3 ms·

I do not agree that it needs a qualifier. My opinion is that safety as a whole would improve with those four suggestions implemented. You can disagree, but if

I do not agree that it needs a qualifier. My opinion is that safety as a whole would improve with those four suggestions implemented. You can disagree, but if you think it would make safety worse you probably should point out how those changes would result in a more unsafe country not just that it wouldn't solve all problems.

dylan604 2y ago
I just listed how. I stipulated it would make it safer from police, but then listed how other things would not be improved. I do not believe I wrote it in a confusing manner. You not willing to accept that improving on type of danger does not make all danger safe. By all means, move the needle, but don't paint with a wider brush than what the needle is actually moving.
- thethirdone 2y ago
  It seems I read your comment as more anti-demilitarization than it was. It seemed like you were implying the US would become less safe by implementing the suggestions. If your intent was only that improving safety in one specific way does not merit being called safer in general, that point was not adequately separated from a pro-militarized police position. I would guess most people are ok with the implication from "better on metric X in some way" -> "better on metric X". If that is a particular issue for you, you probably should make a specific effort to make that point clear. > by all means, reign in the out of control over weaponized "peace" officers, but please, let's be realistic on what that will actually do to overall safety. > By all means, move the needle, but don't paint with a wider brush than what the needle is actually moving. If you compared these lines from both of your comments, the first can be interpreted to imply that overall safety will actually go down if the suggestions are implemented whereas the second seems hard to misinterpret from what I believe to be your position.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    were you confused by the use of scare quotes? when someone shows up in full military armor with automatic rifles, "peace" is not the word that comes to mind. I'm really not sure where a "pro-militarization" from anything I've written could be inferred.

dylan604 2y ago

I just listed how. I stipulated it would make it safer from police, but then listed how other things would not be improved. I do not believe I wrote it in a confusing manner. You not willing to accept that improving on type of danger does not make all danger safe. By all means, move the needle, but don't paint with a wider brush than what the needle is actually moving.

thethirdone 2y ago
It seems I read your comment as more anti-demilitarization than it was. It seemed like you were implying the US would become less safe by implementing the suggestions. If your intent was only that improving safety in one specific way does not merit being called safer in general, that point was not adequately separated from a pro-militarized police position. I would guess most people are ok with the implication from "better on metric X in some way" -> "better on metric X". If that is a particular issue for you, you probably should make a specific effort to make that point clear. > by all means, reign in the out of control over weaponized "peace" officers, but please, let's be realistic on what that will actually do to overall safety. > By all means, move the needle, but don't paint with a wider brush than what the needle is actually moving. If you compared these lines from both of your comments, the first can be interpreted to imply that overall safety will actually go down if the suggestions are implemented whereas the second seems hard to misinterpret from what I believe to be your position.
- dylan604 2y ago
  were you confused by the use of scare quotes? when someone shows up in full military armor with automatic rifles, "peace" is not the word that comes to mind. I'm really not sure where a "pro-militarization" from anything I've written could be inferred.