7 ms·

> I would rather have garden variety criminals and a trustworthy government fighting them What do you count as garden variety here and what makes you say the g

> I would rather have garden variety criminals and a trustworthy government fighting them What do you count as garden variety here and what makes you say the government is trustworthy? I think law enforcement has become extremely bureaucratic and that generally lawyers, but especially DC lawyers, view the criminal justice system as racist so they made it much less punitive and much more bureaucratic. The end result is more crime. Trump saw an opportunity and he is exploiting it even though it's stupid to fight crime this way. I would bet the worst that comes from this is we run an expensive experiment in seeing if NG patrols reduce crime. In a few months, this will be forgotten about. If I am wrong and this turns into a coup d'état or autocratic takeover, you can collect $100 from me.

jacquesm 1y ago
Trump is not fighting crime. He's fighting anything that doesn't kowtow to Trump.
- rayiner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Trump is systematically engaging in performative actions to distract from the simple fact that the USA has elected a conman, criminal and serial abuser of women to the highest office. And you are cheering him on.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      The only change I would make there is the "to" in "to distract". On the basis of his behaviour in courts, I recon there's a common cause for performative behaviour and him being a convicted criminal, rather than it being an instrumental behaviour intended to distract. He doesn't behave as if he has a mental model for the difference between "I did a bad thing and should be ashamed" vs. "I am having power struggle and must fight dirty", nor any concept of a lie beyond observing that "liar" is an insult. This isn't really an improvement, and other people may be playing him in this way for their own power games.
  - croon 1y ago
    Which of his appointments were determined on merit to combat this "DEI issue"?
    - rayiner 1y ago
      All of them. In the context of a political appointment, "merit" reflects ability to carry out the President's political agenda. Trump's appointees have been phenomenally effective at doing what Trump promised to do.
      - croon 1y ago
        You just redefined "merit" into a term that immediately invalidates their entire argument regarding DEI.
        rayiner 1y ago
        “Merit” can mean different things depending on the nature of the job. Juilliard using auditions instead of SATs is still merit-based admissions. But “merit” never means someone’s race or ethnicity. Put differently, DEI is when you have double standards based on race. Colleges do think test scores = merit, because that’s the primary criterion for selecting among within the group of whites/asians. It’s DEI when they use other factors to try and achieve desired racial balancing.
        croon 1y ago
        1) DEI can be done badly, of course, and in an ideal world would be unnecessary, I think anyone on either side of any spectrum wants merit over anything else, but for various historical, systemic, as well as unconscious bias [1], this has not been the case, statistically. DEI on the ~interviewer~ side, not the interviewee side can and has addressed [1]. I fail to see the downside. The only way to claim it's unfair would be to confess that [1] is real, meaning some solution is needed, meaning DEI has done ~some~ good [2]. I agree that quotas are certainly bad in principle, and many times in practice, but I have seen no credible claim where the status quo is a meritocracy, leading to the blatant showing in the current admin. 2) Posit a merit-based test where any appointees of this administration would score better than their corresponding appointee of the previous (or any previous) administration. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism [2] https://interviewing.io/blog/i-love-meritocracy-but-all-the-recent-anti-dei-rhetoric-is-bad https://interviewing.io/blog/i-love-meritocracy-but-all-the-...
Tyrubias 1y ago
The criminal justice system is racist. The solution to crime is more complicated than “let all the criminals go” but sending in the National Guard is definitely not the solution. Also, given the current state of affairs, this will be forgotten about — because Trump will do something even more outrageously authoritarian. And your $100 won’t help when the regime kidnaps me out of my home.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  >The criminal justice system is racist. I beg to differ mostly. The criminal justice system is heavily staffed by people of all colors and ethnicities, including many, many blacks, who in some cities predominate among the police (and general population, at least in some neighborhoods). Despite this, it's often just as bad towards civilians and minority civilians as a mostly-white police force. More specifically, the criminal justice system is classist, and that minorities are often part of the poor and underclass in many cities makes them much more targets than their coincidental skin color, though it sometimes seems to serve as a useful visual marker for police to who it's easier to target on sight. The idea of so many police officers and other law enforcement officials who are themselves black or some other visibly non-white ethnic group nonethless targeting civilians who are of the same color, for race reasons, doesn't really make sense from a racism perspective, but it does make sense from a class perspective.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    If the classism is indistinguishable from racism and often manifests in results where one race is particularly disadvantaged, then it's also racist. Racism and classism feed each other. We've known that since even before the civil war. Claiming classism doesn't make racism - poof - disappear. It actually reinforces it.
    - southernplaces7 1y ago
      I wont argue that the racist aspect of the justice system isn't entwined with it, and with wider society in certain ways, but I still stand by it being more classict by far than simply racist. To claim only racism doesn't entirely address certain problems that could maybe be fixed, and it also runs the risk of ignoring when certain racial groups that don't fit into most ideas of racism are also heavily harmed by police and the entire apparatus above them. As I said, there are cities in the U.S. where police, prosecutors, judges and many other criminal justice officals are largely black or of some visible minority, and in these cities, the civilian victims of their procedures and biases, suffer no less, despite often being of the exact same ethnic makeup. I don't see how one can reconcile that with just racism unless one also discusses the issue of tremendous classicm, and I'd argue, also bureaucratic/police self-exceptionalism, with strong authoritarian tendencies, regardless of race. Spreading the net a bit wider, you can also look at the recent and massive ICE crackdowns on illegal migrants (and sometimes US citizens along the way). Just by looking at photos of these incidents, you quickly note that many ICE agents are themselves black, Latino, Asian, etc, enforcing draconian crackdowns against other visible minorities. That's not simply something you can label under racism and be done with defining it. Other systemic factors are at work there.

jacquesm 1y ago

Trump is not fighting crime. He's fighting anything that doesn't kowtow to Trump.

rayiner 1y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Trump is systematically engaging in performative actions to distract from the simple fact that the USA has elected a conman, criminal and serial abuser of women to the highest office. And you are cheering him on.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    The only change I would make there is the "to" in "to distract". On the basis of his behaviour in courts, I recon there's a common cause for performative behaviour and him being a convicted criminal, rather than it being an instrumental behaviour intended to distract. He doesn't behave as if he has a mental model for the difference between "I did a bad thing and should be ashamed" vs. "I am having power struggle and must fight dirty", nor any concept of a lie beyond observing that "liar" is an insult. This isn't really an improvement, and other people may be playing him in this way for their own power games.
- croon 1y ago
  Which of his appointments were determined on merit to combat this "DEI issue"?
  - rayiner 1y ago
    All of them. In the context of a political appointment, "merit" reflects ability to carry out the President's political agenda. Trump's appointees have been phenomenally effective at doing what Trump promised to do.
    - croon 1y ago
      You just redefined "merit" into a term that immediately invalidates their entire argument regarding DEI.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        “Merit” can mean different things depending on the nature of the job. Juilliard using auditions instead of SATs is still merit-based admissions. But “merit” never means someone’s race or ethnicity. Put differently, DEI is when you have double standards based on race. Colleges do think test scores = merit, because that’s the primary criterion for selecting among within the group of whites/asians. It’s DEI when they use other factors to try and achieve desired racial balancing.
        croon 1y ago
        1) DEI can be done badly, of course, and in an ideal world would be unnecessary, I think anyone on either side of any spectrum wants merit over anything else, but for various historical, systemic, as well as unconscious bias [1], this has not been the case, statistically. DEI on the ~interviewer~ side, not the interviewee side can and has addressed [1]. I fail to see the downside. The only way to claim it's unfair would be to confess that [1] is real, meaning some solution is needed, meaning DEI has done ~some~ good [2]. I agree that quotas are certainly bad in principle, and many times in practice, but I have seen no credible claim where the status quo is a meritocracy, leading to the blatant showing in the current admin. 2) Posit a merit-based test where any appointees of this administration would score better than their corresponding appointee of the previous (or any previous) administration. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism [2] https://interviewing.io/blog/i-love-meritocracy-but-all-the-recent-anti-dei-rhetoric-is-bad https://interviewing.io/blog/i-love-meritocracy-but-all-the-...

Tyrubias 1y ago

The criminal justice system is racist. The solution to crime is more complicated than “let all the criminals go” but sending in the National Guard is definitely not the solution. Also, given the current state of affairs, this will be forgotten about — because Trump will do something even more outrageously authoritarian. And your $100 won’t help when the regime kidnaps me out of my home.

southernplaces7 1y ago
>The criminal justice system is racist. I beg to differ mostly. The criminal justice system is heavily staffed by people of all colors and ethnicities, including many, many blacks, who in some cities predominate among the police (and general population, at least in some neighborhoods). Despite this, it's often just as bad towards civilians and minority civilians as a mostly-white police force. More specifically, the criminal justice system is classist, and that minorities are often part of the poor and underclass in many cities makes them much more targets than their coincidental skin color, though it sometimes seems to serve as a useful visual marker for police to who it's easier to target on sight. The idea of so many police officers and other law enforcement officials who are themselves black or some other visibly non-white ethnic group nonethless targeting civilians who are of the same color, for race reasons, doesn't really make sense from a racism perspective, but it does make sense from a class perspective.
- const_cast 1y ago
  If the classism is indistinguishable from racism and often manifests in results where one race is particularly disadvantaged, then it's also racist. Racism and classism feed each other. We've known that since even before the civil war. Claiming classism doesn't make racism - poof - disappear. It actually reinforces it.
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    I wont argue that the racist aspect of the justice system isn't entwined with it, and with wider society in certain ways, but I still stand by it being more classict by far than simply racist. To claim only racism doesn't entirely address certain problems that could maybe be fixed, and it also runs the risk of ignoring when certain racial groups that don't fit into most ideas of racism are also heavily harmed by police and the entire apparatus above them. As I said, there are cities in the U.S. where police, prosecutors, judges and many other criminal justice officals are largely black or of some visible minority, and in these cities, the civilian victims of their procedures and biases, suffer no less, despite often being of the exact same ethnic makeup. I don't see how one can reconcile that with just racism unless one also discusses the issue of tremendous classicm, and I'd argue, also bureaucratic/police self-exceptionalism, with strong authoritarian tendencies, regardless of race. Spreading the net a bit wider, you can also look at the recent and massive ICE crackdowns on illegal migrants (and sometimes US citizens along the way). Just by looking at photos of these incidents, you quickly note that many ICE agents are themselves black, Latino, Asian, etc, enforcing draconian crackdowns against other visible minorities. That's not simply something you can label under racism and be done with defining it. Other systemic factors are at work there.