Breakdown In Civil Order

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you for traditional 'law and order' meaning police are there to prevent and pursue crime, or do you favor what is being called community policing or some form of it.

neither.

i favor "if we're going to spend collective resources (ie money from taxes) on something, spend it on removing the circumstances that lead to crime in the first place instead of wasting it on punishing people for failing to adhere to a rigged system."

have a camp of homeless people somewhere? spend whatever money is required to build a new apartment complex, staff it with mental health and social service professionals and minimal security to assist with truly unhinged people, and then give every homeless person an apartment for free.
while you're at it, give them a reasonable monthly income while they live there along with job training and programs to assist in social functioning.

Providing housing works well for the economically homeless. Providing housing works very poorly for the mentally ill homeless. Most of the homeless are mentally ill.

if it's expensive, cut the budget for 'street police' and patrol cops down to almost nothing and then expand your white collar and corporate crime investigations 10 fold and you'll be swimming in money, and have eliminated the homeless completely while you were at it.

In other words, legalize most crime. Not a country I would like to live in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In Seattle community policing means letting communities and neighborhoods taking care of crime and drugs.

What does "take care" means? Vendettas?

Seattle already seems to be a pretty lawless place, and it is likely to get much worse.

Couple attacked, man killed while retrieving stolen items from Seattle homeless encampment

this is a fine example of something i have been saying for many, many years: the myth of the 'self made man' in america is just that, a myth.
if you have money, property, wealth, possessions, whatever... you don't have it because you earned it. you only have it because everyone else decided to let you have it.

there is a cabal of political and economic fascists in america who evidently are completely unaware of the existence of the french revolution.
if you shit on the lower class long enough, eventually the lower class will have a "let's chop everyone's heads off" parade.

if you want social stability and rule of law and to get to have your plasma TV and new car without fear of it being stolen or fear of you being attacked and murdered, stop funding police and the military and supporting austerity and get on vastly expanding social services... and do it fucking fast.

america is on a fast track to have its upper class be literally destroyed, which is an outcome i personally welcome but would entail an awful lot of whining from an awful lot of fucking pathetic dipshits that i'd be forced to listen to.

It sounds like you're defending the people in the homeless encampment.

 

[bilby]

this is a fine example of something i have been saying for many, many years: the myth of the 'self made man' in america is just that, a myth.
if you have money, property, wealth, possessions, whatever... you don't have it because you earned it. you only have it because everyone else decided to let you have it.

there is a cabal of political and economic fascists in america who evidently are completely unaware of the existence of the french revolution.
if you shit on the lower class long enough, eventually the lower class will have a "let's chop everyone's heads off" parade.

if you want social stability and rule of law and to get to have your plasma TV and new car without fear of it being stolen or fear of you being attacked and murdered, stop funding police and the military and supporting austerity and get on vastly expanding social services... and do it fucking fast.

america is on a fast track to have its upper class be literally destroyed, which is an outcome i personally welcome but would entail an awful lot of whining from an awful lot of fucking pathetic dipshits that i'd be forced to listen to.

It sounds like you're defending the people in the homeless encampment.

The horror.

What kind of cruel and heartless monster would defend people in need?

 

[TomC]

this is a fine example of something i have been saying for many, many years: the myth of the 'self made man' in america is just that, a myth.
if you have money, property, wealth, possessions, whatever... you don't have it because you earned it. you only have it because everyone else decided to let you have it.

there is a cabal of political and economic fascists in america who evidently are completely unaware of the existence of the french revolution.
if you shit on the lower class long enough, eventually the lower class will have a "let's chop everyone's heads off" parade.

if you want social stability and rule of law and to get to have your plasma TV and new car without fear of it being stolen or fear of you being attacked and murdered, stop funding police and the military and supporting austerity and get on vastly expanding social services... and do it fucking fast.

america is on a fast track to have its upper class be literally destroyed, which is an outcome i personally welcome but would entail an awful lot of whining from an awful lot of fucking pathetic dipshits that i'd be forced to listen to.

It sounds like you're defending the people in the homeless encampment.

The horror.

What kind of cruel and heartless monster would defend people in need?

Maybe Australia is different.

But there is a huge difference between helping someone in need and feeding someone's illness.
Tom

 

[Angry Floof]

this is a fine example of something i have been saying for many, many years: the myth of the 'self made man' in america is just that, a myth.
if you have money, property, wealth, possessions, whatever... you don't have it because you earned it. you only have it because everyone else decided to let you have it.

there is a cabal of political and economic fascists in america who evidently are completely unaware of the existence of the french revolution.
if you shit on the lower class long enough, eventually the lower class will have a "let's chop everyone's heads off" parade.

if you want social stability and rule of law and to get to have your plasma TV and new car without fear of it being stolen or fear of you being attacked and murdered, stop funding police and the military and supporting austerity and get on vastly expanding social services... and do it fucking fast.

america is on a fast track to have its upper class be literally destroyed, which is an outcome i personally welcome but would entail an awful lot of whining from an awful lot of fucking pathetic dipshits that i'd be forced to listen to.

It sounds like you're defending the people in the homeless encampment.

The horror.

What kind of cruel and heartless monster would defend people in need?

Right wingers and Christians in the US (virtually indistinguishable, but #notall, you know) think they are the judges of everyone in society. They truly believe that their world view is morally superior and their inhumane, stunted view of humanness should be the guiding morality for everyone. Some highlights of this world view: If you're poor, it's because you're lazy, not because of an economic system that increases poverty and punishes the poor. If you're suffering from addiction, that's a moral issue and not a health issue, and so giving you help is enabling your sinful behavior and there is no question about whether that backward, inhumane, ignorant belief that judging and condemning people is an appropriate and effective solution and not, in fact, a driving factor in addiction. Etc, etc.

 

[Trausti]

The horror.

What kind of cruel and heartless monster would defend people in need?

Maybe Australia is different.

But there is a huge difference between helping someone in need and feeding someone's illness.
Tom

Seattle and King county spend about $100k per homeless person. What interest is there in actually solving the problem with money like that?

 

[TomC]

The horror.

What kind of cruel and heartless monster would defend people in need?

Maybe Australia is different.

But there is a huge difference between helping someone in need and feeding someone's illness.
Tom

Seattle and King county spend about $100k per homeless person. What interest is there in actually solving the problem with money like that?

What do they spend it on?
Mental health care might be a good start. But I don't actually believe that they spend anything remotely like that on all services to the homeless put together.

I'm guessing that you're quoting a rightwing news source with no credibility. That's just my guess.
Tom

 

[scombrid]

Break down in civil order here in Florida too. The governor issued an executive order stating that parents and not school boards should decide what public health measures their children should practice. Seems like just the right thing that parents should decide what their kids wear. Do away with dress codes and conduct codes and just let people do what they want. Reckon no authority should tell me how fast I should drive either. I should just drive whatever speeds is comfortable to me. I should also decide my personal optimal BAC.

We also passed a law that makes it legal to run over protestors. Funny thing is though. Protestors for a pet cause for our Florida GOP were blocking streets recently and they got police support. Police directed traffic around the protests and such and made no arrests for the felony of blocking public roadways. Nobody ran over any of the protestors either.

 

[Angry Floof]

Break down in civil order here in Florida too. The governor issued an executive order stating that parents and not school boards should decide what public health measures their children should practice. Seems like just the right thing that parents should decide what their kids wear. Do away with dress codes and conduct codes and just let people do what they want. Reckon no authority should tell me how fast I should drive either. I should just drive whatever speeds is comfortable to me. I should also decide my personal optimal BAC.

We also passed a law that makes it legal to run over protestors. Funny thing is though. Protestors for a pet cause for our Florida GOP were blocking streets recently and they got police support. Police directed traffic around the protests and such and made no arrests for the felony of blocking public roadways. Nobody ran over any of the protestors either.

It's only a breakdown of civil order when poor and otherwise not-powerful, not-authority figure people do it. When authorities and law enforcement do it, it's law and order. That's why right wing authoritarians masturbate to police brutality videos.

 

[ZiprHead]

Providing housing works well for the economically homeless. Providing housing works very poorly for the mentally ill homeless. Most of the homeless are mentally ill.

No, they're not.

PREVALENCE
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless
population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness. In comparison, only 6%
of Americans are severely mentally ill (National Institute of Mental Health, 2009). In a 2008 survey
performed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 25 cities were asked for the three largest causes of
homelessness in their communities. Mental illness was the third largest cause of homelessness for single
adults (mentioned by 48% of cities). For homeless families, mental illness was mentioned by 12% of
cities as one of the top 3 causes of homelessness.

https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf

 

[prideandfall]

I am not certain how increasing the corporate crime investigations will eliminate random shootings? Perhaps you could elaborate?

ok so "random" shootings are going be down to one of four reasons:
1. accident or unintended
2. mentally ill and doesn't know what they're doing
3. psycho and don't care about the consequences
4. psycho and are specifically seeking the consequences

if you live in a large population and don't have some kind of eugenics program (and by that i mean either government mandated or socially and culturally enforced) then you're going to get a small number of social aberrations - ie, people who are not mentally equipped to function in society.
the truly mentally ill (including those unable to process reality and respond to it, and those with anti-social behaviors) are an astoundingly tiny fraction of the population genetically, and a somewhat higher percent of the population environmentally (ie the well established link between lead poisoning and behavior issues).

so, if the truly insane and unhinged and evil are a tiny fraction of your total population and not a significant contributor to "random" shootings (which is in fact the case), then "random" shootings are instead the result of external social and economic forces.
this is clearly and demonstrably the case in america, the overwhelmingly vast majority of crime is the result of pressure from our society, not from a mental break.
so, if you truly want to reduce crime, the best way to do that is to remove the circumstances which cause crime in the first place: economic woe, inescapable cultural pressures, and the general suffering of the human condition.
this is a vastly more effective way of reducing crime than is barbarically punishing those who fail within a system that is specifically designed to force them to fail.

the bit about corporate and white collar crime was simply an aside to provide a solution to the inevitable weeping certain predicable people will do over the cost of all this.

 

[prideandfall]

Google Cabrini-Green for an historical lesson in providing subsidized housing for the poor without tough policing.
Tom

i am genuinely curious: do you really honestly think that sentence is even remotely legitimate or intellectually defensible?

because in context that is quite possibly one of the fucking stupidest things anyone has ever posted on this forum, and i can't tell if it was some kind of ironic sarcasm or if you actually support that statement.

 

[prideandfall]

Providing housing works well for the economically homeless. Providing housing works very poorly for the mentally ill homeless. Most of the homeless are mentally ill.

demonstrably false.
i would suggest that you try actually researching something before commenting on it, but i've been watching post on these boards for 2 decades and i know a losing battle when i see one.
so let's have a contest of references:

https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf

https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/causes-homelessness

https://nationalhomeless.org/about-homelessness/

i am finding estimates that about 15-20% of the homeless population in the US have mental health issues which are a significant contributing factor to their being homeless.
the overwhelmingly vast majority of the homeless are due to economics and systemic poverty.

In other words, legalize most crime. Not a country I would like to live in.

why not? you actively support legalizing most crime almost every day.

oh wait.... oh i see. it's not brutally punishing the crime that poor people do. ok yeah, that's your problem with it.

 

[prideandfall]

It sounds like you're defending the people in the homeless encampment.

it sounds like you don't understand what words mean.

 

[Trausti]

Providing housing works well for the economically homeless. Providing housing works very poorly for the mentally ill homeless. Most of the homeless are mentally ill.

demonstrably false.
i would suggest that you try actually researching something before commenting on it, but i've been watching post on these boards for 2 decades and i know a losing battle when i see one.
so let's have a contest of references:

https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf

https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/causes-homelessness

https://nationalhomeless.org/about-homelessness/

i am finding estimates that about 15-20% of the homeless population in the US have mental health issues which are a significant contributing factor to their being homeless.
the overwhelmingly vast majority of the homeless are due to economics and systemic poverty.

In other words, legalize most crime. Not a country I would like to live in.

why not? you actively support legalizing most crime almost every day.

oh wait.... oh i see. it's not brutally punishing the crime that poor people do. ok yeah, that's your problem with it.

The city of Seattle has "Navigation Teams" whose job it is to go to homeless encampments and encourage those there to get services. But they don't accept.

 

[Trausti]

Seattle and King county spend about $100k per homeless person. What interest is there in actually solving the problem with money like that?

What do they spend it on?
Mental health care might be a good start. But I don't actually believe that they spend anything remotely like that on all services to the homeless put together.

I'm guessing that you're quoting a rightwing news source with no credibility. That's just my guess.
Tom

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/time-for-seattle-city-council-to-face-up-to-reality/

 

[prideandfall]

The city of Seattle has "Navigation Teams" whose job it is to go to homeless encampments and encourage those there to get services. But they don't accept.

which doesn't entirely surprise me considering how god awful, invasive, and largely ineffective state social service agencies tend to be.

"here, submit to a background check and regular drug screening as well as adhering to a rigid and incredibly difficult to maintain schedule of visiting offices on opposite ends of town, and in exchange we'll make you go to a class where a 22 year old lectures you about the virtue of dedicating your life to capitalism and give you a voucher card you can use to redeem 3 hamburgers a week. that'll fix your situation"

 

[untermensche]

When civil order is just a form of corruption good people work to tear it down.

 

[Trausti]

Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.”

 

[Trausti]

The city of Seattle has "Navigation Teams" whose job it is to go to homeless encampments and encourage those there to get services. But they don't accept.

which doesn't entirely surprise me considering how god awful, invasive, and largely ineffective state social service agencies tend to be.

"here, submit to a background check and regular drug screening as well as adhering to a rigid and incredibly difficult to maintain schedule of visiting offices on opposite ends of town, and in exchange we'll make you go to a class where a 22 year old lectures you about the virtue of dedicating your life to capitalism and give you a voucher card you can use to redeem 3 hamburgers a week. that'll fix your situation"

So why should taxpayers foot the bill for a person who refuses to take personal responsibility for their life?