Poll: Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 16 of 22 FirstFirst ...
6
14
15
16
17
18
... LastLast
  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    boy, this line about provinces making public healthcare a thing might not look totally fucking silly on it's face if states in the US weren't more preoccupied with making sure they can execute women for having a miscarriage.
    Those will be your last states to do it, like we had provinces doing it last. We had late provinces to gay marriage too.

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    I said wide appeal regardless of your political alignment, that's not a false statement. an issue that has 60%+ support from voters means every type of voter agrees with that issue.
    You need more than that to have a real wide appeal for an idea - and the 60%+ numbers was one poll among many - with unclear results. Strange that a partisan web-site picked just that one...

  3. #303
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    You need more than that to have a real wide appeal for an idea
    The one in which you arbitrarily put a higher bar on what constitutes 'wide appeal' as though there's any objective definition. 'Kay.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by minteK917 View Post
    Those will be your last states to do it, like we had provinces doing it last. We had late provinces to gay marriage too.
    cool, tell me more about how I or anyone should be thrilled to hear that in 30+ years we can act like this is the 21st century again. it sure must be nice not actually having to deal with what's going on in a country you don't live in.

    it certainly explains the stuck up attitudes on display.
    Last edited by uuuhname; 2022-07-19 at 09:35 PM.

  5. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The one in which you arbitrarily put a higher bar on what constitutes 'wide appeal' as though there's any objective definition. 'Kay.
    You mean like having at least 50% support among the political parties when we talk about actually getting things done?

    When people discuss whether star wars have 'wide appeal' there isn't any similar objective definition.

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    cool, tell me more about how I or anyone should be thrilled to hear that in 30+ years we can act like this is the 21st century again. it sure must be nice not actually having to deal with what's going on in a country you don't live in.

    it certainly explains the stuck up attitudes on display.
    Oh, I get it, gay rights werent a thing when I was a teenager, only changed because it had massive supports at the turn of the century. If it didnt have massive support, id still be in the closet like I was back then. Gotta still live somehow.

    Its not about being thrilled. Its about knowing what the actual target has to be. Some gay rights came before gay marriage. The first step is not gona defunding the police, let alone abolishing it. If all you want to so is talk about abolishing it, you arent into changing anything. You just want to feel good.
    Last edited by minteK917; 2022-07-19 at 09:42 PM.

  7. #307
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    You mean like having at least 50% support among the political parties when we talk about actually getting things done?

    When people discuss whether star wars have 'wide appeal' there isn't any similar objective definition.
    My brother in Christ, you're the one arguing that 'wide appeal' has an objective definition because you got called out for being a pedant. Rofl.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by minteK917 View Post
    Oh, I get it, gay rights werent a thing when I was a teenager, only changed because it had massive supports at the turn of the century. If it didnt have massive support, id still be in the closet like I was back then. Gotta still live somehow.

    Its not about being thrilled. Its about knowing what the actual target has to be. Some gay rights came before gay marriage. The first step is not gona defunding the police, let alone abolishing it. If all you want to so is talk about abolishing it, you arent into changing anything. You just want to feel good.

    clearly the lack of gay rights wasn't that big of a problem for you, since you yourself seem to think going back into the closet is in any way acceptable. it really just strikes me as a person who is way too comfortable giving up their rights because they assume it won't adversely affect them.

    like I'm sorry but I don't think women being thrown in prison or murdered by the state for having a miscarriage is just something we all need to accept. you might! but that's just you pal.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Red States: outwardly moving towards Christian-fascism
    minteK197: well you know our Canadian provinces took a while to allow gay marriage you know, so, maybe give it some time?

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    My brother in Christ, you're the one arguing that 'wide appeal' has an objective definition because you got called out for being a pedant. Rofl.
    I'm stating that in context "wide appeal regardless of political affiliation" suggest support of >50% among the major political parties (and for some time); whereas in reality many of the questions have considerably less than that support.

    I'm not stating that 'wide appeal' in general has an objective definition.

    And 'defund the police' has considerable less support, but people seem more concerned with trying to wish away polls.

  10. #310
    All this bullshit back and forth aside, the fact remains that you should take some money from the typical police budget and funnel it into services that will in turn reduce the need for police response.

    And just reform, and retrain, the various police forces on top of that because you don't have to just settle on one thing.

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    All this bullshit back and forth aside, the fact remains that you should take some money from the typical police budget and funnel it into services that will in turn reduce the need for police response.
    Shoulda, coulda, woulda, isn't a fact.
    It's a fact that budgets for police have increased.

  12. #312
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Shoulda, coulda, woulda, isn't a fact.
    It's a fact that budgets for police have increased.
    And a fact does not mean very much by itself. As I've pointed out to the pedant in chief before, what matters is the story you're trying to tell and the agenda you're trying to promote with those facts.

    Repeating "defunding the police is politically unpopular at the present" is not an ethical stance regarding law enforcement or an argument on the merits of policing as it exists. It's essentially kiddie level 'neener neener' taunting.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    And a fact does not mean very much by itself. As I've pointed out to the pedant in chief before, what matters is the story you're trying to tell and the agenda you're trying to promote with those facts.

    Repeating "defunding the police is politically unpopular at the present" is not an ethical stance regarding law enforcement
    You haven't been listening.

    The points are that it is unpopular (and pushing through unpopular issues is problematic - and has failed in multiple cities), but also that it is based on a bad analysis - the US police force is actually smaller per capita than in many other countries, the military equipment is free of charge so not a sign of overfunding, and alternatives will take time to take effect so redirecting police funds to them will in the short run create a worse situation - which will backfire, and then those programs will be terminated creating a bigger mess.

    The alternatives also need to be fleshed out - focusing on police funding is just a distraction from actually solving the issues.

    Basically it is not a matter of selecting ethical stances for LARP-slogans, but about finding pragmatic ways of solving the problem.
    Last edited by Forogil; 2022-07-20 at 07:42 AM.

  14. #314
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    You haven't been listening.

    The points are that it is unpopular (and pushing through unpopular issues is problematic - and has failed in multiple cities), but also that it is based on a bad analysis - the US police force is actually smaller per capita than in many other countries
    You do realise that the law enforcement budget per capita and the number of officers per capita are separate things, right?

    the military equipment is free of charge so not a sign of overfunding, and alternatives will take time to take effect so redirecting police funds to them will in the short run create a worse situation - which will backfire, and then those programs will be terminated creating a bigger mess.

    The alternatives also need to be fleshed out - focusing on police funding is just a distraction from actually solving the issues.
    It's funny that you think you have any clout to be berating people for not listening when you clearly aren't listening to any of the arguments of the people pushing for police reform beyond complaining that a surface level slogan is distasteful. The reason funding is an issue at all is because of the context of the lack of funding for other things such as social support services, not "defund the police for shits and giggles."

    I'll note you've also failed to actually provide any evidence that "redirecting police funds will create a worse situation" since that's based on the assumption that police as they exist actually do anything.

    Basically it is not a matter of selecting ethical stances for LARP-slogans, but about finding pragmatic ways of solving the problem.
    Cool, I'll amend my statement then:

    And a fact does not mean very much by itself. As I've pointed out to the pedant in chief before, what matters is the story you're trying to tell and the agenda you're trying to promote with those facts.

    Repeating "defunding the police is politically unpopular at the present" is not an ethical stance regarding law enforcement, nor an argument on the merits of policing as it exists, nor a means of finding pragmatic ways to solve a given problem. It's essentially kiddie level 'neener neener' taunting.


    Same point still applies, stop being a pedant.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-07-20 at 07:59 AM.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  15. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    You do realise that the law enforcement budget per capita and the number of officers per capita are separate things, right?
    Yes, but I haven't seen clear proof that the US spends excessive amount on law enforcement per capita. Note that many figures combine 'law enforcement' and 'correction' - and the US does spend a lot of 'correction', due to the large number of prisoners.

    So, do you have any real arguments or is it just hypocritical pedantry and rolleyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    I'll note you've also failed to actually provide any evidence that "redirecting police funds will create a worse situation" since that's based on the assumption that police as they exist actually do anything.
    The police do some things, and some of that is good. If you cannot understand that you really fail. (And the idea with police reform is that police reform should do more good, and less bad.) And reading up more I realized that your analysis is even more lacking.

    The underlying assumption for funding is that the police gets money from the city, and if you reduce that the police will have less money - and for some reason they would then do less of the bad stuff.

    Most people would say 'no shit, sherlock' for the first part; but in reality it's not that simple.

    The reason is that the police have found other sources of income. Ferguson PD to name a bad apply, did rely a lot on fines and fees (traffic violations, badly cut grass, etc), and others have relied on civil forfeitures. Reducing funding without any other changes may cause the police to rely even more on those "alternative sources on income" - which both counters the funding change and is bad in itself, and rely even more on military surplus (free of charge).

    To inform yourself:
    FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON GENERATING REVENUE
    https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...ngs_3-4-15.pdf

    Ferguson may have improved since then, but I'm sure other police departments would do the same if they could get away with it - especially if they felt they needed the money.

    That lack of analysis is what happens when you don't try to pragmatically solve the problem, but go for LARP-slogans.

  16. #316
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Yes, but I haven't seen clear proof that the US spends excessive amount on law enforcement per capita. Note that many figures combine 'law enforcement' and 'correction' - and the US does spend a lot of 'correction', due to the large number of prisoners.
    Well luckily the people calling for police reform also happen to be calling for a reform of the carceral system. Which you'd know if you bothered actually looking at any of the arguments past the surface level.

    So, do you have any real arguments or is it just hypocritical pedantry and rolleyes?
    Pointing out that waving around "the US doesn't have the most police officers per capita" is dishonest framing of the argument isn't pedantry.

    The police do some things, and some of that is good.
    Such as?

    They don't serve or protect the general public, they don't stop crime, they don't solve crime. So what exactly do they do that is good?

    The underlying assumption for funding is that the police gets money from the city, and if you reduce that the police will have less money - and for some reason they would then do less of the bad stuff.

    Most people would say 'no shit, sherlock' for the first part; but in reality it's not that simple.

    The reason is that the police have found other sources of income. Ferguson PD to name a bad apply, did rely a lot on fines and fees (traffic violations, badly cut grass, etc), and others have relied on civil forfeitures. Reducing funding without any other changes may cause the police to rely even more on those "alternative sources on income" - which both counters the funding change and is bad in itself, and rely even more on military surplus (free of charge).

    To inform yourself:
    FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON GENERATING REVENUE
    https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...ngs_3-4-15.pdf

    Ferguson may have improved since then, but I'm sure other police departments would do the same if they could get away with it - especially if they felt they needed the money.

    That lack of analysis is what happens when you don't try to pragmatically solve the problem, but go for LARP-slogans.
    And speaking of dishonest framing, this is just a massive strawman.

    As I said previously, these sorts of things are in fact well known and discussed by advocates of police reform and have been so for decades. The slogan "Defund the Police", regardless of its reception, is just that - a slogan. It has never been the sole extent of anyone's argument.

    A given slogan itself might be bad (i.e. poorly received), but that does not undercut the necessity of slogans as a hook for public interest because opening with a nuanced political dissertation that encompasses the full scope is equally as bad from an advertising perspective. You're taking an argument about marketing and trying to make it an argument about substance when the two are not inherently the same thing; which, ironically, your own posts are evidence of since you repeatedly take the slogan purely at face value without looking at any of the substance behind it.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-07-20 at 09:33 AM.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  17. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Well luckily the people calling for police reform also happen to be calling for a reform of the carceral system. Which you'd know if you bothered actually looking at any of the arguments past the surface level.
    Totally ignoring the main part of whether the US law enforcement is actually costly per capita, and just adding insults as normal.

    The problem is once more that 'defund the police' is a bad slogan as it alienates voters, and leads to bad policies when people attempt to implement it. That's why people recently try to steer away from it.

    Why do you want to lose so badly and drag others down with you?

  18. #318
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Totally ignoring the main part of whether the US law enforcement is actually costly per capita, and just adding insults as normal.

    The problem is once more that 'defund the police' is a bad slogan as it alienates voters
    Something I'm not disputing; I'm pointing out that criticism of the slogan is not in fact a basis for claiming a lack of substance as you've repeatedly done.

    and leads to bad policies when people attempt to implement it. That's why people recently try to steer away from it.
    Yeah, this is just blatantly untrue. "Defund the police" did not lead to any "bad policies" because there was no major defunding.

    People turned away from the idea because the slogan was vague enough to be exploited by bad faith media and political narratives (like certain people claiming the rise in crime during 2021 was a result of police defunding that largely didn't happen), not because of any results based decision making. Once again, you're confusing marketing for substance.

    Why do you repeatedly insist on lying and framing arguments dishonestly?
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-07-20 at 10:02 AM.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  19. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Yeah, this is just blatantly untrue. "Defund the police" did not lead to any "bad policies" because there was no defunding.
    The link disproves that - despite being clearly biased. You really should try to find less biased news-sources - 'The Real News' as a name stinks of try-hard bias - like 'Truth Social'.

    In particular it shows that some cities in the middle of this, like Seattle and Minneapolis, did for one year decrease the funding for the police - and then changed their mind. They biased source you link try to argue that they didn't really decrease the funding since it shot back up, or that it was just part of normal budget-processes (that just happened to be there) despite being lauded as a success by the the activists at the time.

    The simpler alternative explanation is that they did reduce funding and try to redirect money in unclear ways, but they didn't get any good results, and thus they changed their mind the next year.

    The idea with pragmatic changes is that you do it slowly in some places, and show that it works so it can spread. Saying that it wasn't tested, since it wasn't tested widely and for a long time isn't a counter - it's an indication of failure.

  20. #320
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    The link disproves that - despite being clearly biased. You really should try to find less biased news-sources - 'The Real News' as a name stinks of try-hard bias - like 'Truth Social'.

    In particular it shows that some cities in the middle of this, like Seattle and Minneapolis, did for one year decrease the funding for the police - and then changed their mind. They biased source you link try to argue that they didn't really decrease the funding since it shot back up, or that it was just part of normal budget-processes (that just happened to be there) despite being lauded as a success by the the activists at the time.
    Ignoring your whining about bias when we're discussing the cited facts in the article - the cuts were by 11 and 14% respectively for the Seattle and Minneapolis Police Departments, which is well in line with precedented municipal budget cuts.

    You've also not demonstrated what "bad policies" these cuts led to or that these "bad policies" were the result of what the reformists were asking for.

    The simpler alternative explanation is that they did reduce funding and try to redirect money in unclear ways, but they didn't get any good results, and thus they changed their mind the next year.
    The simplest explanation is that public pressure diminished in the face of bad faith narratives and thus the incentive to continue reform or increase the scope also diminished, not that there was any results based decision making.

    The idea with pragmatic changes is that you do it slowly in some places, and show that it works so it can spread. Saying that it wasn't tested, since it wasn't tested widely and for a long time isn't a counter - it's an indication of failure.
    As I've already pointed out several times, "defund the police" is a slogan and in no way representative of the entire scope of the reforms being demanded. So saying "two cities did marginal reductions to their police budgets with no other changes for less than a year and it didn't produce any good results therefore calling for police reform is a losing argument" is yet more dishonest framing on your part.

    The funny thing is I've already conceded that "defund the police" is not a suitable slogan, so I'm not sure what the hell you think your point is unless your actual problem is with people wanting police reform regardless of how it's marketed.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-07-20 at 10:37 AM.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •