Mostly democratic city mayors, and city councils. DAs haven't helped with the free for all/not pressing felony charges for theft under 1K in cities like San Francisco
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
IIRC something similar was in the OkCupid user data blog some years (maybe even a decade now) ago and it showed men still pursue (send messages to) women closer to their own age, though still a few years younger. I might have thought about that statistic so much to become a living example and never send likes to Tinder profiles of under 25s, even though they are the most attractive. I mean, it's useless anyway.
C'mon, really? The only reason some middle-aged women are attractive is that they've retained youthfulness in their looks. Though now that I think about it it's not entirely fair to say that, as some have an attractive personality too. It's not a saving grace for anybody.
It's a lifestyle / life situation thing, right? When I was a teen I couldn't relate to 30-year-olds because I was young and nowadays it's for other reasons.
Did you haver a minor stroke and completely miss the part where Baffle was talking about UK policing? Yes? No? 'MURICA!'?
Uhh, that's mostly because any amount of theft under $950 in California is, definitionally, *not a felony*. Like, by law it's a misdemeanor. Any DA trying to charge people who steal under $950 with felony theft would be wildly negligent and/or incompetent
Look. You don't need to repeat yourself at all. I'd much rather you didn't-- because what you're repeating is completely irrelevant and missing the point.
You say it's a "red herring", but you're the one who brought it up. You say they're not 'extra criteria', and then talk about how the early migrations weren't like the ones of the present day... which is an extra criteria, because originally you said nothing whatsoever about the nature of the demographic mixing. You just said it didn't happen. At all.
Indeed. And nobody equated the Great Migrations with modern diverse society.
NOBODY COMPARED THEM. NOT IN SCOPE, OR NATURE, OR ANYTHING ELSE. Can you please acknowledge that, rather than just repeating that bollocks over and over?
It would be factually inaccurate to say voting was modern to the 1900s. Saying that voting is older wouldn't be "comparing" or "equating" the older forms with the modern ones. It would just be correct. And it's adding extra criteria to say those older forms aren't like modern democracy, because that wasn't the damn original statement, which just concerned voting in any form.
Equity doesn't require people to be disadvantaged.
Still not going to address the actual argument, then? I used the same logical process to arrive at those examples as you used to arrive at yours.
So you just want to use the term "equity" to refer to the worst examples of stuff you don't like, and exclude examples of stuff that's innocuous.
None of these are examples of people basing their thought process on the fact that they can personally get away from criminals so they don't care about anyone else.
The Emerging Movement for Police and Prison Abolition
Mariame Kaba, a New York City-based activist and organizer, is at the center of an effort to “build up another world.”www.newyorker.com
Opinion | Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police (Published 2020)
Because reform won’t happen.www.nytimes.com
Police abolition movement - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You're all over the place here.
You brought up Great Migrations in post 5990. I didn't. The only reason we're talking about Great Migrations at all is because you inserted it into the conversation, trying to equate it with "diversity" as the concept is currently applied.
So all I can say (again) is that discussing stuff like Great Migrations is irrelevant to the subject of diversity in the 20th/21st centuries. You're trying to claim that these massive differences in time scale and context are simply "extra criteria."
To quote your own words:
Diversity is not a "new phenomenon"; mixing of people from very different demographics has taken place since the Great Migrations.
So yes, you're drawing an equivalance between these things.
Again, you brought voting into this (see post 6011). This being in the context of trying to draw parallels between the Great Migrations and mass migration of the last century or so.
I don't even know what argument you're making at this point, it's been all over the place. Somehow, we've gone from equity, to diversity, to democracy.
If your argument is that not every piece of equity is deliterious, yes, that's already been stated in this thread. You can look up post 5965 to see that.
Same way that you use equity to only refer to the most inocuous examples and exclude the negative ones?
And yet, equity results in just that, as the examples cited have demonstrated.
Yes, wheelchair ramps would technically fall under equity, but they're a mile removed from the equity that's actually been discussed up to this point. No-one blinks an eye at the existence of wheelchair ramps. If, on the other hand, DIE statements by themselves are enough to disqualify candiates, most people would blink, and have.
Actually, the point of those links was to demonstrate the example of a police abolition movement, as opposed to the police reform movement, since there was already debate in the thread as to the two approaches.
I disagree if you steal 10 times, and get caught. You should go to jail.
‘Out of control’: Washington crime rates soar as cops live in fear of backlash
Community meetings are held as concern grows, but these usually address only the symptoms of a much deeper malaise. Read more at straitstimes.com.
Thank your local progressive DA.
Gergar knows more about what the law should be than the people who make the laws and enforce them.
Edit: And for the record, "three strikes" laws are some of the worst deterrents out there.
www.newsnationnow.com
Edit: And for the record, "three strikes" laws are some of the worst deterrents out there.
Do ‘three-strikes laws’ prevent violent crime?
A killing rampage in Memphis that left four people dead has sparked calls for three-strikes laws to be put into place.
www.newsnationnow.com
Maybe for progressive DAs who think they know everything.Gergar knows more about what the law should be than the people who make the laws and enforce them.
Edit: And for the record, "three strikes" laws are some of the worst deterrents out there.
Do ‘three-strikes laws’ prevent violent crime?
A killing rampage in Memphis that left four people dead has sparked calls for three-strikes laws to be put into place.
Here, take a look at some actual statistics. Start from the part that says "Impact of Three Strikes on The Criminal Justice System." If you don't want to read all of that, I'll highlight some of the key areas. Keep in mind, this was from 2004, comparing statistics that had changed since 1994, so over a decade.
-Roughly 1/3rd of Strikers were convicted for crimes against persons. In other words, the majority of third-strikers are convicted for crimes like property crimes like burglary or drug crimes.
-Little more than half of Strikers awee convicted of nonserious/nonviolent crimes. That said, the paper does state the possibility that violent crimes are underreported as DAs may choose to prosecute on the non-violent stuff to make an easier case because, hey, they're getting a long-term sentence anyways.
-Average age of the prison population had increased from 32 to 36, because people were spending more time in prison. Likewise, the average prison sentence had increased from 21 months before parole to 25 months.
-While both the costs and overall growth in prison population were under the projections, this is partially attributed to the courts using discretion on voiding previous strikes and prosecutors not seeking Third Strikes, in addition to uneven enforcement of Three Strikes laws, rather than anything intrinsic to Third Strikes laws themselves.
Oh, and naturally, African-Americans are more likely to get hit by Third Strikes, making up 45% of the Third Striker population, compared to the approximately 37% of the general, first striker, and second striker populations.
But does it deter crime? Well, according the the section conveniently labeled "The Impact of Three Strikes on Public Safety:
-Crime rates in California did decrease from 1994 (when Three Strikes laws were enacted) to 1999...but it was continuing a trend, as crime had already been decreasing since 1991. From 1999 to 2004, crime rates had actually increased by 11 percent.
-While it can be difficult to measure the direct impact of a law being enacted vs. the law not being enacted, as they are two mutually exclusive scenarios, comparing the decrease in crime rates between counties that had Third Strikes laws and those that didn't showed no significant difference in the crime rate drops between counties, indicating other factors were responsible for the overall drop in crime rates.
-In particular, the rate of violent crimes dropped by 45% in counties least likely to use Third Strike laws, and 44% in counties most likely to use Third Strike laws.
-Again, it should be stressed that any information to be gathered is difficult, as it is impossible to say how many crimes aren't committed.
You brought up diversity. You did not say "diversity in a comparable form to today". You just said diversity, a term which encompasses any form of demographic mixing/coexistence, whether its comparable to today's form or not.
I inserted the Great Migrations as an example of demographics mixing. I DID NOT "equate it with diversity as the concept is currently applied"-- this is a lie.
That quote literally just says it's an example of diversity. It in no way draws an equivalence between that form and the form we have today.
Yes, I brought up voting, as an analogy. I pointed out that if someone said voting existed prior to 1900, that sentence is 1) factually correct and 2) in no way, shape, or form drawing an equivalence between older forms of voting and modern democracy.
You seemingly believe that if something can be said to exist a long time ago, it must therefore be equivalent to modern forms. Transport existed millenia ago? Oh, so I must be saying simple carts are equivalent to trains and automobiles!
Yet, you still act as if deliterious examples automatically tarnish non-deleterious instances.
Nope, this is a lie. The term encompasses perfectly fine policies as well as some more contentious ones. You're the only one acting as if the entire concept is affected by specific, individual approaches within it.
"Wheelchair ramps do not disadvantage people" [...] "Equity results in people being disadvantaged" [...] "Wheelchair ramps fall under equity".
You're contradicting your own post, within the same paragraph, to try to maintain this broad brush condemnation.
Then why did you post them in response to a section of my post which wasn't anything to do with that?
I shouldn't have to, for the reasons I've given.
Yes, but we're not discussing the history of diversity across human existence, are we?
Then why bring it up? There's a clear context in this thread. Again, if you want to discuss diversity over the last 300,000 years, then do it in its own thread. Even if you didn't literally equate it, that's the implication, because otherwise, it's a non sequitur.
It very literally does. You're equating the diversity of human history with diversity as it's currently understood/practiced today. Which, I might remind you, started off in the context of diversity, inclusion, and equity. We've gone from DIE statements to the entire history of humanity. If you don't see how this is concept creep, then I can't help you.
Except by that analogy, if we're specifically discussing cars and trains, it's silly to bring up carts and wagons, unless we were discussing transport in its totality.
If this was about diversity in its totality, sure. But it isn't. We've gone from DIE statements, to diversity, to human history. And as interesting as human history is, this is the "woke" thread, not the "human history" thread.
Well, no, because no-one has an issue with wheelchair ramps or whatnot. The issues of equity are in the areas I've cited. No-one, not on this thread, or any link, has mentioned wheelchairs. The actual controversy about equity is where forced outcomes are sought after, regardless of whatever deleterious effects might prevent themselves. AA, cancelling of advanced classes, etc.
Again, look at the history of this thread. This started off with DIE statements, now we're discussing wheelchairs.
I had no interest in discussing wheelchairs, you brought them up. No-one has an issue with wheelchairs.
Those aren't contradictory statements. If I said wheelchair ramps disadvantage people, that would be false. If I say equity disadvantages people, that would be true, through the examples given.
I've given examples of equity in practice (y'know, the equity that was originally being discussed), I've given examples of how it disadvantage people, and now we have...wheelchairs. As if wheelchair ramps in of themselves somehow negate every issue with equity. No-one is discussing wheelchairs. No-one is suggesting that equity requirements in higher ed are relevant to wheelchairs. The only reason we're discussing wheelchairs is that you've inserted them into the topic, as if to say "well if you're fine with wheelchairs, equity's great, right?"
It's extremely rich to accuse me of going off-topic when every tangent on the DIE topic has been introduced by you. We've gone from diversity to Great Migrations, from equity to wheelchair ramps, to, um, cars.
And again, it wasn't a direct response to you, per se, it was an addition to the wider topic. If I wasn't caught up in this endless cycle of semantics, you probably wouldn't even be questioning it, since the topic had already gone down the police reform vs. police abolition route.
When that distinction makes the difference between something factually wrong and something factually right, yes, you should have to.
As soon as someone makes a claim about something not existing long ago (as you did), then that necessarily expands the conversation to include what things were like a long time ago.
I brought it up because you said something factually incorrect. If someone said transport is a 1900s invention, and I said it's actually been around for millenia, it would be a bizarre defence to say "well, the context of the thread is modern stuff so obviously I meant modern forms of transport!"
This is a lie. Saying that two things qualify as examples of X doesn't mean those two things are equal in any other ways.
So to get this straight: you think it would be perfectly reasonable and correct to state that "transport is less than 2 centuries old"? Because the surrounding context is about modern stuff and thus we should all just assume that when you say "transport" you actually mean specific modern forms?
EXACTLY. But you haven't been saying "equity in these areas is contentious". You've been saying equity itself, and DEI, are contentious in themselves. That necessarily includes the innocuous and harmless stuff alongside the rest. This has been exactly my point from the start.
Funny how a discussion about DEI, which encompasses equity, can lead to discussing examples of equity! How odd!
It would be true to say equity CAN disadvantage people. But to say it necessarily disadvantages people, you must believe that any examples that qualify as equity must also disadvantage people. And that is mutually contradictory with your acknowledgement that wheelchair accessibility doesn't disadvantage anybody.
The only way to reconcile this is to acknowledge that equity doesn't always disadvantage people.
If you condemn equity as a whole, then you're condemning all implementations and forms. And that's what you've been doing: rather than condemn specific instances, you've been condemning the entire principle.
By showing you perfectly innocuous forms of equity, I'm showing you that you cannot tar the entire principle with the same brush.
One can make the point that some societies have a problem in terms of putting people in prison who would be better off not in prison, and not sticking some people in prison long enough. In terms of the latter, repeat recidivists are an obvious problem, and long jail sentences have merit simply to stop them inevitably committing crime because they have no will or desire to stop.
However, a "three strikes" rule can be extraordinarily crude and injust. I don't think there's much use chucking a lot of drug users in jail for 30 years just for possession / use. They need a rehab program. Many petty crimes might be better dealt with by rehabilitation, or their crimes can of course be a factor of a deeply substandard social and economic milieu, and without tackling the wider societal problems many, many people will always be desperate enough to commit crime. I would prefer a more, perhaps, sophisticated mechanism to determine who society really needs to be protected from with lengthy jail sentences.
I may have implied three strikes, but I am personally not in favor of it. I am in favor of the fact that oftentimes a small sample size of say 327 people in NYC commit most of the thefts and get rearrested the most. I am in favor of ten strikes. For example, if I retake a test 10 times and don't get at least a B it is my fault. If I make a mistake 1-2 times sure I may just not get it, but ten times, really.
A Tiny Number of Shoplifters Commit Thousands of New York City Thefts
Nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in the city last year involved just 327 people, the police said. Businesses say they have little defense.
(If you want to view the NYC article use the Wayback website)
- Just 327 shoplifters were arrested and rearrested more than 6,000 times
And before any of you guys use the fact that these professional thieves are just exploiting a vacuum or arresting them will create a vacuum and others will rise up.
They aren't, they are making bank stealing when there is a ton of stuff to learn on the internet like certs, online degrees from reputable colleges that aren't scams, and even boot camps, and skills training.
You're telling me they can't make ends meet in NYC a city full of institutions that can and will train you based on what you're interested in????
This going to be extremely cold-hearted. But I don't care about Cuba. I don't care if we have an embargo with them. Very bleeding heart liberal, and leftist care, and every older Cuban American cares but in a different way.
The fact of the matter is that Cuba is a hostile unsinkable aircraft carrier just like Taiwan is for China. The reason the US wants China to not have Tawian has nothing to do with semiconductors that could be made here, or human capital(Yes the people are very smart and have high GPT per capita and HDI), or even for whatever moralistic reason. I would even argue it has nothing to do with psychology either. Oh, no America has to live in a multi-polar world, no one cares, and we still have lots of unexploited natural resources, a highly educated populace, and lots of land and navigable rivers.
If Russia or China were to ever hold enough power to threaten the US, the first thing that would happen is they would put troops in Mexico or Cuba. That is the reason there is an embargo to keep the Cubans busy and strategy powerless to build airfields for Chinese or Russian strike platforms to build the American Southeast. As one person put it it's a dagger into the US heartland just like Taiwan is for China.
As for Mexico, the Cartels have 2/3s the power of the government of Mexico in drug revenue vs. tax revenue respectively. The US doesn't care because keeping Mexico powerless is in the American interest. It doesn't matter how many cartels are there they just can't conquer Mexico and turn Mexico into a narco-state, but a Mexico free of cartels would be free to host Chinese bombers, tanks, and military bases.
And for those wondering why I am saying this, it's because that is the unofficial position of the US foreign policy, it's the policy they don't talk about. You never have permanent allies only temporary interests. The UK could in theory vote for someone who leaves NATO, and Australia could in theory be a Chinese client state in the future, even Canada could have a non-zero chance of being a future staging ground for an invasion into Seattle, and most importantly the American North East by say a Russia if they ever get their act together.
Yes the US has weak neighbors, but in reality, those neighbors have a closer parity in land mass, and resources than one thinks. Now the US government will never admit this on camera without being behind closed doors, but since I don't work for them, I am laying out what I believe to be International Realism 101.
The fact of the matter is that Cuba is a hostile unsinkable aircraft carrier just like Taiwan is for China. The reason the US wants China to not have Tawian has nothing to do with semiconductors that could be made here, or human capital(Yes the people are very smart and have high GPT per capita and HDI), or even for whatever moralistic reason. I would even argue it has nothing to do with psychology either. Oh, no America has to live in a multi-polar world, no one cares, and we still have lots of unexploited natural resources, a highly educated populace, and lots of land and navigable rivers.
If Russia or China were to ever hold enough power to threaten the US, the first thing that would happen is they would put troops in Mexico or Cuba. That is the reason there is an embargo to keep the Cubans busy and strategy powerless to build airfields for Chinese or Russian strike platforms to build the American Southeast. As one person put it it's a dagger into the US heartland just like Taiwan is for China.
As for Mexico, the Cartels have 2/3s the power of the government of Mexico in drug revenue vs. tax revenue respectively. The US doesn't care because keeping Mexico powerless is in the American interest. It doesn't matter how many cartels are there they just can't conquer Mexico and turn Mexico into a narco-state, but a Mexico free of cartels would be free to host Chinese bombers, tanks, and military bases.
And for those wondering why I am saying this, it's because that is the unofficial position of the US foreign policy, it's the policy they don't talk about. You never have permanent allies only temporary interests. The UK could in theory vote for someone who leaves NATO, and Australia could in theory be a Chinese client state in the future, even Canada could have a non-zero chance of being a future staging ground for an invasion into Seattle, and most importantly the American North East by say a Russia if they ever get their act together.
Yes the US has weak neighbors, but in reality, those neighbors have a closer parity in land mass, and resources than one thinks. Now the US government will never admit this on camera without being behind closed doors, but since I don't work for them, I am laying out what I believe to be International Realism 101.