User Controls
The horrifying results of defunding the police
-
2023-08-05 at 1:32 PM UTC
-
2023-08-05 at 1:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra do you have any individual thoughts of your own?
I always seem to be able to think of exactly what to say to get under your skin.
Originally posted by aldra in practice all this does is prevent the police from combating crime while providing no alternative.
The movement began as a response to police brutality and excessive use of force, which has been shown to not be very effective at "combating" crime. You know what has been shown to be effective at preventing crime? According to the sources provided in the video, giving people access to resources to help them deal with their problems and climb out of poverty.
Originally posted by aldra the effect is to essentially allow crime to occur and to use state funds (ie. the citizens' funds) to clean up afterwards in order to prevent any violent confrontation.
Oh, so when there was a school shooter in Uvalde the police simply stood around and allowed the crime to continue to occur because they didn't have enough funding to respond to the violence immediately? I guess 37% of that city's entire budget just wasn't enough.
Originally posted by aldra I guess less black 'kids' get shot for waving guns at cops when they get caught though.
Ah, there it is. Your true motivation. The essence of aldra.
Originally posted by Meikai And when the goal you want to accomplish requires making the police less effective at their very important jobs I'm not sure your motives are all that pure.
Are you a member of the ownership class? Do you have a lot of capital you need protected against the masses?
Or are you among the masses? Assisted living? Do you contribute anything to society?
If you were to be involved with police, are you more likely to be the one putting money in the officers pocket, or more likely to be the one getting your head cracked open for being a weird little gay girly boy?
I thought you had a little more self awareness. -
2023-08-05 at 1:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I always seem to be able to think of exactly what to say to get under your skin.
you don't ever seem to have anything to say - virtually everything you post is copypasted from somewhere else with nothing added. case in point - you posted a video with no comment.
Originally posted by Obbe The movement began as a response to police brutality and excessive use of force, which has been shown to not be very effective at "combating" crime. You know what has been shown to be effective at preventing crime? According to the sources provided in the video, giving people access to resources to help them deal with their problems and climb out of poverty.
what sources? why do you find them convincing? why do you think crime directly correlates to poverty?
why do the richest majority-black counties in the US have higher crime rates than the poorest majority-white?
Originally posted by Obbe Oh, so when there was a school shooter in Uvalde the police simply stood around and allowed the crime to continue to occur because they didn't have enough funding to respond to the violence immediately? I guess 37% of that city's entire budget just wasn't enough.
police in a specific case were poorly trained and motivated, so let's get rid of all of them and replace them with nothing.
Originally posted by Obbe Ah, there it is. Your true motivation. The essence of aldra.
eliminating the media's ability to stoke racial tensions and create outrage based on often-justified shootings? sure.
The BLM riots, the single most destructive event in US history, happened because the media turned a multiple felon who overdosed in police custody into a 'murder'.
The recent French riots happened because the media turned a justified shooting (an adolescent who stole a car, and when stopped by police tried to drive up onto a busy pavement) into a 'police brutality hate crime'.
but that's really beside the point - I already said I'd fully support scaling back the police if, in turn, the state gave citizens the legal power to enforce their own justice on criminals who steal from or otherwise try to victimise them. -
2023-08-05 at 2:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra you don't ever seem to have anything to say - virtually everything you post is copypasted from somewhere else with nothing added. case in point - you posted a video with no comment.
what sources? why do you find them convincing? why do you think crime directly correlates to poverty?
why do the richest majority-black counties in the US have higher crime rates than the poorest majority-white?
police in a specific case were poorly trained and motivated, so let's get rid of all of them and replace them with nothing.
eliminating the media's ability to stoke racial tensions and create outrage based on often-justified shootings? sure.
The BLM riots, the single most destructive event in US history, happened because the media turned a multiple felon who overdosed in police custody into a 'murder'.
The recent French riots happened because the media turned a justified shooting (an adolescent who stole a car, and when stopped by police tried to drive up onto a busy pavement) into a 'police brutality hate crime'.
but that's really beside the point - I already said I'd fully support scaling back the police if, in turn, the state gave citizens the legal power to enforce their own justice on criminals who steal from or otherwise try to victimise them.
I don't ever seem to have much to say because saying anything is pretty pointless, we are really just delusional animals barking at each other, clouding our perception of reality by creating more and more abstract concepts that just cause us to drift farther away from it.
I'm not going to explain the entire video and all of its sources to you. If you want to know, watch it, that's why I posted it. If you don't want to, that's fine, but don't act like those sources don't exist just because I've presented them in a medium you're not interested in.
Feel free to ignore relevant evidence like Uvalde that is detrimental to the case you're trying to make, it's not like I actually care about your opinion in the first place.
Keep waiting for the state to "give" you the power to enforce your own justice - yes, any day now. No need to fight for your rights or anything, just keep waiting... -
2023-08-05 at 2:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump Who is he?
Cody Johnston, former cracked.com writer who also featured in many of their videos (notably: After Hours, where he and 3 others would chat shit about pop culture stuff). I can't lie: I'm a total sucker for the "disheveled lunatic funnyman" vibe he's cultivated (for another example, see: Charlie Day), but like... having my political opinions influenced or affirmed by comedians is cringe to me now, and has been for a little while. Like really cringe - levels of cringe rivalled only by the times I remember being an edgy middle schooler Linkin Park fan.
I thought he was also the one responsible for this video, which I've probably posted on the forums a few times:
But apparently that was Michael Swaim, another writer at cracked.com & guy who was in a lot of their videos (including After Hours, I think... or maybe only some of it). He also had a kind of disheveled lunatic funnyman vibe which, as mentioned, I was and am a sucker for. I liked him a bit better at the time, and way more now if only because rather than afflicting the world with yet another washed-up comedian reading the news snarkily, he had the good grace to quietly disappear.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-08-05 at 2:39 PM UTCLook, I'm not a complete asshole. I like FriendlyJordies and our politics probably couldn't be less compatible. Difference there is, he's snarky but... less so, and I also respect what he does: exposés, journalism. This is also why, as loathe as I am to admit it, I have also appreciated John Oliver from time to time (he's way too snarky and doesn't do quite the same kind down-and-dirty journalism that I respect Jordies for though, even if he is probably the closest thing you could find on a mainstream TV broadcast).The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2023-08-05 at 2:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Look, I'm not a complete asshole. I like FriendlyJordies and our politics probably couldn't be less compatible. Difference there is, he's snarky but… less so, and I also respect what he does: exposés, journalism. This is also why, as loathe as I am to admit it, I have also appreciated John Oliver from time to time (he's way too snarky and doesn't do quite the same kind down-and-dirty journalism that I respect Jordies for though, even if he is probably the closest thing you could find on a mainstream TV broadcast).
not many people can say their house got firebombed for doing journalismThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-08-05 at 2:50 PM UTCFriendlyJordies sent his producer to interview Papuan rebels fighting Indonesian occupation. Cody Johnston just exists to confirm people's priors in a maximally haughty fashion, because the only way his shitlib audience can cum is if their partner alternatingly whispers "you're so smart... way smarter than any republican voter" and affirmative consent into their ear for the entire duration.
Jordies, by contrast, seems like a genuinely fun guy. -
2023-08-05 at 2:52 PM UTC
-
2023-08-05 at 2:53 PM UTCyoutube's actually blocked a bunch of his videos in Australia because they violate a gag order on a gambling regulator who basically said 'nobody follows the regulations lol'.
there was no good reason for the gag order to start with but the guy's dying of cancer and they're trying to litigate him into the ground. he violated the gag order because it'll take months-years to dispute it legally and he has like 6 months to liveThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-08-05 at 3:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra youtube's actually blocked a bunch of his videos in Australia because they violate a gag order on a gambling regulator who basically said 'nobody follows the regulations lol'.
there was no good reason for the gag order to start with but the guy's dying of cancer and they're trying to litigate him into the ground. he violated the gag order because it'll take months-years to dispute it legally and he has like 6 months to live
Yeah. Fucked situation. I'm disturbingly familiar with leftwing NSW politics at this point, on account of his account blowing up along with his house. I really shouldn't know anything about the regional politics within Australia, and the fact that I nonetheless do is a testament to how "pretty tolerable, actually" left-leaning types can be if they just drop the moral self-aggrandizement and embrace cracking a couple jokes at nobody's expense but their own. Alas. The world we live in is the one in which the average left-leaning media figure is in a state of arrested development, permanently afflicted with the psychology of a teenager - the problem with the world in 2023 isn't racism or the gays or troons grooming our kids, it's the fact that our entire society has the same vibe as a high school cafeteria. -
2023-08-05 at 3:38 PM UTCThe real problem is the media is controlled by leftist piles of shit and the average person is too fucking stupid to actually do some research into what these communist organizations are spewing everyday.
If we got rid of the mainstream media, everything would improve , at least in the U.S.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-08-05 at 4:05 PM UTCI'm glad there wasn't too much simping here for the police in this thread. If there was, being from totse I would have lost faith in humanity.
-
2023-08-05 at 4:41 PM UTC
-
2023-08-05 at 4:52 PM UTC
-
2023-08-05 at 4:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The movement began as a response to police brutality and excessive use of force, which has been shown to not be very effective at "combating" crime. You know what has been shown to be effective at preventing crime? According to the sources provided in the video, giving people access to resources to help them deal with their problems and climb out of poverty.
What actually worked against crime was using minor offences as an excuse to lock young blacks up for 10-20 years, until they got past their most violent ages. That, as well as complete police state tactics, was how New York got cleaned up during the 90s.
But that is a very interesting comment, as it reveals why wokesters and criminals are on the same side. The woke want crime to get really bad so that people demand something be done, and they limit the options of what we are allowed to do to woke social reform. Right there you can see the motivations - why the woke want crime, tolerate crime, encourage crime, revel in crime. Its problem, reaction, solution, a bludgeon they use to compel the result they want.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-08-05 at 4:53 PM UTCThe only solution to crime is machine guns. More machine guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means less criminals robbing them of their hard-earned money. It's not hard math. You rob, you get machine-gunned down in cold blood. Seems like a workable solution to me.
-
2023-08-05 at 5:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The only solution to crime is machine guns. More machine guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means less criminals robbing them of their hard-earned money. It's not hard math. You rob, you get machine-gunned down in cold blood. Seems like a workable solution to me.
I unironically agree with this to a degree, but at what point does the individual's ability to 'equalise' combat against greater and greater numbers of attackers actually start to become more of a problem than the crime it's meant to hedge against?
in essence being armed allows a woman to defeat a larger, stronger man who means to harm her - a single-shot pistol would do the job. what if there were two men? you'd need more than one bullet. if she's anxious or nervous, probably a lot more.
at what point should it stop though? fully automatic weapons allow you or a small team to use fire team tactics, but can also be used to take a group by surprise and kill them quickly. man-portable rocket weapons can defend against light vehicles but can also be be used to destroy a train or a plane as it takes off or lands. nuclear weapons serve as an effective deterrent but could be used to raze a city.
as weapons are made available to address power disparities between people and groups, they also empower the individual to use those weapons offensively or recklessly.
personally I'm all for legalisation of all kinds of weapons but I don't think it's possible for a society or state to function if the individual is empowered in such a way, past some point or otherThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-08-05 at 5:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I unironically agree with this to a degree, but at what point does the individual's ability to 'equalise' combat against greater and greater numbers of attackers actually start to become more of a problem than the crime it's meant to hedge against?
in essence being armed allows a woman to defeat a larger, stronger man who means to harm her - a single-shot pistol would do the job. what if there were two men? you'd need more than one bullet. if she's anxious or nervous, probably a lot more.
at what point should it stop though? fully automatic weapons allow you or a small team to use fire team tactics, but can also be used to take a group by surprise and kill them quickly. man-portable rocket weapons can defend against light vehicles but can also be be used to destroy a train or a plane as it takes off or lands. nuclear weapons serve as an effective deterrent but could be used to raze a city.
as weapons are made available to address power disparities between people and groups, they also empower the individual to use those weapons offensively or recklessly.
personally I'm all for legalisation of all kinds of weapons but I don't think it's possible for a society or state to function if the individual is empowered in such a way, past some point or other
So the good lil sheep thinks the government should not have to fear the people. -
2023-08-05 at 5:42 PM UTCI would supply the people with free tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and explosive booby traps. Can't be any worse than what we're looking at right now.
