanced policy. Currently in America it seems that you can either have police brutality and criminalized homelessness o

A major problem as I see it is a lack of nuanced policy. Currently in America it seems that you can either have police brutality and criminalized homelessness or you can have non-enforcement. What we really need is to prosecute crime but without tolerating police brutality or making laws designed to punish the poor.

causi 4y ago
People with middle-ground attitudes seem to just get attacked by both sides nowadays.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Given the current state of voters, ranked choice seems like the best way to break the logjam by creating situations where palatable-to-all get elected over loved-by-most-hated-by-many.
  - refurb 4y ago
    That’s exactly how Chesa Boudin got elected to DA in SF - ranked choice.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      It can be a bad option, but still the best of the alternatives.
      - refurb 4y ago
        You can look up who lost. Basically an “old timer” Democrat and a “hard(er) on crime upstart”. Not sure we got the least worst.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        I meant ranked choice can be the least worst way of conducting democratic elections. Individual results will still rightly depend on voters. You can blunt the attraction of extremism, but hearts and minds need shifting before voters will take a fundamentally different approach.
    - toyg 4y ago
      The alternatives might have been even worse.
    - _vertigo 4y ago
      Boudin got the most votes in the first round. He would have won in first past the post too.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Ranked Choice Condorcet. Instant Runoff is a band aid for the most glaring failing of the plurality system, but it doesn't actually support moving away from the two party system. Most places that have adopted IRV seem to have mitigated its failings by having multiple election stages, but we'd be better off with a voting system that directly chooses the winner from the entire field of candidates (when that's possible).
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      The downside of high-plurality systems is the lack of voter knowledge, especially without the historical press function. I'd support that if it were coupled with multiple-choice position forms that were required to be filled out by each candidate, covering core issues and options. That is, no free response, not-an-answer answers.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        Given the type of candidates that tend to occupy the low plurality spots, I'd say that problem is there regardless. But yes, I totally agree with your proposal. I can even see it helping with cutting through all the boilerplate verbiage candidates are having to use to pay respects to various things, and return some focus on actual policies.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Vote Smart tried to do something similar... but the effective end result was that few candidates wanted to go on the record. https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ Which is a shame, because "knowing what you're voting for" seems like a critical component of democracy, and campaign ads are useless (and expensive).
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It makes sense, I think in this case a "middle ground" position is actually a legitimate opposition to both sides. The rightward view of american policing is basically they're functioning as intended but are not powerful enough to achieve their desired effect and must be reinforced to succeed. The leftward view is that they're functioning as intended, the violence and fear they cause is success, and so the entire thing must be dismantled. The "centrist" view is I think something like the goal of policing is good & correct but the system is malfunctioning and must be adjusted. Neither side will agree with that: the right doesn't agree that it's malfunctioning (except so far is that it's held back from achieving its goal) and the left doesn't agree that its goal is just.
  - causi 4y ago
    The problem is they get treated as if they're a member of the opposite side, not a third viewpoint. I can't count the number of times I've been called a Nazi and a communist in the same day.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      FWIW, coming from the far left here, I don't really consider either of these positions "opposite" me but they are both clear opponents to my vision of meaningful change. There's no neutrality or inherent virtue in a centrist position: it's a side like any other and you don't get credit just for inhabiting it. That doesn't make anyone calling you a nazi or communist justified in doing so or correct in their assessment. But it does indicate that neither considers your stance a compromise or allied position in relation to their own.
      - causi 4y ago
        It's not a centrist position, it's just one that doesn't adhere to the doctrine of either the Right or the Left.
      - latency-guy2 4y ago
        There's also no value in being an extremist either, you're not a significant member of any party that would lead to change in this country, nor will any of your goals come to fruition, you are outnumbered heavily and it looks like thankfully that will be the case for the remainder of my lifetime.
- thuuuomas 4y ago
  Centrism is a meta-heuristic concerned only with who said what. It’s no surprise that many people find centrist beliefs superficial & uninformed.
  - phpnode 4y ago
    that's ridiculous, most humans are natural centrists with very few people making up the extremes.
  - kakapo88 4y ago
    Posts such as this are sociologically amusing, "meta-heuristic" and the like. Using prepackaged terms to disparage people and dismiss them, without actually having to think objectively and consider opposing viewpoints. Also interesting how the choice of language completely outs people, as the extreme right/left adhere 100% to their respective terminologies, to signal membership and loyalty to their group. This post is a good example.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
syzarian 4y ago
You have pointed out the essential part of the policing problem. Anytime police are given genuine punishments for excessive force the entire department’s response is to stop doing their job. Another problem I see is that in some cities (mine) people see racism at any attempt to alleviate the crime problem in lower income areas. I used to use the public transit system but it is now filled with drug users and people who enjoy terrorizing others. Police do nothing about it partially out of a fear of being called racist. For whatever reason I get the sense that police are either extremely violent or extremely passive.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Police say that's the reason, but as you noted in the first paragraph, they're willing to manipulate the public for their own ends: why trust them on this motivation? What consequences do they have from perceived racism that they fear it so much? Again as you noted, they are rarely punished for anything at all. They also do a lot of pretty unambiguous racism without apparent concern over this. > For whatever reason I get the sense that police are either extremely violent or extremely passive. It's both, and the reasons are interrelated. Passivity in some areas protects their right to do violence in others. Public fear of crime, avoidance of public spaces, these are results that benefit them institutionally. What incentives do they have for not working towards that result?
  - syzarian 4y ago
    What consequences do they have from perceived racism that they fear it so much? When the white liberals (like me) of my city unite with poor people of color and decry an action of the police it does affect them. They are human and criticism does affect them. It especially affects them when the whole city is up in arms over something they do. Mostly white liberals in my city don’t think about policing issues until something egregious happens. My experience is that when the whole city is up in arms about their actions then police respond like a petulant child by refusing to enforce the law. Public fear of crime, avoidance of public spaces, these are results that benefit them institutionally. What incentives do they have for not working towards that result? I grew up in the Canal Zone in Panama and remember the time during Noriega when he and the U.S. were opposed to each other. I remember the way I had be when dealing with Panamanian police during that time. Even though I was a white American I had to be very careful when dealing with them. I feel the same way around American police as I did when I dealt with police of a dictatorship. My experience in America is that it is considered suspicious if a group of people are just hanging out outside. Four black kids walking together in my neighborhood would have the police called on them. We are, in essence, a nation of building dwellers who only go outside for the purpose of getting into a vehicle to drive to another building. It is as you say a situation that benefits police. We don’t really have civil rights in the U.S. because police can, with impunity, fuck you up for exercising them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
spopejoy 4y ago
> it seems that you can either have police brutality and criminalized homelessness or you can have non-enforcement NYC shows you can have broken policies AND do a better job on homelessness. NYPD brutality, stop-and-frisk, broken windows, "it's Giuliani time" -- the cruelty of the NYPD is long-standing and well-documented. Yet, NYC has done a massively better job directly addressing homelessness than SF. SF's vaunted liberalism is largely for show. This is where a homophobic psychopath murdered the mayor and supervisor and was hailed as a hero by many residents. This is where massively corrupt machine politicians like Willie Brown feathered their nests. This is a city with some of the worst-managed public housing in the country, and neighborhoods like Hunter's Point awash in toxic chemicals. This is a relatively tiny city with economic inequality and effective segregation outpacing cities many times it's size. Just because they've elected a progressive DA here and there (and then recalled them LOL) doesn't change the ugliness underneath.
- nocoiner 4y ago
  I only entered this comment section to watch the trash fire, and without making any observation on any other aspect of your comment (or any other for that matter) but - the Milk assassination was, what, almost 50 years ago? Surely that can’t be terribly dispositive of what the city is today. (I do think there’s probably an indication there about the attitudes of “old San Francisco” - but how much of that generation is left at this point?)
  - spopejoy 4y ago
    > 50 years ago? Surely that can’t be terribly dispositive of what the city is today It's relevant because at the time, like today, SF was seen as exhibit A of liberalism run amok, and yet couldn't unite against a homophobic assassination of their own elected officials. Now, the zeitgeist insists that SF's broken homeless policies come from misplaced liberal compassion as opposed to a long history of neglect and corruption, which was particularly acute toward hispanic and black communities.
    - nocoiner 4y ago
closeparen 4y ago
That’s what progressives in SF would say they are doing - with the stipulation that moderate amounts of theft, violence, and disorder are simply part of being marginalized, so criminalizing those behaviors is inherently oppressive.

causi 4y ago

People with middle-ground attitudes seem to just get attacked by both sides nowadays.

ethbr0 4y ago
Given the current state of voters, ranked choice seems like the best way to break the logjam by creating situations where palatable-to-all get elected over loved-by-most-hated-by-many.
- refurb 4y ago
  That’s exactly how Chesa Boudin got elected to DA in SF - ranked choice.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    It can be a bad option, but still the best of the alternatives.
    - refurb 4y ago
      You can look up who lost. Basically an “old timer” Democrat and a “hard(er) on crime upstart”. Not sure we got the least worst.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        I meant ranked choice can be the least worst way of conducting democratic elections. Individual results will still rightly depend on voters. You can blunt the attraction of extremism, but hearts and minds need shifting before voters will take a fundamentally different approach.
  - toyg 4y ago
    The alternatives might have been even worse.
  - _vertigo 4y ago
    Boudin got the most votes in the first round. He would have won in first past the post too.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Ranked Choice Condorcet. Instant Runoff is a band aid for the most glaring failing of the plurality system, but it doesn't actually support moving away from the two party system. Most places that have adopted IRV seem to have mitigated its failings by having multiple election stages, but we'd be better off with a voting system that directly chooses the winner from the entire field of candidates (when that's possible).
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The downside of high-plurality systems is the lack of voter knowledge, especially without the historical press function. I'd support that if it were coupled with multiple-choice position forms that were required to be filled out by each candidate, covering core issues and options. That is, no free response, not-an-answer answers.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Given the type of candidates that tend to occupy the low plurality spots, I'd say that problem is there regardless. But yes, I totally agree with your proposal. I can even see it helping with cutting through all the boilerplate verbiage candidates are having to use to pay respects to various things, and return some focus on actual policies.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Vote Smart tried to do something similar... but the effective end result was that few candidates wanted to go on the record. https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ Which is a shame, because "knowing what you're voting for" seems like a critical component of democracy, and campaign ads are useless (and expensive).
giraffe_lady 4y ago
It makes sense, I think in this case a "middle ground" position is actually a legitimate opposition to both sides. The rightward view of american policing is basically they're functioning as intended but are not powerful enough to achieve their desired effect and must be reinforced to succeed. The leftward view is that they're functioning as intended, the violence and fear they cause is success, and so the entire thing must be dismantled. The "centrist" view is I think something like the goal of policing is good & correct but the system is malfunctioning and must be adjusted. Neither side will agree with that: the right doesn't agree that it's malfunctioning (except so far is that it's held back from achieving its goal) and the left doesn't agree that its goal is just.
- causi 4y ago
  The problem is they get treated as if they're a member of the opposite side, not a third viewpoint. I can't count the number of times I've been called a Nazi and a communist in the same day.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    FWIW, coming from the far left here, I don't really consider either of these positions "opposite" me but they are both clear opponents to my vision of meaningful change. There's no neutrality or inherent virtue in a centrist position: it's a side like any other and you don't get credit just for inhabiting it. That doesn't make anyone calling you a nazi or communist justified in doing so or correct in their assessment. But it does indicate that neither considers your stance a compromise or allied position in relation to their own.
    - causi 4y ago
      It's not a centrist position, it's just one that doesn't adhere to the doctrine of either the Right or the Left.
    - latency-guy2 4y ago
      There's also no value in being an extremist either, you're not a significant member of any party that would lead to change in this country, nor will any of your goals come to fruition, you are outnumbered heavily and it looks like thankfully that will be the case for the remainder of my lifetime.
thuuuomas 4y ago
Centrism is a meta-heuristic concerned only with who said what. It’s no surprise that many people find centrist beliefs superficial & uninformed.
- phpnode 4y ago
  that's ridiculous, most humans are natural centrists with very few people making up the extremes.
- kakapo88 4y ago
  Posts such as this are sociologically amusing, "meta-heuristic" and the like. Using prepackaged terms to disparage people and dismiss them, without actually having to think objectively and consider opposing viewpoints. Also interesting how the choice of language completely outs people, as the extreme right/left adhere 100% to their respective terminologies, to signal membership and loyalty to their group. This post is a good example.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

syzarian 4y ago

You have pointed out the essential part of the policing problem. Anytime police are given genuine punishments for excessive force the entire department’s response is to stop doing their job. Another problem I see is that in some cities (mine) people see racism at any attempt to alleviate the crime problem in lower income areas. I used to use the public transit system but it is now filled with drug users and people who enjoy terrorizing others. Police do nothing about it partially out of a fear of being called racist. For whatever reason I get the sense that police are either extremely violent or extremely passive.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Police say that's the reason, but as you noted in the first paragraph, they're willing to manipulate the public for their own ends: why trust them on this motivation? What consequences do they have from perceived racism that they fear it so much? Again as you noted, they are rarely punished for anything at all. They also do a lot of pretty unambiguous racism without apparent concern over this. > For whatever reason I get the sense that police are either extremely violent or extremely passive. It's both, and the reasons are interrelated. Passivity in some areas protects their right to do violence in others. Public fear of crime, avoidance of public spaces, these are results that benefit them institutionally. What incentives do they have for not working towards that result?
- syzarian 4y ago
  What consequences do they have from perceived racism that they fear it so much? When the white liberals (like me) of my city unite with poor people of color and decry an action of the police it does affect them. They are human and criticism does affect them. It especially affects them when the whole city is up in arms over something they do. Mostly white liberals in my city don’t think about policing issues until something egregious happens. My experience is that when the whole city is up in arms about their actions then police respond like a petulant child by refusing to enforce the law. Public fear of crime, avoidance of public spaces, these are results that benefit them institutionally. What incentives do they have for not working towards that result? I grew up in the Canal Zone in Panama and remember the time during Noriega when he and the U.S. were opposed to each other. I remember the way I had be when dealing with Panamanian police during that time. Even though I was a white American I had to be very careful when dealing with them. I feel the same way around American police as I did when I dealt with police of a dictatorship. My experience in America is that it is considered suspicious if a group of people are just hanging out outside. Four black kids walking together in my neighborhood would have the police called on them. We are, in essence, a nation of building dwellers who only go outside for the purpose of getting into a vehicle to drive to another building. It is as you say a situation that benefits police. We don’t really have civil rights in the U.S. because police can, with impunity, fuck you up for exercising them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

spopejoy 4y ago

> it seems that you can either have police brutality and criminalized homelessness or you can have non-enforcement NYC shows you can have broken policies AND do a better job on homelessness. NYPD brutality, stop-and-frisk, broken windows, "it's Giuliani time" -- the cruelty of the NYPD is long-standing and well-documented. Yet, NYC has done a massively better job directly addressing homelessness than SF. SF's vaunted liberalism is largely for show. This is where a homophobic psychopath murdered the mayor and supervisor and was hailed as a hero by many residents. This is where massively corrupt machine politicians like Willie Brown feathered their nests. This is a city with some of the worst-managed public housing in the country, and neighborhoods like Hunter's Point awash in toxic chemicals. This is a relatively tiny city with economic inequality and effective segregation outpacing cities many times it's size. Just because they've elected a progressive DA here and there (and then recalled them LOL) doesn't change the ugliness underneath.

nocoiner 4y ago
I only entered this comment section to watch the trash fire, and without making any observation on any other aspect of your comment (or any other for that matter) but - the Milk assassination was, what, almost 50 years ago? Surely that can’t be terribly dispositive of what the city is today. (I do think there’s probably an indication there about the attitudes of “old San Francisco” - but how much of that generation is left at this point?)
- spopejoy 4y ago
  > 50 years ago? Surely that can’t be terribly dispositive of what the city is today It's relevant because at the time, like today, SF was seen as exhibit A of liberalism run amok, and yet couldn't unite against a homophobic assassination of their own elected officials. Now, the zeitgeist insists that SF's broken homeless policies come from misplaced liberal compassion as opposed to a long history of neglect and corruption, which was particularly acute toward hispanic and black communities.
  - nocoiner 4y ago

closeparen 4y ago

That’s what progressives in SF would say they are doing - with the stipulation that moderate amounts of theft, violence, and disorder are simply part of being marginalized, so criminalizing those behaviors is inherently oppressive.