Well, it’s pretty boring to talk about the other 99.9998% of folks who didn’t engage in that BS, so youre fed attention grabbing stories for the clicks.
“Liberal parents let son dress up in a tutu and then make him eat his green beans” makes a boring headline.
You don’t need to engage to be affected. No one in the cities was saying defund or abolish the police until the bourgeoisie brought it up and DeBlasio, who is a Marxist, disbanded a crime unit that actively prevented crime. The result: surprise! Violent crime is up.
It’s always a telltale sign of a bourgeois Marxist that he feels compelled to engage in some form of personal mimicry to appear more plebeian - Bill DeBlasio sounds more working-class than Warren Wilhelm.
Except these dumbass 19 year olds are supposed to be the solution to the problems posed by police.
Yeah, a 2 year difference
The giveaway is that he eats pizza with a fork and knife, like Trump.
I do agree that there needs to be a plan in place before the previous plan is canceled.
We also need to realize that reallocating police funds will likely lead to an increase in crime in the short term, with hopefully long term benefits. So before these plans are implemented, the communities affected need to be consulted and on board.
While you’re a great contributor here with intelligence and insight that sometimes make me question my ossified opinions, unfortunately I have to state that this paragraph above is idiotic.
That’s not part of the Marxist playbook. The people affected are too crude and unsophisticated to know what’s best for them. For the poor, the difference between Marxist rule and capitalism is that under capitalism you have a chance to not be poor.
In what way? Seems like a pretty logical, fair thought to me. I’m not commenting on the good or bad of “defund” policy, just commenting bon what I see as a probable reality.
“Ok, hear me out, folks. More of you will end up getting shot. More of you will die. And you’ll probably be victims of violence more frequently. And the police will come less frequently and it will take them longer. But please, think about the long run! Who’s with me?”
“And businesses will leave, EMTs and firemen won’t show up, schools will close, mail won’t get delivered, packages won’t get delivered… but don’t despair as the wealthy neighborhoods will still have cops.”
Tough sell to folks who notoriously have a problem with delayed gratification. But, I think, that is the truth of it. “Defund” policy could very well work, but only after a few years would we begin to see the benefits IMO.
Then why do the suburbs where there is less crime and fewer criminals, have cops?
Never, ever trust these weirdos! How long will it take for people to figure this out? And in the land of the New York slice to boot.
I disagree that it will work well, but I do agree that if we were to see a positive effect it would be years down the line.
If it instantly causes an increase in crime and violence then what about it will reduce the same crime and violence in the long run? Something else needs to be in place to deal with that, and there does not appear to be any coherent plan for such a thing.
Not wanting to be robbed, assaulted, or killed = problem with delayed gratification
If social workers and whatever other nonsense can stop crime and violence then why aren’t they doing it? Are the police stopping them? And if there are no cops then who is going to protect the social workers?
The left seems totally insane. Take away guns from law abiding citizens, then take away the police that are supposed to protect law abiding citizens. Now only criminals have guns, and there is nobody to stop them from doing anything. More people will die, but don’t worry because their lives are sacrificed for a good cause.
I do think it will work well, but I’m not sure it is worth the upfront sacrifice. Especially because I’m not more than 60% sure that it will work well, or how long it will take to figure out how to make it work well.
The reason I’m so open to the idea is that I haven’t heard any better ideas with good long-term outcomes that have a realistic chance of being implemented.
Now that sounds like an engineer! 
I’d agree we have a lack of really good “all encompassing” moonshot sort of ideas to solve this with a realistic chance of being implemented.
Unfortunately I don’t think this fits that bill either, specifically due to the upfront costs you mentioned. On a timeline where the outcome is measured in generations–there is a generation that will fall through the cracks due to being too far “gone” before the next one with the revamped system grows up–one has to be relatively certain that declining circumstances don’t ruin the outcome. I’m just not confident that is going to turn out well.
If this is implemented in “beta” form this year and you’re born 2 years ago, it would stand to reason that you might grow up with the benefits of the new system or whatever you want to call it. However things are certainly going to deteriorate before that and if you grow up with these even worse conditions, will you have enough left to break the energy barrier? Which influence will win?
I don’t think a protracted downturn from an already insanely dreary circumstance is going to help. Too much bad blood built up by the time the good is supposed to kick in.
Eternity
Has there ever been a successful civilization that didn’t have any form of law enforcement?
Here’s one: don’t defund the police.
I actually think they waste money on certain shit, like busting grow-ops when/where weed is now legal. When they were about to legalize weed in Canada there were a bunch of police chiefs talking about how this will require even more enforcement than before, which is totally backwards. There are certain things that could be trimmed from the budget, but that’s not what BLM and antifa are about, they want to get rid of police altogether