4 ms·

> first concern is how it will affect criminals My first concern is how it will affect people the police historically over-target. That means black people and

> first concern is how it will affect criminals My first concern is how it will affect people the police historically over-target. That means black people and LGBT people. I'm re-reading my comment and I think I alluded to that, so I'm a little concerned that you said "how it will affect criminals". > the police and the DA office have essentially legalized many forms of crime by refusing to prosecute people This is a broad oversimplification of the situation in SF. I keep hearing this myth from people that don't live in SF that the police have been, like, abolished or something, but in reality no politician comes anywhere close to touching police abolitionist rhetoric. In reality the cops absolutely hated the last DA and it seems they started sucking at their jobs on purpose as a result. The new DA they seem to like a lot more. Regardless, blame always seems to deflect off the cops and onto the nearest politician when it comes to basically anything in SF. Replies to you are discussing how "crime is legal" in SF and I really have no idea what this could mean. It sounds like fox news gobblygook to me.

TechBro8615 4y ago
> My first concern is how it will affect people the police historically over-target What's worse, some people feeling unsafe around police, or everyone feeling unsafe around everyone?
- komali2 4y ago
  This is a false dichotomy.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    You're right, it's not everyone; the criminals aren't feeling unsafe.
    - komali2 4y ago
      No, your false dichotomy was supposing that we must have some arrangement of people (historically in the usa this means black people) feel unsafe around police in order for the rest of us to feel safe in society. It's not just a false dichotomy, it's illogical. If a given set of people doesn't feel safe around the police, they don't feel safe in society. They are us, unless you're willing to dehumanize them, so therefore a world where we don't feel safe around the police is actually your second case, where we don't feel safe at all. I click through this thread desperate for a conservative position that isn't teetering on a stack of rhetorical fallacies or cognitive biases. Are you able to provide one?
      - TechBro8615 4y ago
        I thought I was providing one, in the form of the utilitarian argument that it's better for some people to be scared of police than for everyone to be scared of each other. You can disagree with utilitarian ethics, but it's not a rhetorical fallacy to promote them, and certainly not when presenting them as "the least bad option."
tdehnel 4y ago
[flagged]
- komali2 4y ago
  > Some groups commit more crime than others. I'm just so tired that this position is still held by people. It's just so easy to see the issue one can't help but wonder why you're preferring to believe the inherently racist take. No, certain races do not commit more crimes than other ones; certain races get convicted and arrested more than other ones. The evidence bears this out in reality. The racist interpretation is strongly incorrect. The data supports my position, not yours. Why do you hold the racist position anyway? In random stops and searches, contraband is found more often on white people, than black people. Why do more black people go to jail? Easy, systemic racism. What possible other conclusion could you reasonably arrive at? The wikipedia article on race and crime in the usa is an excellent summation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United... Regarding Ronen, handwaving vague fear mongering about police abolitionism isn't good enough. I'm forced to throw buckets of analysis into a comment for the millionth time to counter a racist interpretation of crime statistics, but you get to drop a tweet and say you saw someone steal food once and thus argue that progressive solutions to reducing crime are all naive and stupid? Nah. Do your footwork. See if your position has any actual strength. Anyway, the budget for sfpd is already high, and has only gone up year on year. The police haven't been defunded. Lol at the comment about public camping. Dare I even ask what you prefer the city does with homeless people?

TechBro8615 4y ago

> My first concern is how it will affect people the police historically over-target What's worse, some people feeling unsafe around police, or everyone feeling unsafe around everyone?

komali2 4y ago
This is a false dichotomy.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  You're right, it's not everyone; the criminals aren't feeling unsafe.
  - komali2 4y ago
    No, your false dichotomy was supposing that we must have some arrangement of people (historically in the usa this means black people) feel unsafe around police in order for the rest of us to feel safe in society. It's not just a false dichotomy, it's illogical. If a given set of people doesn't feel safe around the police, they don't feel safe in society. They are us, unless you're willing to dehumanize them, so therefore a world where we don't feel safe around the police is actually your second case, where we don't feel safe at all. I click through this thread desperate for a conservative position that isn't teetering on a stack of rhetorical fallacies or cognitive biases. Are you able to provide one?
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      I thought I was providing one, in the form of the utilitarian argument that it's better for some people to be scared of police than for everyone to be scared of each other. You can disagree with utilitarian ethics, but it's not a rhetorical fallacy to promote them, and certainly not when presenting them as "the least bad option."

tdehnel 4y ago

[flagged]

komali2 4y ago
> Some groups commit more crime than others. I'm just so tired that this position is still held by people. It's just so easy to see the issue one can't help but wonder why you're preferring to believe the inherently racist take. No, certain races do not commit more crimes than other ones; certain races get convicted and arrested more than other ones. The evidence bears this out in reality. The racist interpretation is strongly incorrect. The data supports my position, not yours. Why do you hold the racist position anyway? In random stops and searches, contraband is found more often on white people, than black people. Why do more black people go to jail? Easy, systemic racism. What possible other conclusion could you reasonably arrive at? The wikipedia article on race and crime in the usa is an excellent summation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United... Regarding Ronen, handwaving vague fear mongering about police abolitionism isn't good enough. I'm forced to throw buckets of analysis into a comment for the millionth time to counter a racist interpretation of crime statistics, but you get to drop a tweet and say you saw someone steal food once and thus argue that progressive solutions to reducing crime are all naive and stupid? Nah. Do your footwork. See if your position has any actual strength. Anyway, the budget for sfpd is already high, and has only gone up year on year. The police haven't been defunded. Lol at the comment about public camping. Dare I even ask what you prefer the city does with homeless people?