151–160 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you be a bit more specific about what you mean? By itself, that drive-by comment doesn't tell us much...
There is no rise in crime, but people polled say they believe there is. It's a textbook case of Chomsky's manufactured consent phenomena. It's not a drive-by comment, it's simply concise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Equating police reform with being anti-police plays right into propaganda. The people who started "defund the police" literally do not want there to be police. Sometimes they want to become the police, except they want to be called community violence activists, or therapists, or something. That was fine as a fringe position, but then a lot of other people took up the slogan and just declared that no, actually, it m…
You're mixing up defund with abolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement
https://twitter.com/BlackVisionsMN/status/126614972305388339...
https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1279148959139758080
It actually makes more sense this way, the confusion is when people who don't want to abolish the police still want to defund them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The theory is that if people like you are forced to see the homeless you’ll be more willing to fund helping them. Tuck those homeless into shelters and you’ll forget. The problem is people with options leave. They might be willing to help but not at the cost of their own children. The thing 2020 taught me is 90% of the population considers me an acceptable sacrifice. I’m going to have to live with that now and act ac…
>The theory is that if people like you are forced to see the homeless you’ll be more willing to fund helping them. Whose theory is this? Also, why do you think fighting homelessness is just a function of funding? What if activists and the solutions they propose actually exacerbate the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love Warsaw but suspect your in $1000/mo+ Airbnb, alcohol abuse amongst the homeless in Warsaw is massive, and thus aggressive begging, everything else you say is correct, but your in a 2km bubble and Warsaw is a big city, even a walk to googles free coworking space will be enlightening for you (it will put you marginally outside the comfort zone briefly if you walk the quickest path over the bridge, then loop back i…
I am a block away from it in Praga. There are a handful of drunks, but I understand this is the worst area of the city, but I was interested in getting to know the other side of the Vistula. I haven't seen any rough sleeping or open air drug use near me. Very little public drinking over here (unlike all the students on the other side of the river). Praga has nothing on the Tenderloin. Elsewhere in the city, I saw pus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing up defund with abolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement
I'm not. They're the same thing, the slogan was invented by police abolitionists. https://twitter.com/BlackVisionsMN/status/126614972305388339... https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1279148959139758080 It actually makes more sense this way, the confusion is when people who don't want to abolish the police still want to defund them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have, which is why I already responded to this with "reducing police funding won't lead to money going to those other places". "Education" is a trick because the same taxes don't fund police (cities) and education (school districts). Making one go down wouldn't cause the other to go up, or even increase voter support for it.
Can you clarify: Are you asserting it's literally impossible, along the lines of being actively unconstitutional or impossible in some fashion, or that "well voters won't want to"?
Other things, like education, are actually unrelated because they're literally different tax districts (eg property vs sales tax) applied to different people. In that case you can't vote on defund + fund at the same time. But also, some people just don't like taxes, so if you put the defund one first they'll take it but not use it to fund anything new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you clarify: Are you asserting it's literally impossible, along the lines of being actively unconstitutional or impossible in some fashion, or that "well voters won't want to"?
Some things, like housing, are so expensive that canceling other projects wouldn't actually get them done. The solution is to find ways to make them cheaper. Other things, like education, are actually unrelated because they're literally different tax districts (eg property vs sales tax) applied to different people. In that case you can't vote on defund + fund at the same time. But also, some people just don't like ta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, a quick Google search brings this up from Wikipedia: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and…
So... this survey is propaganda?
San Francisco has some of the most expensive real estate in the country. [1] When I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area like two decades back and looked at housing prices there, SROs[2] were like $1000/month or so. That's a single room, not an apartment. San Francisco has really lovely weather most of the year. It has highly desirable weather if you are homeless: Not much rain and mild temperatures year round.[3] I t…
To ignore the relation between homelessness, the high cost of housing, the gentrification as tech people like to live authentic and the absolute lack of building, and to pretend its welfare and the lack of guns is just blindness. People in SF have to either kick the tech companies out, or allow a massive amount of high density housing in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most places deal with this via border restrictions. One country with better welfare does not allow themselves to be flooded with people from other countries. This problem can not be solved by one city without the ability to restrict movement.
People from other countries do not get welfare in the USA. that is a myth. The problem with 'SF' is people flocking from conservative areas in the US that have solved their homeless problem by literally bussing people to SF. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...