|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 29 2025 07:48 WombaT wrote:
You’re conflating a lot of different things here, and there’s too much to unpack in any reasonable short post.
I will say that burglaries are rather difficult to solve without some kind of smoking gun, or something easily traceable.
It is, however, extremely easy in most cases to arrest someone for social media activity, the receipts are right there.
There seems to be this perception that the police aren’t solving burglaries because they’re too busy chasing up Tweets, but I don’t think it’s really the case.
Issue here is that you looking at the trees, but dont see the forest. This are not the problems separated by decades, they are actually ongoing. Obviously people see those en masse and stop believing that law is working, you can also hardly blame them.
'It is, however, extremely easy in most cases to arrest someone for social media activity, the receipts are right there."
Wouldnt be the simplest solution then to cut social media monitoring policemen to 10% and reassign remaining ones to different departments? Rather than
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-social-media-migrant-immigration-b2796646.html
assign elite unit of detectives to this?
Also in what world one gets suspended sentence for child rape and another 31 months in prison for a tweet?
On July 29 2025 08:21 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re not ever going to recover from “Britain is so weird, they have a whole day celebrating Guy Fawkes even though he tried to blow up parliament” in my eyes so I wouldn’t bother trying.
Kwark dont take me wrong, I like you, but end of the day you are random person on the internet, I am not bothered.
Also that you?
On November 09 2024 07:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 05:33 Impervious wrote:On November 09 2024 05:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:Universal or public health care isn't a panacea for all health problems or obesity, obviously. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with the problem that people are overweight, and frankly, there are probably other explanations outside the health care system - specifically - that cause the difference in degree. Cities being designed for driving instead of walking seems like a pretty big one: They found that adults who live in walkable neighborhoods were 1.5 times more likely to engage in adequate levels of physical activity, and 0.76 times less likely to have obesity, compared to adults living in neighborhoods with low walkability.The other major one is food. Looking solely at caloric intake, the US is #2 on the list for 2018, food energy intake per capita by country, and couple that with the sedentiary lifestyle, and yea, no shocker. The difference - as alluded to by several other posters - is that a country which pays for the health care of its inhabitants - where health care thus is an expenditure, and not a source of profit - is greatly incentivized to try to make some efforts towards preventing health issues rather than treating them, as that is a much less costly way of doing it. Meanwhile a profit-driven system will have actors involved who benefit from the population being unhealthy. Now, I'll be honest and say that I don't have intricate data on this, and the following is more of a 'it is my impression that' - coupled with 'I'm too lazy to really study it in depth at the moment but damn this is kinda interesting to me' - but it is my impression that the big american health care companies will in at least some instances have shareholders/parent companies (I don't even know the terminology of this stuff tbh) who are also involved in, for example, the beverage industry, who have lobbied against, for example, sugar taxes. Kinda like how the opioid epidemic has been driven by profit-based health care benefiting from people being addicted to opiates, a profit-based health care system has perverse incentives to have an unhealthy population, and without being all conspiratorial, lobbyism in the US seems like a pretty tangled somewhat clandestine web of different actors who don't always have the best interests of the public in mind. So it's complicated, and it's not that 'public health care' by itself solves everything - but a profit-based system does, kinda by default, offer some perverse incentives compared to one run by the government. And while the competition inherent to capitalism can sometimes produce great results (hey, I'll admit that even as a self-described socialist), the combination of a) profit-driven b) impossible to opt out of and c) naturally monopolistic (in many cases your option of hospitals to go for treatment is 1) tends to create situations where capitalism at the very least requires some pretty strict regulation. Whereas if health care is government funded, the approach to health care will logically drive itself more towards a holistic solution of all sorts of prevention-based incentives or disincentives because these are less costly than treating health care problems is - for example through adding sin taxes, or building bike lanes and publicly available exercising options, or mandating/incentivizing work places to offer some exercise options during working hours. Blackrock. Vanguard. State Street. They seem to have their fingers in everything..... Those are brokerages. They don’t own everything, they hold everything on behalf of other people. The money isn’t theirs. The idea that brokerages are secretly buying up the world as part of a secret plan always infuriated me. They’re publicly buying up the world on the instructions of US retirees who have requested that the brokerage buy assets for them. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a 401k. Take off the mask and you’ll find it was you all along.
I would expect you to know better than anyone on this forum, that they for all the means and purposes actually do own everything (I do agree though that "secretly" is infuriating) given that they keep voting rights. Like, you know, make up of BoD which is responsible for hiring and firing senior executives for example. While they made some progress, here is BlackRock saying this:
"As of March 31, 2025, $2.7 trillion of BlackRock’s $6.2 trillion total index equity AUM are eligible to participate in BlackRock Voting Choice"
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/about-us/investment-stewardship/blackrock-voting-choice
they are apparently leading here, and I bet you that people who leave it to funds are around 60% to 90%.
I am rather surprised that you werent aware of this  .
|
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police.
I’m totally fine with someone going to prison for saying on a public platform:
Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fg hotels full of the bs for all I care… if that makes me racist, so be it
Play stupid games…
You seem to be missing my point, if a crime is basically impossible to solve, it doesn’t matter how many resources you throw at it.
Say I go on holiday, I don’t have some sort of door camera or whatever. My house gets burgled when I’m away. The items stolen are just regular items, not something like a car with a reg plate that you could track. I’m in the suburbs, so unlike the town centre there’s not shitloads of CCTV in surrounding areas that you could maybe track a burglar’s movements with.
I go to the police, realistically meant to do there?
I recall a Reddit thread where someone complained about the police not at least coming to their house and having a chat with them. ‘They maybe can’t solve it, but they should at least make it look like they’re trying, I’d feel more confident in the police’ was the OP’s angle.
Well I mean, it might make you feel better, but it’s a complete waste of resources. People seem to think we’re living in like CSI Miami or whatever and police can somehow crack the case that has zero evidence going.
If a doctor tells you, hey it’s tough news but you’ve incurable cancer you just accept it. If the police tell you they can’t solve your crime, they’re useless and not trying.
|
On July 29 2025 10:53 WombaT wrote:Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police. I’m totally fine with someone going to prison for saying on a public platform: Show nested quote +Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fg hotels full of the bs for all I care… if that makes me racist, so be it Play stupid games… You seem to be missing my point, if a crime is basically impossible to solve, it doesn’t matter how many resources you throw at it. Say I go on holiday, I don’t have some sort of door camera or whatever. My house gets burgled when I’m away. The items stolen are just regular items, not something like a car with a reg plate that you could track. I’m in the suburbs, so unlike the town centre there’s not shitloads of CCTV in surrounding areas that you could maybe track a burglar’s movements with. I go to the police, realistically meant to do there? I recall a Reddit thread where someone complained about the police not at least coming to their house and having a chat with them. ‘They maybe can’t solve it, but they should at least make it look like they’re trying, I’d feel more confident in the police’ was the OP’s angle. Well I mean, it might make you feel better, but it’s a complete waste of resources. People seem to think we’re living in like CSI Miami or whatever and police can somehow crack the case that has zero evidence going. If a doctor tells you, hey it’s tough news but you’ve incurable cancer you just accept it. If the police tell you they can’t solve your crime, they’re useless and not trying.
No Wombat, you missing my point. You see al this as separate instances. Public see pattern.
"Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police. " issue is law not police. Look at you, you skimmed over child rapist.
"Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police.
I’m totally fine with someone going to prison for saying on a public platform
Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fg hotels full of the bs for all I care… if that makes me racist, so be it "
So one has nothing to do with police, but other you see no problem with?
Wombat sorry, but you walking into this one: Which one you think is worse: child rape, or tweet you disagree with? (remember rape dude was found guilty)
On July 29 2025 09:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 08:52 WombaT wrote:On July 29 2025 08:21 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re not ever going to recover from “Britain is so weird, they have a whole day celebrating Guy Fawkes even though he tried to blow up parliament” in my eyes so I wouldn’t bother trying. People are allowed to be wrong on occasion to be fair On occasion, but that’s really not the scenario we’re seeing play out here. That proclamation was very much on brand for him.
And yet I called Trump win soon after Kamala was appointed, I also called MAGA fracture over Epstein. Yeah seems somewhat on brand . I'l make it easy for you, quote me on this to prove me wrong:
On July 29 2025 07:21 Razyda wrote:
I can also tell you: It is going to get worse.
|
United States42668 Posts
|
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
Yes dude, the judiciary handing down a lenient sentence has nothing to do with the police.
I didn’t skim over anything, the initial conversation was specifically about the police, and I responded thus.
The public can see all the patterns they like, they can still be wrong.
The problem with these patterns is it’s ’I read a story somewhere’, and the stories that gain most traction are the most egregious examples of some injustice.
And it’s generally from the very same media that threw shitloads of ‘the Poles are coming to ruin everything’ when Poland became an EU member. If memory serves you are Polish. If it were me I’d give a wide berth to voices who historically tried to pull such things.
|
On July 29 2025 11:36 WombaT wrote:
Yes dude, the judiciary handing down a lenient sentence has nothing to do with the police.
I didn’t skim over anything, the initial conversation was specifically about the police, and I responded thus.
The public can see all the patterns they like, they can still be wrong.
The problem with these patterns is it’s ’I read a story somewhere’, and the stories that gain most traction are the most egregious examples of some injustice.
And it’s generally from the very same media that threw shitloads of ‘the Poles are coming to ruin everything’ when Poland became an EU member. If memory serves you are Polish. If it were me I’d give a wide berth to voices who historically tried to pull such things.
You seem mad?
And incorrect: "Yes dude, the judiciary handing down a lenient sentence has nothing to do with the police. " Issue I raised was about Law not Police.
"And it’s generally from the very same media that threw shitloads of ‘the Poles are coming to ruin everything’ when Poland became an EU member. If memory serves you are Polish. If it were me I’d give a wide berth to voices who historically tried to pull such things. "
See, this is advantage I have. I am an immigrant ( and yes Polish and proud of it) and when I came to UK I worked 80+ hours a week at normal wage (as in no 150% per hour). As it happens I spoke with a lot of English people, who, honestly, just didnt know whats going on. They thought that they are going to just do bare minimum and progress in position and wage. Wombat that was not close, they werent even in the competition.
|
As much as we wanna say things like “we all wish the police would catch every lawbreaker yadda yadda” I think the tolerance towards crime is one of the biggest left/right divides of our era. You can post the same video of some petty crime like shoplifting and on a right-wing site they will cheer for the shoplifter to get nabbed and on the left-wing site they will cheer for the guy to escape the bobbies after nicking some cornettos.
On a right wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that helps the police subdue someone and put them in handcuffs. On a left-wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that opens the door to the back of a police car and lets the person inside flee because ACAB and he was probably innocent anyway.
Also I totally don’t blame the police. The police are definitely not doing their job but that’s only because their job has been made pointless because anyone they arrest is back on the streets the next day anyway. Also when you demonize the police you shouldn’t be surprised when they no longer want to stick their necks out to catch bad guys.
Also to the “statistics say crime is down” crowd: the major newspaper in my city tried to use crime stats to claim the local drug store only had 3 incidences of shoplifting per month and therefore shoplifting was not that serious. A news camera crew from a different outlet went to film at the store and they witnessed 3 instances of shoplifting in the 20 minutes they were there. When statistics and public sentiment begin to diverge its also possible that the statistics are bullshit. You can cling to your stats all you want but they didn’t start locking up the sweets at Tesco behind plexiglass for no reason.
|
On July 29 2025 12:58 BlackJack wrote:
As much as we wanna say things like “we all wish the police would catch every lawbreaker yadda yadda” I think the tolerance towards crime is one of the biggest left/right divides of our era. You can post the same video of some petty crime like shoplifting and on a right-wing site they will cheer for the shoplifter to get nabbed and on the left-wing site they will cheer for the guy to escape the bobbies after nicking some cornettos.
On a right wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that helps the police subdue someone and put them in handcuffs. On a left-wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that opens the door to the back of a police car and lets the person inside flee because ACAB and he was probably innocent anyway.
Also I totally don’t blame the police. The police are definitely not doing their job but that’s only because their job has been made pointless because anyone they arrest is back on the streets the next day anyway. Also when you demonize the police you shouldn’t be surprised when they no longer want to stick their necks out to catch bad guys.
I think there a certain degree of truth to your statement regarding how people see small crime. But far from as extreme as you make it out to be here. I would be left leaning on pretty much every single topic but would not act according to your statements.
Where I think the real divide is and has historically been is in what is moral. If a person is starving and stealing is the only way to get food I think that person deserves help, not jail. I do not think that the person continuing to steal is a good outcome, I also don't think putting them into jail is a good outcome. People in jails are expensive and it is often a large punishment not fitting the crime, as far as possible we should try to solve issues in other ways.
I am also a bit odd for being on the left side and being fine with the death penalty. But if you implement too strict punishments overall that instead means there is no deterrence past a certain point. To me it is an economical problem, you can jail somebody for 30 years and they will be a retiree once they leave prison. That money could have gotten an asylum seeker into society once a year, improving society instead. In a scenario with infinite money I am against the death penalty.
|
On July 29 2025 06:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 04:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 29 2025 00:55 WombaT wrote:
Impactful sure, but what do you do about it?
If people feel they’re living in almost a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when actually it’s amongst the safest and least crime-ridden times to have ever existed, how do you swing that around?
Let’s say there’s a hypothetical SC2 patch that by most reasonable metrics, is the most balanced state the game has ever been in. How do you placate the person who feels it’s the worst patch ever, and not as balanced as patches from the good old days, patches that were objectively way worse for balance? I don't know if you've read "Sapiens: a brief history of mankind". Arguably one of the best pop-science books about society. Actual historians and anthropologists tend to hate this book. E.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20200213152130/https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari's_'Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind'/
That happens with every popular science book. It's hard to dumb down a subject enough for a layman and keep it accurate enough for the nerds. If I showed one of my lectures that's aimed at the public to my colleagues there would be endless arguing about how correct something is.
|
On July 29 2025 15:13 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 06:38 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2025 04:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 29 2025 00:55 WombaT wrote:
Impactful sure, but what do you do about it?
If people feel they’re living in almost a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when actually it’s amongst the safest and least crime-ridden times to have ever existed, how do you swing that around?
Let’s say there’s a hypothetical SC2 patch that by most reasonable metrics, is the most balanced state the game has ever been in. How do you placate the person who feels it’s the worst patch ever, and not as balanced as patches from the good old days, patches that were objectively way worse for balance? I don't know if you've read "Sapiens: a brief history of mankind". Arguably one of the best pop-science books about society. Actual historians and anthropologists tend to hate this book. E.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20200213152130/https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari's_'Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind'/ That happens with every popular science book. It's hard to dumb down a subject enough for a layman and keep it accurate enough for the nerds. If I showed one of my lectures that's aimed at the public to my colleagues there would be endless arguing about how correct something is.
I think if they renamed it Sapiens: a brief history of mankind in Europe it would have much less backlash.
On the point of dumbing down, it is actually useful a lot of the time. Even when inaccurate, having a simple model to start from and add in the needed complexity for that specific case makes it easier for my limited human brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
