9 ms·

The world is awful. Millions of children die each year. The world is much better. Even though children die, we don't have nearly as many as we used to. The wo

The world is awful. Millions of children die each year. The world is much better. Even though children die, we don't have nearly as many as we used to. The world can be much better. Most of these child deaths are preventable. This is how I view the world and it is why it upsets me when people voice concern about crime in a city or something like that and people respond with "ACKSHUALLY" followed by some sort of statistic. It feels like people just want to stay stuck but as the author says "to see that a better world is possible, we need to see that both are true at the same time: the world is awful, and the world is much better." Being too dismissive of certain concerns is just as bad as being too pessimistic.

ethanbond 3y ago
Usually when people are complaining about crime in a city they literally do not know the facts. That's very different from "things are factually better than they've ever been, but we can and should do much better."
- colechristensen 3y ago
  The two groups that talk about crime are more or less equal in their self-delusion. The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. Mind you there are plenty of people who are fairly reasonable who you don't see talking about these things publicly much, usually because the people who respond are so very obnoxious. You have people denying reality vs. people exaggerating it, neither really have very good information. I have personally experienced both. I left a formerly nicer neighborhood that took a turn to avoid robberies and too frequent gun shots for downtown where I feel much safer... and manage to offend both sides when I mention this.
  - whstl 3y ago
    Yep. It’s like this for lots of other subjects. From war to paper straws. Not saying whether it is wrong or right, but: it is often people trying to move the Overton window, or people getting manipulated by window movers.
  - ajross 3y ago
    FWIW: per SF's statistics, both violent and property crime rates are at 10+ year lows in every category: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rat... I'm not how you get a "both sides" argument from that data, but OK. We're in the same phase of this debate that we are with inflation: there was a burst of signal, driven largely by the pandemic and related causes, it receeded, but argumentation is still informed by feelings and not current state. (Edit: and the amount of argumentation below trying to refute this one link WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE is pretty much proof that this isn't a fight about facts.)
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Statistics from the police is the least accurate way to measure minor crimes, those stats mostly tracks how active the police is and not how much crime there is. Or do you believe that Denmark and Sweden has the most cases of thefts in the world? These stats has nothing to do with how much theft is actually happening. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/
      - ajross 3y ago
        Are there better numbers? It seems like these track existing conventional wisdom about the recent crime burst, no? You're just trying to throw out the last 2 years showing a decline? Is that really a reasonable argument? Obviously yes, there's an apples/oranges problem with comparing data sets collected in different countries under different law enforcement regimes, etc... But between e.g. 2022 and 2017 in San Francisco specifically? I don't see the argument. (Also important to note that while "Larceny" might be plausibly related to police ignoring crime, other things like "Murder" are very much not if you aren't accusing the police of hiding bodies. And violent crime shows the same trend.)
        Jensson 3y ago
        It is much more likely that the police changed a bit on how they report things than that the population at large changed. The real changes gets lost in the noise of police reporting changes. Police reporting changes not just via bureaucratic decisions but also the feelings of the police force in general because it is the people at the bottom that decides what to report, which is very fickle and can change quickly with reasons like "we catch thieves but they just get released, so we stopped caring". Covid likely changed crime rates, yes, but it likely changed police reporting rates much more. That goes for all kinds of events. Saying crime is down since police reporting is down is like saying that kids learn more today since they get better grades today than 10 years ago. Edit: You get much better numbers by asking people if they have been robbed lately, or asking stores how much gets stolen.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I have to admit, I don't think I've heard any left-wing folks saying that at all.
  - klipt 3y ago
    > The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. Some left wing folks will agree you should be afraid but only if you're female/black etc because men/white people might attack you. But they'll insist if you're a white man then you're protected from crime by "privilege". Which is interesting because statistically men are much more often victims of violent crime.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, doing this. I think it is important to note the mainstream, because we do have tons of elected officials and mainstream cable news talking heads making the "warzone" argument (and deliberately mischaracterizing any attempts at police or justice system reform).
    - colechristensen 3y ago
      I know many people personally who do it in conversations with me. Locally we have a county attorney who ran and won on, essentially, a platform to not prosecute crimes. She's done such a bad job that in a few egregious cases the state attorney general took cases over. It has gotten to the point where there are liberal-talking-point topics that I just don't address with good friends in the same way you avoid anything political with the slightly unhinged conservative uncle. I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, who is talking about crime and criminals in a way that seems like they are actually interested in making the situation better.
      - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
        I have yet to see a politician who has ran on "not prosecuting crime" and winning. It's a batshit crazy mega unpopular opinion that we should not prosecute crime so I'm shocked you are so close to someone who was able to succeed on that. Can you share who this person is so I can look up what they ran on?
        colechristensen 3y ago
        Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney Of course she said she'd be tough vaguely on violent crime, then but then what she actually meant which was "In addition to prosecution and incarceration in appropriate cases, Mary’s approach to community safety will include: * Offering restorative justice practices as an option for victims. * Advocating for community-based alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases, including supporting these alternatives at the legislature and pushing for increased funding. * Partnering with schools, families, and others to ensure children who commit crimes have options with structure and support to help them succeed. Closely coordinating with community corrections officials to improve the quality and effectiveness of supervision." One of the most egregious cases involved two teenagers who were paid to kill a young mother, they broke down her door and shot her to death in the middle of the night. Moriarty offered them a plea deal for less than 2 years in juvenile detention. https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-ag-ellison-to-handle-zaria-mckeever-murder-case/ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-...
  - deanCommie 3y ago
    > The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. This is contextual and is misleading without it. But it does accurately represent the ineptitude of the left and why it always loses in these situations. Here's how it goes: Problem: Society has people that are poor and mentally challenged. Both turn to drugs to cope. Drugs are illegal, increased demand increases criminality. Drug use exacerbates poverty, homelessness. Society becomes full of drug users committing petty crimes, and drug dealers perpetuating major crimes to contribute to supply. Not to mention addicts dying in the streets from overdoses. All of this in general make cities undesirable and less safe. RIGHT-WING Solution: LET'S GET TOUGH ON CRIME. Drug dealers get arrested. Drug users get arrested. For a little while the streets are cleaner and safer, and everyone is happy. But the root cause hasn't been addressed, so the same problems just return. LEFT-WING Solution: Drug use is a symptom not a root cause. And criminality is inherent to drug trade because drugs are illegal. If we legalize or decriminalize drugs we reduce the criminal element. If we give people safe injection sites they don't have to die from overdoses. And if we fund social programs we can get people out of poverty, off the streets, and into housing. PROBLEM 1: All of this is a lot harder than sending a dozen cops into a tent city and arresting a dozen homeless people. PROBLEM 2: Even if carried out PERFECTLY, there becomes an intermediate step where homeless people are seen being given funds or housing from the government which makes poor-but-not-homeless, and even middle-class people get mad saying "I work so hard, how come this person who is clearly a loser is getting all these handouts? This makes people petty and the right wing seize on it. PROBLEM 3: Going soft on drug use means in the short term you have people using drugs more openly, but not being arrested for it. This makes people grossed out and the right wing seize on it. Before you know it and before any meaningful improvements have been made, you have right wing candidates screaming that all of the problems of society are because the left is too soft, and we need to get tougher. And they usually succeed and they usually win. Because the best the left wing can do is point to statistics that show fewer homeless people are dying of poverty or drug overdoses, and the truth is most humans in society just don't care. So they deny and minimize. The reality is that out of sight out of mind, most gentle moderate even somewhat progressive people would be just as happy if homeless people "disappeared". They don't want to think about what that means. So they vote left when they feel guilty, and right when they're annoyed.
- Throw73747 3y ago
  Arguing about "facts" and statistics, when it is literally impossible to report basic crimes like robbery to police is pointless!
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago
    What do you mean it's literally impossible to report robberies to the police?
    - zhivota 3y ago
      Police stop taking reports of crimes they will not pursue or won't be prosecuted. There is no "fact" saying how much crime is occurring, only a snapshot of how many reports were accepted and filed by the police.
    - Throw73747 3y ago
      They just refuse to take report, with some bullshit excuse. Like under $950 it is misdemeanor.. Everything in shop is locked up, but crime is down!
    - threemux 3y ago
      If you report a minor robbery to the police in any large American city and you aren't a public figure, there is functionally a 0% chance of them following up on it much less solving it. The only benefit for reporting is if you plan to make an insurance claim. If not, there is no point to reporting a minor robbery to the police. Robberies and property crimes are hugely underreported in official statistics because the first time you try to report one you realize that it makes a bad situation worse by wasting your time after the event. That is what they're talking about.
      - feoren 3y ago
        Other benefits of reporting it, other than insurance, is that it makes these kinds of statistics more accurate, and that in the unlikely event that they "accidentally" solve the case, it'll be easier for you to get your stuff back. The latter can happen if they arrest someone for some other reason and find what appears to be a bunch of stolen property or something. It's not likely, but it seems like it'd still be worth reporting the crime. But you make a good point that a lackluster police response does lower the incidence of reporting crimes, effectively doctoring crime statistics. You'd have to evaluate whether this trend has increased or decreased relative to historical periods when factoring that into any comparison, though.
Ensorceled 3y ago
> This is how I view the world and it is why it upsets me when people voice concern about crime in a city or something like that and people respond with "ACKSHUALLY" followed by some sort of statistic. Most people voicing "concern" are saying "crime is increasing" and usually blaming either current politicians and/or progressive policies for the "increase". It's almost always accompanied by either a "vote for me" or some screed on how we have "gone soft on crime".
- stuartjohnson12 3y ago
  Crime rates are a prime battlefield for culture wars. The fact that talk about crime rates is usually an attack on progressive policies usually means progressives usually also respond in an ACKSHUALLY manner followed by a wall of anarchist crime theory which must account for all (not just some) of any disparity, because if it does not then you have stabbed your own side in the back. Whatever you think about Elizier Yudowsky, I think he hit this one right on the nail. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
  - badcppdev 3y ago
    What's interesting to me is conservative political parties that are defunding the police, court systems and prisons while noisily passing legislation that impose harsher penalties for crimes. Meaningless penalties because the criminals aren't prosecuted due to a lack of resources.
- fasthands9 3y ago
  Crime is obviously down over the decades, which is very important, but I think it would be silly to deny there was a major uptick in murders in 2020. https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/us-murder-violent-crime-rates-drop https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/us-murder-violent-crime-rat... There are obviously lots of reasons for this having nothing to do with crime policy, such as the economic shock of covid. That being said, I don't think its true at all it is straightforwardly settled how to reduce crime. Pretty much all people I have read on this suggest penalizing gun possession crimes more would decrease the violent crime rate. It's part of the reason murder rate in places like NY is relatively low. That said, prosecuting more people for probation violations or gun possessions is a a policy that cuts against both conservative ideology (because they are pro gun) and progressive ideology (because it will require a larger prison population that will be disproportionately minority)
nabla9 3y ago
When people say crime is getting out of hand, while it's actually decreasing, they are just wrong and ignorant.
- amelius 3y ago
  You can blame the media. And social media included.
- d4mi3n 3y ago
  That's a bit reductive. It can be true that globally (or in some superset) crime has decreased while in some local context it remains the same or has become concentrated (e.g. worse for people in that context). This whole article and commentary around it has also highlighted another issue for me: It's hard to have nuanced conversations about complex problems that can be simplified or generalized to something causes a difference in perception about what actual problems *are*.
  - nabla9 3y ago
    When people say crime is getting out of hand, while it's actually decreasing in the context they mean it, they are just wrong and ignorant. This is common bias. People consistently think that crime is getting worse.
    - rcoveson 3y ago
      So there are people out there, not in this thread, who are wrong when they say things that are incorrect?
    - kapp_in_life 3y ago
      In many metro areas crime is higher than it was before COVID. Sure the levels may be decreasing below the 2020 peak levels, but relative to 2019 or earlier its oftentimes still higher.
- BadHumans 3y ago
  Most crime goes unreported.I think blanket statements this are just wrong and ignorant.
p0wn 3y ago
I wish the world was much butter. It would be more tasty.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  The moon is much cheese.
- BadHumans 3y ago
  Ha! I didn't catch that. Thanks
- gumby 3y ago
  Yes but deaths due to coronary heart disease would increase.
randomdata 3y ago
> It feels like people just want to stay stuck They don't necessarily want to stay stuck, but they generally don't want to put in the hard work to see change through. More likely, as you point out, people would rather talk about it. That requires way less effort. But what can you do with that? If not the "ACKSHUALLY" response, then it's just going to be: * "The crime is bad in this city." * "Yeah, I agree. So, um... did you hear about Taylor Swift?" Either way, it's just an acknowledgement of something having been said. There is nothing actionable.
b450 3y ago
> This is how I view the world and it is why it upsets me when people voice concern about crime in a city or something like that and people respond with "ACKSHUALLY" followed by some sort of statistic. It feels like people just want to stay stuck but as the author says "to see that a better world is possible, we need to see that both are true at the same time: the world is awful, and the world is much better." I don't think people "want to stay stuck". I think it is simply the state of our polarized polity, and the mistrustful, zero-sum approach to discourse that it breeds. Even a plain factual statement feels like it's signaling some political allegiance or pushing some agenda, and that feels threatening. I'm not placing myself above this phenomenon, either. Your choice of example fact – something about 'crime in a city' – feels like a right-wing shibboleth (and after all, even if there are objective facts, the particular facts we recognize as salient, the narrative patterns of fact that we use to make political arguments, are of course driven by our values and political allegiances). Maybe I'm off-base about your example, but really my point is that it feels that way, so discussions of politics feel scary, even when they stick to matters of putatively objective fact. Apologies for shoehorning in the Israel/Palestine issue, but I thought this piece[1] was eloquent on (something like) this phenomenon: > [...]if, as many feel at this moment, the recognition of one “side” comes at the expense of the other, the expression of empathy for one is the refusal of empathy for another. Many seem to feel that no hand is bare—that all hands are holding knives, pointing in opposite directions. This moment is characterized by a widespread conviction that recognition can only go in one direction: that any show of empathy toward Israelis is tantamount to supporting the oppression of Palestinians, and that any show of empathy toward Palestinians is tantamount to supporting the massacre on October. > Those who subscribe to this dichotomy see attempts to recognize all suffering as disingenuous and manipulative. They sometimes complain that symmetrical empathy entails symmetrical judgment, symmetrical condemnation, or attribution of symmetrical power. And since they reject these equivalences, they reject the equivalence of empathy. [1] https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/letter-from-israel/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/letter-from-israel/
zb3 3y ago
[flagged]
- bigfishrunning 3y ago
  We have a natural drive to procreate. It's hard to resist that drive when the other option is "die alone"
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  Millions of potential intelligent beings that never get a chance to see the universe - I see that as a very sad thing.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
There is a selection bias driving the conversation itself. The people most likely to voice a criticism about a given subject are the people who are most engaged with that subject. Engagement itself is diverse. It can be driven by genuine interest, and it can be generated by political narrative. What is most important is the criticism itself. Is it valuable? To whom? The more people there are voicing criticisms, the more difficult it is to answer these questions. The usefulness of democracy is that we can coordinate our criticisms into coherent proposals, and vote on them. The tragedy of democracy is that we must coordinate our criticisms into coherent proposals, and vote on them.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > The tragedy of democracy is that we must coordinate our criticisms into coherent proposals, and vote on them. Despite classes in civics and debating at some good schools we are mostly given no training on how to do this as kids. Instead we are raised by "Hollywood diplomacy", which is deeply confrontational and revolves around vengeance and gun fights. Polarisation isn't just in the "environment" but in the lack of tools we are given to work with. There are actually long-form studies in things like Peace Studies (Columbia, George Washington Uni, Kroc Institute, Nottingham Uni in UK) I spent some time with graduate of a peace studies programme, which I initially mocked. But she introduced me to all kinds of ideas like those of Habermas and Discourse Theory. Most serious [fn] programmes on negotiation and diplomacy touch on this. How we get ordinary folk to take on board more of that is challenging but urgent. Sadly most of "western" life has conflict escalation built in as a value. EDIT: added some links for the curious [0,1] [fn] There's plenty of crappy MBA business type "how to get what you want" type programmes - I am absolutely not talking about those! [0] https://iep.utm.edu/habermas/ https://iep.utm.edu/habermas/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    Polarization is also an emergent effect of first-past-the-post voting. We don't need every participant in democracy to be an expert in diplomacy. We just need a system that incentivizes genuine engagement and compromise.
banannaise 3y ago
The counter-argument to "crime is too high" isn't "that can't be improved", it's "you're looking at the wrong thing, and to target 'crime' in certain ways actually makes the world worse".

ethanbond 3y ago

Usually when people are complaining about crime in a city they literally do not know the facts. That's very different from "things are factually better than they've ever been, but we can and should do much better."

colechristensen 3y ago
The two groups that talk about crime are more or less equal in their self-delusion. The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. Mind you there are plenty of people who are fairly reasonable who you don't see talking about these things publicly much, usually because the people who respond are so very obnoxious. You have people denying reality vs. people exaggerating it, neither really have very good information. I have personally experienced both. I left a formerly nicer neighborhood that took a turn to avoid robberies and too frequent gun shots for downtown where I feel much safer... and manage to offend both sides when I mention this.
- whstl 3y ago
  Yep. It’s like this for lots of other subjects. From war to paper straws. Not saying whether it is wrong or right, but: it is often people trying to move the Overton window, or people getting manipulated by window movers.
- ajross 3y ago
  FWIW: per SF's statistics, both violent and property crime rates are at 10+ year lows in every category: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rat... I'm not how you get a "both sides" argument from that data, but OK. We're in the same phase of this debate that we are with inflation: there was a burst of signal, driven largely by the pandemic and related causes, it receeded, but argumentation is still informed by feelings and not current state. (Edit: and the amount of argumentation below trying to refute this one link WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE is pretty much proof that this isn't a fight about facts.)
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Statistics from the police is the least accurate way to measure minor crimes, those stats mostly tracks how active the police is and not how much crime there is. Or do you believe that Denmark and Sweden has the most cases of thefts in the world? These stats has nothing to do with how much theft is actually happening. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/
    - ajross 3y ago
      Are there better numbers? It seems like these track existing conventional wisdom about the recent crime burst, no? You're just trying to throw out the last 2 years showing a decline? Is that really a reasonable argument? Obviously yes, there's an apples/oranges problem with comparing data sets collected in different countries under different law enforcement regimes, etc... But between e.g. 2022 and 2017 in San Francisco specifically? I don't see the argument. (Also important to note that while "Larceny" might be plausibly related to police ignoring crime, other things like "Murder" are very much not if you aren't accusing the police of hiding bodies. And violent crime shows the same trend.)
      - Jensson 3y ago
        It is much more likely that the police changed a bit on how they report things than that the population at large changed. The real changes gets lost in the noise of police reporting changes. Police reporting changes not just via bureaucratic decisions but also the feelings of the police force in general because it is the people at the bottom that decides what to report, which is very fickle and can change quickly with reasons like "we catch thieves but they just get released, so we stopped caring". Covid likely changed crime rates, yes, but it likely changed police reporting rates much more. That goes for all kinds of events. Saying crime is down since police reporting is down is like saying that kids learn more today since they get better grades today than 10 years ago. Edit: You get much better numbers by asking people if they have been robbed lately, or asking stores how much gets stolen.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I have to admit, I don't think I've heard any left-wing folks saying that at all.
- klipt 3y ago
  > The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. Some left wing folks will agree you should be afraid but only if you're female/black etc because men/white people might attack you. But they'll insist if you're a white man then you're protected from crime by "privilege". Which is interesting because statistically men are much more often victims of violent crime.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, doing this. I think it is important to note the mainstream, because we do have tons of elected officials and mainstream cable news talking heads making the "warzone" argument (and deliberately mischaracterizing any attempts at police or justice system reform).
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    I know many people personally who do it in conversations with me. Locally we have a county attorney who ran and won on, essentially, a platform to not prosecute crimes. She's done such a bad job that in a few egregious cases the state attorney general took cases over. It has gotten to the point where there are liberal-talking-point topics that I just don't address with good friends in the same way you avoid anything political with the slightly unhinged conservative uncle. I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, who is talking about crime and criminals in a way that seems like they are actually interested in making the situation better.
    - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
      I have yet to see a politician who has ran on "not prosecuting crime" and winning. It's a batshit crazy mega unpopular opinion that we should not prosecute crime so I'm shocked you are so close to someone who was able to succeed on that. Can you share who this person is so I can look up what they ran on?
      - colechristensen 3y ago
        Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney Of course she said she'd be tough vaguely on violent crime, then but then what she actually meant which was "In addition to prosecution and incarceration in appropriate cases, Mary’s approach to community safety will include: * Offering restorative justice practices as an option for victims. * Advocating for community-based alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases, including supporting these alternatives at the legislature and pushing for increased funding. * Partnering with schools, families, and others to ensure children who commit crimes have options with structure and support to help them succeed. Closely coordinating with community corrections officials to improve the quality and effectiveness of supervision." One of the most egregious cases involved two teenagers who were paid to kill a young mother, they broke down her door and shot her to death in the middle of the night. Moriarty offered them a plea deal for less than 2 years in juvenile detention. https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-ag-ellison-to-handle-zaria-mckeever-murder-case/ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-...
- deanCommie 3y ago
  > The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. This is contextual and is misleading without it. But it does accurately represent the ineptitude of the left and why it always loses in these situations. Here's how it goes: Problem: Society has people that are poor and mentally challenged. Both turn to drugs to cope. Drugs are illegal, increased demand increases criminality. Drug use exacerbates poverty, homelessness. Society becomes full of drug users committing petty crimes, and drug dealers perpetuating major crimes to contribute to supply. Not to mention addicts dying in the streets from overdoses. All of this in general make cities undesirable and less safe. RIGHT-WING Solution: LET'S GET TOUGH ON CRIME. Drug dealers get arrested. Drug users get arrested. For a little while the streets are cleaner and safer, and everyone is happy. But the root cause hasn't been addressed, so the same problems just return. LEFT-WING Solution: Drug use is a symptom not a root cause. And criminality is inherent to drug trade because drugs are illegal. If we legalize or decriminalize drugs we reduce the criminal element. If we give people safe injection sites they don't have to die from overdoses. And if we fund social programs we can get people out of poverty, off the streets, and into housing. PROBLEM 1: All of this is a lot harder than sending a dozen cops into a tent city and arresting a dozen homeless people. PROBLEM 2: Even if carried out PERFECTLY, there becomes an intermediate step where homeless people are seen being given funds or housing from the government which makes poor-but-not-homeless, and even middle-class people get mad saying "I work so hard, how come this person who is clearly a loser is getting all these handouts? This makes people petty and the right wing seize on it. PROBLEM 3: Going soft on drug use means in the short term you have people using drugs more openly, but not being arrested for it. This makes people grossed out and the right wing seize on it. Before you know it and before any meaningful improvements have been made, you have right wing candidates screaming that all of the problems of society are because the left is too soft, and we need to get tougher. And they usually succeed and they usually win. Because the best the left wing can do is point to statistics that show fewer homeless people are dying of poverty or drug overdoses, and the truth is most humans in society just don't care. So they deny and minimize. The reality is that out of sight out of mind, most gentle moderate even somewhat progressive people would be just as happy if homeless people "disappeared". They don't want to think about what that means. So they vote left when they feel guilty, and right when they're annoyed.
Throw73747 3y ago
Arguing about "facts" and statistics, when it is literally impossible to report basic crimes like robbery to police is pointless!
- X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago
  What do you mean it's literally impossible to report robberies to the police?
  - zhivota 3y ago
    Police stop taking reports of crimes they will not pursue or won't be prosecuted. There is no "fact" saying how much crime is occurring, only a snapshot of how many reports were accepted and filed by the police.
  - Throw73747 3y ago
    They just refuse to take report, with some bullshit excuse. Like under $950 it is misdemeanor.. Everything in shop is locked up, but crime is down!
  - threemux 3y ago
    If you report a minor robbery to the police in any large American city and you aren't a public figure, there is functionally a 0% chance of them following up on it much less solving it. The only benefit for reporting is if you plan to make an insurance claim. If not, there is no point to reporting a minor robbery to the police. Robberies and property crimes are hugely underreported in official statistics because the first time you try to report one you realize that it makes a bad situation worse by wasting your time after the event. That is what they're talking about.
    - feoren 3y ago
      Other benefits of reporting it, other than insurance, is that it makes these kinds of statistics more accurate, and that in the unlikely event that they "accidentally" solve the case, it'll be easier for you to get your stuff back. The latter can happen if they arrest someone for some other reason and find what appears to be a bunch of stolen property or something. It's not likely, but it seems like it'd still be worth reporting the crime. But you make a good point that a lackluster police response does lower the incidence of reporting crimes, effectively doctoring crime statistics. You'd have to evaluate whether this trend has increased or decreased relative to historical periods when factoring that into any comparison, though.

Ensorceled 3y ago

> This is how I view the world and it is why it upsets me when people voice concern about crime in a city or something like that and people respond with "ACKSHUALLY" followed by some sort of statistic. Most people voicing "concern" are saying "crime is increasing" and usually blaming either current politicians and/or progressive policies for the "increase". It's almost always accompanied by either a "vote for me" or some screed on how we have "gone soft on crime".

stuartjohnson12 3y ago
Crime rates are a prime battlefield for culture wars. The fact that talk about crime rates is usually an attack on progressive policies usually means progressives usually also respond in an ACKSHUALLY manner followed by a wall of anarchist crime theory which must account for all (not just some) of any disparity, because if it does not then you have stabbed your own side in the back. Whatever you think about Elizier Yudowsky, I think he hit this one right on the nail. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
- badcppdev 3y ago
  What's interesting to me is conservative political parties that are defunding the police, court systems and prisons while noisily passing legislation that impose harsher penalties for crimes. Meaningless penalties because the criminals aren't prosecuted due to a lack of resources.
fasthands9 3y ago
Crime is obviously down over the decades, which is very important, but I think it would be silly to deny there was a major uptick in murders in 2020. https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/us-murder-violent-crime-rates-drop https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/us-murder-violent-crime-rat... There are obviously lots of reasons for this having nothing to do with crime policy, such as the economic shock of covid. That being said, I don't think its true at all it is straightforwardly settled how to reduce crime. Pretty much all people I have read on this suggest penalizing gun possession crimes more would decrease the violent crime rate. It's part of the reason murder rate in places like NY is relatively low. That said, prosecuting more people for probation violations or gun possessions is a a policy that cuts against both conservative ideology (because they are pro gun) and progressive ideology (because it will require a larger prison population that will be disproportionately minority)

nabla9 3y ago

When people say crime is getting out of hand, while it's actually decreasing, they are just wrong and ignorant.

amelius 3y ago
You can blame the media. And social media included.
d4mi3n 3y ago
That's a bit reductive. It can be true that globally (or in some superset) crime has decreased while in some local context it remains the same or has become concentrated (e.g. worse for people in that context). This whole article and commentary around it has also highlighted another issue for me: It's hard to have nuanced conversations about complex problems that can be simplified or generalized to something causes a difference in perception about what actual problems *are*.
- nabla9 3y ago
  When people say crime is getting out of hand, while it's actually decreasing in the context they mean it, they are just wrong and ignorant. This is common bias. People consistently think that crime is getting worse.
  - rcoveson 3y ago
    So there are people out there, not in this thread, who are wrong when they say things that are incorrect?
  - kapp_in_life 3y ago
    In many metro areas crime is higher than it was before COVID. Sure the levels may be decreasing below the 2020 peak levels, but relative to 2019 or earlier its oftentimes still higher.
BadHumans 3y ago
Most crime goes unreported.I think blanket statements this are just wrong and ignorant.

p0wn 3y ago

I wish the world was much butter. It would be more tasty.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
The moon is much cheese.
BadHumans 3y ago
Ha! I didn't catch that. Thanks
gumby 3y ago
Yes but deaths due to coronary heart disease would increase.

randomdata 3y ago

> It feels like people just want to stay stuck They don't necessarily want to stay stuck, but they generally don't want to put in the hard work to see change through. More likely, as you point out, people would rather talk about it. That requires way less effort. But what can you do with that? If not the "ACKSHUALLY" response, then it's just going to be: * "The crime is bad in this city." * "Yeah, I agree. So, um... did you hear about Taylor Swift?" Either way, it's just an acknowledgement of something having been said. There is nothing actionable.

b450 3y ago

> This is how I view the world and it is why it upsets me when people voice concern about crime in a city or something like that and people respond with "ACKSHUALLY" followed by some sort of statistic. It feels like people just want to stay stuck but as the author says "to see that a better world is possible, we need to see that both are true at the same time: the world is awful, and the world is much better." I don't think people "want to stay stuck". I think it is simply the state of our polarized polity, and the mistrustful, zero-sum approach to discourse that it breeds. Even a plain factual statement feels like it's signaling some political allegiance or pushing some agenda, and that feels threatening. I'm not placing myself above this phenomenon, either. Your choice of example fact – something about 'crime in a city' – feels like a right-wing shibboleth (and after all, even if there are objective facts, the particular facts we recognize as salient, the narrative patterns of fact that we use to make political arguments, are of course driven by our values and political allegiances). Maybe I'm off-base about your example, but really my point is that it feels that way, so discussions of politics feel scary, even when they stick to matters of putatively objective fact. Apologies for shoehorning in the Israel/Palestine issue, but I thought this piece[1] was eloquent on (something like) this phenomenon: > [...]if, as many feel at this moment, the recognition of one “side” comes at the expense of the other, the expression of empathy for one is the refusal of empathy for another. Many seem to feel that no hand is bare—that all hands are holding knives, pointing in opposite directions. This moment is characterized by a widespread conviction that recognition can only go in one direction: that any show of empathy toward Israelis is tantamount to supporting the oppression of Palestinians, and that any show of empathy toward Palestinians is tantamount to supporting the massacre on October. > Those who subscribe to this dichotomy see attempts to recognize all suffering as disingenuous and manipulative. They sometimes complain that symmetrical empathy entails symmetrical judgment, symmetrical condemnation, or attribution of symmetrical power. And since they reject these equivalences, they reject the equivalence of empathy. [1] https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/letter-from-israel/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/letter-from-israel/

zb3 3y ago

[flagged]

bigfishrunning 3y ago
We have a natural drive to procreate. It's hard to resist that drive when the other option is "die alone"
throwaway11460 3y ago
Millions of potential intelligent beings that never get a chance to see the universe - I see that as a very sad thing.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

There is a selection bias driving the conversation itself. The people most likely to voice a criticism about a given subject are the people who are most engaged with that subject. Engagement itself is diverse. It can be driven by genuine interest, and it can be generated by political narrative. What is most important is the criticism itself. Is it valuable? To whom? The more people there are voicing criticisms, the more difficult it is to answer these questions. The usefulness of democracy is that we can coordinate our criticisms into coherent proposals, and vote on them. The tragedy of democracy is that we must coordinate our criticisms into coherent proposals, and vote on them.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> The tragedy of democracy is that we must coordinate our criticisms into coherent proposals, and vote on them. Despite classes in civics and debating at some good schools we are mostly given no training on how to do this as kids. Instead we are raised by "Hollywood diplomacy", which is deeply confrontational and revolves around vengeance and gun fights. Polarisation isn't just in the "environment" but in the lack of tools we are given to work with. There are actually long-form studies in things like Peace Studies (Columbia, George Washington Uni, Kroc Institute, Nottingham Uni in UK) I spent some time with graduate of a peace studies programme, which I initially mocked. But she introduced me to all kinds of ideas like those of Habermas and Discourse Theory. Most serious [fn] programmes on negotiation and diplomacy touch on this. How we get ordinary folk to take on board more of that is challenging but urgent. Sadly most of "western" life has conflict escalation built in as a value. EDIT: added some links for the curious [0,1] [fn] There's plenty of crappy MBA business type "how to get what you want" type programmes - I am absolutely not talking about those! [0] https://iep.utm.edu/habermas/ https://iep.utm.edu/habermas/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Polarization is also an emergent effect of first-past-the-post voting. We don't need every participant in democracy to be an expert in diplomacy. We just need a system that incentivizes genuine engagement and compromise.

banannaise 3y ago

The counter-argument to "crime is too high" isn't "that can't be improved", it's "you're looking at the wrong thing, and to target 'crime' in certain ways actually makes the world worse".