|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 22 2023 15:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2023 13:49 BlackJack wrote: It's all about par for the course for a city that bought into Defund the police and All Cops Are Bastards. The sad thing is it's primarily the people of color that will suffer from this idiotic social experiment of letting crime run rampant. Polling shows that black people want MORE or equal police present in their community, not less. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=oakland pd budget by yearThe "Defund The Police" thing is a conservative myth, nobody ever actually defunded police anywhere and nobody was ever actually calling for what they imagine that it meant. It just doesn't happen. It's a bogeyman that people are dumb enough to fall for despite being perfectly capable of a simple google search. They'd rather believe the narrative that crime is some simple thing to solve which liberals have somehow failed on than make even a basic effort to inform themselves. "If only the liberals hadn't defunded the police, San Francisco would be fixed". What they're trying to express is that giving the police ever increasing sums of money for overtime and excessive force settlements while refusing to fund any of the solutions to the structural problems is clearly not working. Your story is evidence of that. They not only funded the police, they increased the funding of the police to an all time high, and yet you're here complaining that they can't seem to do their jobs. And you’re passionately arguing for the policy that is currently failing you, funding the police, while getting angry at the only people saying that maybe we should try something other than the policy that we’re seeing didn’t work.
First of all, you're not very good at googling.
Oakland City Council Votes to Defund Police, Stripping More Than $17M from Department Budget
San Francisco Mayor London Breed announces cuts to police in new city budget The mayor announced a $120 million cut to the police and sheriff's department.
Los Angeles City Council votes to cut LAPD budget by $150 million
NYC cuts $1B from police budget amid calls for reform
DC Council Passes Budget Slashing $15M for Police
To their credit, I guess, they were relatively quick to realize their own idiocy and quickly reversed course by re-funding the police departments. Great, what do you want, a cookie?
Secondly, and more importantly, you may notice I lumped Defund the Police with ACAB. Now there is no government policy for "all cops are bastards." The point is that "Defund" and "ACAB" are shifts in the cultural mindset of these cities, regardless of the police budget. We no longer value law and order. If someone goes into a store and steals a bunch of shit the belief is "Good, it's a rich corporation and the insurance will pay for it anyway." These people are too stupid to see even 10 feet down the road to the consequences of their beliefs. Now you have security gates inside of grocery stores, and when Walgreen's closes up shop you see the Oakland City Council whining that it's going to leave nearby seniors in a pharmacy desert.
The mindset is that the true victims are not the actual victims crime. Instead the victims are the people committing the crimes. Victims of their circumstances and victims of structural racism that have forced them into a life of crime.
They are befuddled when the police they call bastards no longer want to risk their own lives to catch the bad guys. They are befuddled when police are frustrated with arresting the same people over and over only to see them on the streets the next day. There's a reason why the TikTok channels showcasing all the crazy shit going down are called "Bay Area State of Mind" and "Oakland State of Mind." The lawlessness is condoned.
|
United States41951 Posts
You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on.
|
On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on.
Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to.
|
|
United States41951 Posts
On December 23 2023 02:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on. Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to. And if the budget had only gone up by $1 and if your argument was “given inflation the budget, in inflation adjusted dollars, actually went down” then you’d have both evidence and a valid argument.
However the budget went up $23m from $330m in FY22 to $353m in FY23 and your argument was that it had been defunded and so maybe you should shut the fuck up and walk away.
|
There’s a version of Blackjack’s side of this that I’d kind of buy, which is that in the long term, the amount of respect and admiration a profession receives is a kind of societal investment, sometimes a more meaningful one than the money they get. Young ambitious people will want to do that work because it’s seen as important and worthy work, even if the pay isn’t higher than other professions, and people already on the job will be more motivated to do good work because they feel like it’s part of a collective, societal effort rather than just a paycheck. In the opposite case, work that’s viewed as demeaning and dishonorable will attract less capable and decent people, and people already in the field might even feel an antagonistic relationship to society at large rather than wanting to contribute to collective wellbeing.
There’s a vicious cycle, then, where police abuses breed public distrust and disdain, which in turn breeds worse police forces. In that sense even if 2020’s protest movements didn’t actually produce much in the way of real policy changes, it did probably make police even shittier. It’s a bit hard for me to blame anybody other than the police themselves, though, considering their reaction to legitimate grievances about their behavior has pretty consistently been to act even worse. What are we supposed to do, pretend they’re not bastards in hopes that’ll make them stop?
I have no idea if this is especially related to a point BJ is trying to make, or even whether he’d agree with it. But it seems worth keeping in mind that the impact of 2020’s protests was probably more social rather than “political” (in the narrow sense of actually changing official policies).
|
United States41951 Posts
They were already murdering people in the streets, that’s what was being protested. The idea that if we were nicer to them maybe they’d be nicer to us is pretty crazy. They’re public servants, not a dragon terrorizing our towns.
Also the idea that ACAB is not new, they’ve always been this way and a section of the population have always known. What has changed is recording equipment.
|
On December 23 2023 02:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 02:06 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on. Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to. Would you like to do some simple math to check if the salary rise makes the difference or just throw it out and assume youre correct? And then when someone else does the math shows your wrong what will be you next move to make you still right?
I don't need to "do some math" to prove my point. My point that the Oakland city council voted to defund the police is proven by the fact that they voted to defund the police. As the mayor said in her statement regarding the vote:
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf released a statement voicing her opposition to the revised budget and the police department cuts.
"Unfortunately, it [the budget] also cuts 50 police officers who respond to Oaklanders' 911 calls and enforce traffic safety. It also cuts much-needed future academies, which will significantly reduce police staffing and delay response to Oaklanders in their time of crisis," Schaaf's statement read in part. "It will force our officers to work even more overtime shifts, which are expensive and unsafe for officers and residents alike."
It's not my job to explain to people that the simple concept of having to pay existing officers expensive overtime because you no longer have the budget for 50 new-hires can ultimately cause the overall police budget to go up while simultaneously weakening the amount of manpower you have.
|
On December 23 2023 02:19 KwarK wrote: They were already murdering people in the streets, that’s what was being protested. The idea that if we were nicer to them maybe they’d be nicer to us is pretty crazy. They’re public servants, not a dragon terrorizing our towns.
Also the idea that ACAB is not new, they’ve always been this way and a section of the population have always known. What has changed is recording equipment. I agree! Did it sound like I don’t?
I thought I basically said “police were atrocious before, but probably got even worse when we acknowledged it,” and explicitly suggested that pretending they’re not awful in hopes they’d improve was a dumb idea. Or are you not replying to me?
|
United States41951 Posts
You’re working really hard here to explain how a $23m increase in funding and a record budget is really a defunded police department.
Let’s approach this from the opposite direction. Take the $330m as a baseline. It was defunded down to only $353m. What number would you describe as keeping the funding constant?
|
United States41951 Posts
On December 23 2023 02:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 02:19 KwarK wrote: They were already murdering people in the streets, that’s what was being protested. The idea that if we were nicer to them maybe they’d be nicer to us is pretty crazy. They’re public servants, not a dragon terrorizing our towns.
Also the idea that ACAB is not new, they’ve always been this way and a section of the population have always known. What has changed is recording equipment. I agree! Did it sound like I don’t? I thought I basically said “police were atrocious before, but probably got even worse when we acknowledged it,” and explicitly suggested that pretending they’re not awful in hopes they’d improve was a dumb idea. Or are you not replying to me? Not everything that I write is strictly adversarial. I also angrily agree sometimes. You were disagreeing with an idea and I also wanted to join in on disagreeing with that idea.
|
On December 23 2023 02:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 02:26 ChristianS wrote:On December 23 2023 02:19 KwarK wrote: They were already murdering people in the streets, that’s what was being protested. The idea that if we were nicer to them maybe they’d be nicer to us is pretty crazy. They’re public servants, not a dragon terrorizing our towns.
Also the idea that ACAB is not new, they’ve always been this way and a section of the population have always known. What has changed is recording equipment. I agree! Did it sound like I don’t? I thought I basically said “police were atrocious before, but probably got even worse when we acknowledged it,” and explicitly suggested that pretending they’re not awful in hopes they’d improve was a dumb idea. Or are you not replying to me? Not everything that I write is strictly adversarial. I also angrily agree sometimes. You were disagreeing with an idea and I also wanted to join in on disagreeing with that idea. Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.
It’s an idea I’m often a little hesitant to voice, because I think it can easily be misunderstood as saying “the REAL problem is all these people criticizing the police!” which would, rightly imo, get a lot of pushback. I think that’s fairly close to what BJ is arguing. But I also think it helps to understand why so many of the most abusive police forces are in left-leaning areas (PPB, LAPD, NYPD), and why they seem to have gotten so much worse just in the last few years.
|
On December 23 2023 02:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 02:06 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on. Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to. And if the budget had only gone up by $1 and if your argument was “given inflation the budget, in inflation adjusted dollars, actually went down” then you’d have both evidence and a valid argument. However the budget went up $23m from $330m in FY22 to $353m in FY23 and your argument was that it had been defunded and so maybe you should shut the fuck up and walk away.
Great job cherry picking years AFTER they had realized their own stupidity and reversed course on Defund.
Oakland PD budget went from $330m FY20-21 to $335 FY21-22.
Or put another way, The Police Budget went from being 20% of the overall city budget to being 16.5% of the overall city budget. This drop pretty easily explains how the budget has not kept pace with the increase in other city budgets. I don't think it can be put any more simply.
|
United States41951 Posts
On December 23 2023 02:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 02:15 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2023 02:06 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on. Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to. And if the budget had only gone up by $1 and if your argument was “given inflation the budget, in inflation adjusted dollars, actually went down” then you’d have both evidence and a valid argument. However the budget went up $23m from $330m in FY22 to $353m in FY23 and your argument was that it had been defunded and so maybe you should shut the fuck up and walk away. Great job cherry picking years AFTER they had realized their own stupidity and reversed course on Defund. Oakland PD budget went from $330m FY20-21 to $335 FY21-22. Or put another way, The Police Budget went from being 20% of the overall city budget to being 16.5% of the overall city budget. This drop pretty easily explains how the budget has not kept pace with the increase in other city budgets. I don't think it can be put any more simply. You opened with an anecdote about how you had a recent experience with Oakland PD in which they failed to perform well. You attributed this poor performance to the fact that the department had been defunded. Cause, defunding. Effect, bad service. That was your claim.
I’m not cherry picking years, you picked the year of discussion. You said that your present experience was caused by present defunding because you erroneously believed that there had been defunding. Now that it has been explained to you that the funding has increased you’re standing by your anecdote because you’re ashamed of being wrong.
If you open with “this thing happened to me in 2023 because the department was defunded (in 2023)” then at some point you will have to address the record 2023 funding.
If you follow that up with how a proposed 2021 funding cut was a mistake and was followed with years of increases then I’m afraid to report to you that what you are arguing is that funding the police causes bad service. After all, you experienced bad service in 2023 after the radical policing of funding the police had been implemented for several years. You’ve kept the effect the same, bad service, but switched the preceding narrative from police budget cuts to police budget increases. Not a great argument.
|
On December 23 2023 02:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 02:41 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 02:15 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2023 02:06 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on. Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to. And if the budget had only gone up by $1 and if your argument was “given inflation the budget, in inflation adjusted dollars, actually went down” then you’d have both evidence and a valid argument. However the budget went up $23m from $330m in FY22 to $353m in FY23 and your argument was that it had been defunded and so maybe you should shut the fuck up and walk away. Great job cherry picking years AFTER they had realized their own stupidity and reversed course on Defund. Oakland PD budget went from $330m FY20-21 to $335 FY21-22. Or put another way, The Police Budget went from being 20% of the overall city budget to being 16.5% of the overall city budget. This drop pretty easily explains how the budget has not kept pace with the increase in other city budgets. I don't think it can be put any more simply. You opened with an anecdote about how you had a recent experience with Oakland PD in which they failed to perform well. You attributed this poor performance to the fact that the department had been defunded. Cause, defunding. Effect, bad service. That was your claim. I’m not cherry picking years, you picked the year of discussion. You said that your present experience was caused by present defunding because you erroneously believed that there had been defunding. Now that it has been explained to you that the funding has increased your standing by your anecdote because you’re ashamed of being wrong. If you open with “this thing happened to me in 2023 because the department was defunded (in 2023)” then at some point you will have to address the record 2023 funding. If you follow that up with how a proposed 2021 funding cut was a mistake and was followed with years of increases then I’m afraid to report to you that what you are arguing is that funding the police causes bad service. After all, you experienced bad service in 2023 after the radical policing of funding the police had been implemented for several years. You’ve kept the effect the same, bad service, but switched the preceding narrative from police budget cuts to police budget increases. Not a great argument.
Wow, you're making up a lot of words there, but okay.
Again, here is what the literal fucking mayor of Oakland, a Democrat, said about the city council voting to strip funding from the police
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf released a statement voicing her opposition to the revised budget and the police department cuts.
"Unfortunately, it [the budget] also cuts 50 police officers who respond to Oaklanders' 911 calls and enforce traffic safety. It also cuts much-needed future academies, which will significantly reduce police staffing and delay response to Oaklanders in their time of crisis," Schaaf's statement read in part. "It will force our officers to work even more overtime shifts, which are expensive and unsafe for officers and residents alike."
Mayor of Oakland: If we pass this funding cut we will have longer wait times for 911 calls
BlackJack *experiences long wait time for 911 call*
What a mystery
Also, if you don't see how budget changes can have downstream effects even years later I don't have time to explain that to you either although the mayor gives you a huge hint to figure it out on your own "It also cuts much-needed future academies."
This is all while ignoring the main point that I referred to "defund" mostly as a culture phenomenon along with ACAB to partly explain my experience.
|
United States41951 Posts
On December 23 2023 03:05 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 02:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2023 02:41 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 02:15 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2023 02:06 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on. Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to. And if the budget had only gone up by $1 and if your argument was “given inflation the budget, in inflation adjusted dollars, actually went down” then you’d have both evidence and a valid argument. However the budget went up $23m from $330m in FY22 to $353m in FY23 and your argument was that it had been defunded and so maybe you should shut the fuck up and walk away. Great job cherry picking years AFTER they had realized their own stupidity and reversed course on Defund. Oakland PD budget went from $330m FY20-21 to $335 FY21-22. Or put another way, The Police Budget went from being 20% of the overall city budget to being 16.5% of the overall city budget. This drop pretty easily explains how the budget has not kept pace with the increase in other city budgets. I don't think it can be put any more simply. You opened with an anecdote about how you had a recent experience with Oakland PD in which they failed to perform well. You attributed this poor performance to the fact that the department had been defunded. Cause, defunding. Effect, bad service. That was your claim. I’m not cherry picking years, you picked the year of discussion. You said that your present experience was caused by present defunding because you erroneously believed that there had been defunding. Now that it has been explained to you that the funding has increased your standing by your anecdote because you’re ashamed of being wrong. Wow, you're making up a lot of words there, but okay. Again, here is what the literal fucking mayor of Oakland, a Democrat, said about the city council voting to strip funding from the police Show nested quote +Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf released a statement voicing her opposition to the revised budget and the police department cuts.
"Unfortunately, it [the budget] also cuts 50 police officers who respond to Oaklanders' 911 calls and enforce traffic safety. It also cuts much-needed future academies, which will significantly reduce police staffing and delay response to Oaklanders in their time of crisis," Schaaf's statement read in part. "It will force our officers to work even more overtime shifts, which are expensive and unsafe for officers and residents alike." Mayor of Oakland: If we pass this funding cut we will have longer wait times for 911 calls BlackJack *experiences long wait time for 911 call* What a mystery In 2021.
They subsequently reversed course. You're using council minutes from years ago, I'm using actuals. The budget actually increased. In actual money. There's no reasonable definition of the word defunding that can be applied to a funding increase.
Imagine the year is 2021. There is a proposed funding cut. Someone flips a coin on whether to go ahead and cut the funding or reverse course and actually increase funding to record levels. The coinflip results in two parallel universes separated only by the outcome of the coinflip.
In universe A the funding is cut. The police is defunded. 2 years later BlackJack tells us a story about how he had a recent experience of bad service from Oakland PD due to the police being defunded.
In universe B the funding is increased to record levels. 2 years later BlackJack is also somehow telling us a story about how he had a recent experience of bad service from Oakland PD due to the police being defunded.
Do you see the problem here? Do you not see that you started with the conclusion and are subsequently making up nonsense to support it? You thought you were in universe A and that the outcome of the coinflip could be used as a cause to support your anecdote. I informed you of your mistake but somehow the opposite outcome is still somehow a cause to support your anecdote.
|
|
On December 23 2023 03:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2023 03:05 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 02:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2023 02:41 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 02:15 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2023 02:06 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2023 01:50 KwarK wrote: You literally claimed Oakland defunded their police in a year in which they have record funding. Your personal anecdote of your recent person experience with Oakland PD was directly connected with your specific claim that the PD was defunded. No amount of changing the subject, switching to different cities, or bringing up council votes from years ago can make your claim true. You specified that X happened because of Y when Y doesn’t exist.
Take the L and move on. Budgets always go up over time. Cost of living raises happen, salaries go up. Almost every year has "record funding." By your logic if the budget goes up by $1 for each of the next 20 years then we've had 20 consecutive years of record high budgets and thus no "defunding." It completely glosses over the fact that 2043 dollars would be worth less than 2023 dollars. You're applying this logic so poorly that even when presented with an article that clearly states Oakland stripped $17 million from its police budget you can dismiss it. You're literally the last person on the website I should have to explain this to. And if the budget had only gone up by $1 and if your argument was “given inflation the budget, in inflation adjusted dollars, actually went down” then you’d have both evidence and a valid argument. However the budget went up $23m from $330m in FY22 to $353m in FY23 and your argument was that it had been defunded and so maybe you should shut the fuck up and walk away. Great job cherry picking years AFTER they had realized their own stupidity and reversed course on Defund. Oakland PD budget went from $330m FY20-21 to $335 FY21-22. Or put another way, The Police Budget went from being 20% of the overall city budget to being 16.5% of the overall city budget. This drop pretty easily explains how the budget has not kept pace with the increase in other city budgets. I don't think it can be put any more simply. You opened with an anecdote about how you had a recent experience with Oakland PD in which they failed to perform well. You attributed this poor performance to the fact that the department had been defunded. Cause, defunding. Effect, bad service. That was your claim. I’m not cherry picking years, you picked the year of discussion. You said that your present experience was caused by present defunding because you erroneously believed that there had been defunding. Now that it has been explained to you that the funding has increased your standing by your anecdote because you’re ashamed of being wrong. Wow, you're making up a lot of words there, but okay. Again, here is what the literal fucking mayor of Oakland, a Democrat, said about the city council voting to strip funding from the police Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf released a statement voicing her opposition to the revised budget and the police department cuts.
"Unfortunately, it [the budget] also cuts 50 police officers who respond to Oaklanders' 911 calls and enforce traffic safety. It also cuts much-needed future academies, which will significantly reduce police staffing and delay response to Oaklanders in their time of crisis," Schaaf's statement read in part. "It will force our officers to work even more overtime shifts, which are expensive and unsafe for officers and residents alike." Mayor of Oakland: If we pass this funding cut we will have longer wait times for 911 calls BlackJack *experiences long wait time for 911 call* What a mystery In 2021. They subsequently reversed course. You're using council minutes from years ago, I'm using actuals. The budget actually increased. In actual money. There's no reasonable definition of the word defunding that can be applied to a funding increase. Imagine the year is 2021. There is a proposed funding cut. Someone flips a coin on whether to go ahead and cut the funding or reverse course and actually increase funding to record levels. The coinflip results in two parallel universes separated only by the outcome of the coinflip. In universe A the funding is cut. The police is defunded. 2 years later BlackJack tells us a story about how he had a recent experience of bad service from Oakland PD due to the police being defunded. In universe B the funding is increased to record levels. 2 years later BlackJack is also somehow telling us a story about how he had a recent experience of bad service from Oakland PD due to the police being defunded. Do you see the problem here? Do you not see that you started with the conclusion and are subsequently making up nonsense to support it? You thought you were in universe A and that the outcome of the coinflip could be used as a cause to support your anecdote. I informed you of your mistake but somehow the opposite outcome is still somehow a cause to support your anecdote.
I'll try one last time to explain this. The Oakland city council voted to strip $17 million in funding from the Oakland Police. Now they can't cut pensions or cost of living raises because those are already set in the collective bargaining agreement. In this case they made the cuts by, according to the mayor, cutting "50 police officers that respond to 911 calls" and "future academies."
Now the officer cuts are most likely in the form of not filling vacant positions and training new police officers. A rookie cop might earn $75/hour while a veteran cop might earn $100/hour. Except now they have a manpower gap they need to fill while crime is rising so they are forced to pay the veteran cops overtime to fill the gaps and their overtime rate is $150/hour. Now instead of paying 2 rookie cops $75 hour straight time they are paying 1 veteran cop $150/hour. Their manpower is now twice as expensive due to stupid decisions from a leftist city council voting to strip funding from the police department.
Now can you perhaps see how it's not as simple as "This number bigger than that number so manpower must be better and your wait had nothing to do with budget constraints" Can you also see how cutting future academies in 2021 might lead to a manpower shortage in 2023 or that an increase in funding in 2023 doesn't immediately correlate to an increase in manpower in 2023 because it takes time to hire and train officers?
|
United States41951 Posts
In the case of defunding it literally is a case of “this number is higher than that number”. You described the 2023 situation as defunded. It was record funding. No amount of word games can get you from the reality, record funding, to your claim, defunded.
Let it go.
|
On December 22 2023 13:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2023 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2023 10:29 BlackJack wrote:On December 22 2023 02:32 Zambrah wrote: Biden can totally beat Trump, I think its even likely if something happens to give him a little burst of support around election time. Gas prices getting to pre-pandemic levels, something meaningful to QoL for people alongside people's general distaste of Trump.
Ill beat the turnout drum again, as long as turnout isn't depressed I think Biden will win.
Dunno how scabbed over people's feelings are about Trump, his nazi ass comments lately might help keep turnout from being depressed if he keeps making them though. 14,509 immigrants encountered at the border in 1 day this week, setting a new record. These are the same migrants that the Democratic mayors of Chicago and New York are saying are destroying their cities. Eric Adams blames the Biden administration for the predicament the are in.. Meanwhile you can't even go into a store anymore and get some razor blades off the shelf without asking a store associate to open the locked case they keep them in. Some stores are installing security gates inside of the store due to rampant theft. Homelessness is up. Crime is up. Our once great cities are turning to shit. If you think Biden can win this election with a QoL argument I'm afraid he's SoL. But hey, gas prices are coming down a bit. You’re in SF, right? I think your perspective is mostly right. But I do think it’s worth pointing out many of these issues feel much less extreme in other areas. If I remember you living in the SF area correctly, you’re in the epicenter of left wing pendulum reactions to Trump and it is hard for me to argue against it. Tbh, I think a big part of the issue is a classic dynamic in human psychology: judge yourself by your intentions and judge others by their actions/results. Look at the meltdown that occurred within the republican party as a reaction to 8 years of Obama. I won’t dwell on how or why they were bursting with resentment, but I think we can all agree they absolutely were. The result was Trump. They were so resentful of democrats that their singular focus was the intentions of Trump, which was essentially giving any component of letting ideology the finger loudly. We also saw places like Florida and Texas serve as the spear of right wing resentment and they did a bunch of clearly stupid shit “for the right reason” in their eyes. Places like SF and Portland had a similar pendulum swing out of resentment of Trump. They felt so powerless and defeated on a national level that they hyper fixated on their little microcosms they have a ton of power over. They essentially used local politics as a method of venting their frustrations with Trump. And here we are. People who let their political perspectives become a component of their identity will react defensively when you bring up Florida, Texas, Portland, and SF. Even though all 4 examples are clear cut examples of letting resentment and symbolism go way too far, the folks who identify with the symbolism will defend it by pointing out what it was in response to. I hate them. I deeply hate the practice of identifying with political beliefs. You’ve chatted with me long enough to know I’m essentially an authoritarian communist in many ways, but a large majority of people on my side of the aisle make me want to puke. I think the resentment-fueled reactionary dogshit that infests local politics is a main contributor to my hatred of my own party or leaning or whatever. It’s not like I’d ever in a million years vote for a republican because they are strictly dogshit. But I feel very disappointed in Portland and SF because they are amazingly terrible optics for perspectives I hold. I'm not in San Francisco, but in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, yes. I'm also a little more fed up with all the bullshit that exists here because I had my car stolen in San Francisco last night. I was in Florida for the past week and flew in last night to discover my car was not where I left it. Side note, my friend that was watching my cats also had his window smashed and his ignition jacked up as someone tried to steal his car too. Anyway I had a sense that the bullshit that exists here would catch up to me so a few months ago I hid an AirTag under the floor mat of my car to track it in case it ever got stolen. I saw it pinging all over East Oakland, in the most crime-ridden areas until the wee hours of the morning. I drove around last night trying to find it but the pings were too sparse to track it down. This morning it stopped pinging and I found it in a crime-ridden area of East Oakland. I called 911 and the funny thing I learned about calling 911 in Oakland is sometimes you get to wait up to 10 minutes before anyone even answers. Good thing I wasn't having a heart attack and dying to the "no one is available to take your call, please remain on the line" messaging. I waited over 2 hours for the police to come to help me recover the vehicle. One time I called back and the guy said there were 86 other calls in the queue and my call was a low priority. I ended up 'stealing' the car back myself. I called the police dispatcher and told them I'm not waiting anymore and I'm taking my car. They got pissed and said "well it's still in the stolen vehicle system so if you get stopped for any reason they're going to initiate a felony stop and pull you over with their guns drawn." I said "I'm not too worried because they can't even recover a stolen vehicle that I'm telling them where it is" and hung up. It's now 11 hours later and Oakland police never got in contact with me. I ended up filing the vehicle recovery report with BART police which is the metro transit police whose garage the car was stolen from. They also scolded me for not waiting in the ghetto until I died of old age for Oakland police to show up. Apparently there is some special procedures they are supposed to follow with the DOJ to recover a vehicle and generate some SM#(?) or something. Like I give a fuck. 3 of my coworkers have had their cars stolen this year as well. Oakland has a progressive DA, Pamela Price, that believes in "restorative justice" and an "equitable justice system" which as far as I can tell means doing anything she can to make sure people are not incarcerated, especially if they are of a certain color. It's so bad even the NAACP of Oakland had to come out and bluntly say 'Enforcing the law is not racist.' OPD is at risk for losing state funding unless they improve their 911 wait times where callers wait on hold for sometimes 10-20 minutes. It's all about par for the course for a city that bought into Defund the police and All Cops Are Bastards. The sad thing is it's primarily the people of color that will suffer from this idiotic social experiment of letting crime run rampant. Polling shows that black people want MORE or equal police present in their community, not less. And yes I think it's a pendulum swing as you describe and I expect the pendulum to swing back as people wake up to the bullshit. The SF DA got recalled. The recall for the Alameda DA is underway.
Yeah this is all fairly inline with my experience in the Bay Area as well. I think people who live in cities, even somewhat larger ones, but not specifically the Bay Area, have a hard time fully contextualizing what you are describing. Oakland is a deeply bad place. It has such an abundance of issues I wouldn’t even consider driving through the area at this point.
I think the variation within the country is so huge right now that it’s like living different lives in another country. Many people in Portland have had similar experiences to what you described. Police essentially don’t exist and many people are being forced to utilize vigilante justice. And they aren’t being punished for it. It’s a big issue. I am not saying you did anything wrong, but the way you (smartly) handled your car being stolen is very bad and can spiral out of control when it becomes more widespread. There is a great deal of value in society not just kinda fending for themselves against gangs.
But I do think it’s worth pointing out it is a fundamentally regional problem. Once you’re 15 minutes away from Portland, this dynamic vanishes. Suddenly society exists again. So it is easy for people to read what you’re saying and essentially say you’re full of shit. Your experiences are real, your grievances are valid, and it’s easy to view inaction as a giant failure.
Just to be clear with everyone who hasn’t been around this kind of thing: imagine if your house was broken into, your stuff was stolen, you know who did it, and there is no mechanism in place for the people to be prevented from doing it again. Would you feel safe? Would you feel like you lived in a first world country?
Since we’ve all begun to learn about how many criminals are victims of society and were essentially never given the chance to live a happy and productive life, there has been a valid, positive effort to prioritize less violent forms of punishment. Prioritizing therapy and rehabilitation over imprisonment is a more humane approach to crime. But just because that is true, it doesn’t mean it is being done well. And it doesn’t mean everyone even has the right idea as to how it should be done. Some cities are going way too far.
I’ll use another Portland example. A person grew up with an abusive parenting situation, never had a chance to grow into a good person, became a homeless drug addict, and then began victimizing people. This person was clearly a victim of society. All children are owed a happy and healthy life by our government and any time that does not happen, I view it as a moral failure on the part of every voter. We failed this homeless drug addict and we should be ashamed. Unfortunately, their victimization led them to victimize other people. It feels wrong to punish this homeless drug addict for being the person we failed to prevent them from becoming. But when the homeless drug addict continuously victimized people within a neighborhood, and the police did not intervene, someone in this neighborhood got fed up and burned down their camp and they died.
This is super duper fucked in like 900 different ways. But it’s important to realize leaving the homeless drug alone and not arresting him was not sympathetic or compassionate. It felt wrong to punish them because they were a victim. But then they continued the cycle by victimizing others. And without a legal system to prevent him from harming people, eventually someone went too far and burned him alive. This is an example of how good intentions don’t always have good outcomes and the desire to live a moral life can sometimes lead to tragedy.
It feels very similar to republicans who are like “why do we even need the EPA??? It’s all just a bunch of trouble for everyone. Pollution isn’t actually a problem. It’s not the 20s anymore people! We’ve moved on and don’t need all these regulations to prevent lead in our food!”. The mechanisms of fixing pollution have been so effective that people don’t even realize it’s a realistic problem. Things have been so good for so long that they wonder if the bad outcome is even real or possible. Oakland is an example of how left wing perspectives on crime are failing to account for the fact that we totally do need to protect against victimization. It does happen. It is bad. We can’t just not punish anyone who we view as a victim. Society breaks. We need society to not break. Good intentions mean abbbbsoooollluuutttely nothing. We can’t just focus on how they had the right idea but did a shitty job. Changes and adaptations need to be made without viewing it as ceding land to the enemy.
|
|
|
|