Not quite free, it costs an email address.
The End of Policing is available as a free Ebook
11–14 of 14 posts
Re: The End of Policing is available as a free Ebook
#12In Minneapolis, they are going to vote for the dismantling of the police department, to switch to community based policing. While this sounds good on the surface, the reality will unfortunately be quite a bit messier. It will lead to what some call the "San Francisco" model of policing: Crime is allowed to happen, in open view and without any risk of prosecution, in a concentrated area of the city, which already has…
Economically determinant policing. I guess Twitter putting their HQ in the Tenderloin is some techno-libertarian experiment. But given the last few years of jury selection rounds I’ve attended, the testimonies from Twitter SRO tenants are not pleased with the progress.
Re: The End of Policing is available as a free Ebook
#13In Minneapolis, they are going to vote for the dismantling of the police department, to switch to community based policing. While this sounds good on the surface, the reality will unfortunately be quite a bit messier. It will lead to what some call the "San Francisco" model of policing: Crime is allowed to happen, in open view and without any risk of prosecution, in a concentrated area of the city, which already has…
The thesis of the book isn't that eliminating policing will solve the problems that create violent crime, but that policing itself doesn't prevent crime or fix those underlying problems. I'd really suggest giving the book a read.
Re: The End of Policing is available as a free Ebook
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? I was merely pointing out some relevant context of the work you cited. Context that people might want to be aware of as they consider its arguments and perspectives.
You're actually breaking the HN guidelines which I suggest you read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument And a few other relevant things.
Posting a quote of a logical fallacy is breaking your own rules. Consider pointing out which rules you think are being broke and why (the “why” being the important part of that sentence).
Note that the genetic fallacy is similar to Godwin’s Law: it specifically doesn’t apply when pointing out a pattern of behaviour.
For example, pointing out that the author of a particular philosophical piece is from a certain school of philosophy is important to people who do not understand the background of philosophical schools.
It’s a form of reality check: would you accept relationship advice from a person who has never had a meaningful relationship?