Breakdown In Civil Order

[Loren Pechtel]

What it really comes down to is addressing difference causes with different solutions. Providing low cost or temporarily free housing to homeless people would be a wonderful solution for episodic/transitional homelessness. But it's unlikely to be a solution for those who are mentally ill or addicts.

Exactly. The ones that are homeless from economic causes could certainly be helped. Provide basic living conditions for any citizen who asks for it--but expect proper behavior from those that help is being provided for. Trying to provide such help for the druggies and the mental cases turns out quite poorly, though.

It might sound cruel, but I rather think that involuntary admission to substance abuse or mental health facilities is a better solution for the majority of the chronically homeless. Hold them until they're recovered sufficiently to move to a placement facility that can assist with finding them a job and a home. That comes with the recognition that some people will never be released.

It won't work. Substance abuse treatment only works when the person wants to quit. You can get them dry by denying access to drugs, but that won't solve the problem.

 

[bilby]

Poverty doesn’t cause crime. Too many counterfactuals.

well it certainly doesn't cause white collar crime, but it most definitely is a huge contributing factor to street crime.
it's not just a direct one-to-one correlation of a lack of money, but that in combination with a variety of cultural pressures and survival mechanisms at play when living inside of a decadent system that you're denied access to.

it doesn't take more than 8 seconds of research to find that "street crime" is far more prevalent in socioeconomically depressed areas, and that offenders of "street crime" are overwhelmingly within the lower socioeconomic class.
this doesn't address violent crime, spree crime, or "joy" crime but that isn't within the scope of this specific discussion so isn't relevant.

Nope. Street crime is a social thing, not an economic thing. Plenty of examples of places falling on hard times without turning to crime.

Nope, that's poor logic. You're demonstrating that poverty is not sufficient to cause street crime, which tells us nothing about whether eliminating poverty is sufficient to eliminate street crime - ie whether poverty is a necessary cause of street crime.

You would need an example of wealthy people committing street crime to support your claim; Poor people not committing such crimes are irrelevant (and as nobody's arguing that such people don't exist, is also a straw man).

 

[prideandfall]

Nope. Street crime is a social thing, not an economic thing. Plenty of examples of places falling on hard times without turning to crime.

uh huh... which is why we're plagued by the rich running around in expensive armaments treating the world like their own game of GTA, right?
as usual when it comes to even the most basic take on social or psychological issues you're not only hilarious wrong, but pretty much the exact physical opposite of reality.

though i suppose there is a nugget of reason in that drivel, insofar as the social pressures that lead to street crime are directly derived from states of poverty.
i suppose a pedantic argument could be made that long term systemic poverty in the US has very a high chance to create communal cultural norms which lead to an environment in which street crime is more prolific.

either way, the solution is the removal of systemic poverty.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nope. Street crime is a social thing, not an economic thing. Plenty of examples of places falling on hard times without turning to crime.

Nope, that's poor logic. You're demonstrating that poverty is not sufficient to cause street crime, which tells us nothing about whether eliminating poverty is sufficient to eliminate street crime - ie whether poverty is a necessary cause of street crime.

You would need an example of wealthy people committing street crime to support your claim; Poor people not committing such crimes are irrelevant (and as nobody's arguing that such people don't exist, is also a straw man).

Thanks. I was trying to find why that claim was giving me such a consternation: that there may be some element of educational or cultural interference in the lives of people in certain communities.

Few other minority communities are as wrongly policed as black communities for example. This creates an oppositional environment to the law that may not exist as prevalently in other communities. There are of course other elements, but I'm lazy and have other shit to do for now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nope. Street crime is a social thing, not an economic thing. Plenty of examples of places falling on hard times without turning to crime.

Nope, that's poor logic. You're demonstrating that poverty is not sufficient to cause street crime, which tells us nothing about whether eliminating poverty is sufficient to eliminate street crime - ie whether poverty is a necessary cause of street crime.

You would need an example of wealthy people committing street crime to support your claim; Poor people not committing such crimes are irrelevant (and as nobody's arguing that such people don't exist, is also a straw man).

The same attitudes that lead to wealth also lead to a lack of street crime.

 

[Angry Floof]

Nope. Street crime is a social thing, not an economic thing. Plenty of examples of places falling on hard times without turning to crime.

Nope, that's poor logic. You're demonstrating that poverty is not sufficient to cause street crime, which tells us nothing about whether eliminating poverty is sufficient to eliminate street crime - ie whether poverty is a necessary cause of street crime.

You would need an example of wealthy people committing street crime to support your claim; Poor people not committing such crimes are irrelevant (and as nobody's arguing that such people don't exist, is also a straw man).

The same attitudes that lead to wealth also lead to a lack of street crime.

"Attitudes that lead to wealth"? What does that even mean? Do you mean attitudes that prevail in society? Or do you mean an individual's attitudes? What are these attitudes that "lead to wealth" and also "lead to a lack of street crime"?

If you want to know what "leads" to wealth or poverty or street crime, you can find that out easily enough.

 

[bilby]

Nope. Street crime is a social thing, not an economic thing. Plenty of examples of places falling on hard times without turning to crime.

Nope, that's poor logic. You're demonstrating that poverty is not sufficient to cause street crime, which tells us nothing about whether eliminating poverty is sufficient to eliminate street crime - ie whether poverty is a necessary cause of street crime.

You would need an example of wealthy people committing street crime to support your claim; Poor people not committing such crimes are irrelevant (and as nobody's arguing that such people don't exist, is also a straw man).

The same attitudes that lead to wealth also lead to a lack of street crime.

People with wealthy parents often have attitude; But having wealthy parents isn't an attitude in its own right.

 

[Derec]

Nope, that's poor logic. You're demonstrating that poverty is not sufficient to cause street crime, which tells us nothing about whether eliminating poverty is sufficient to eliminate street crime - ie whether poverty is a necessary cause of street crime.

You are even less along in showing that "eliminating poverty" via some sort of Mega-UBI would eliminate street crime.

You would need an example of wealthy people committing street crime to support your claim

Your Mega-UBI would not make everybody wealthy though, so that's a non-sequitur.
You also have not addressed other problems of Mega-UBI.

 

[Derec]

Thanks. I was trying to find why that claim was giving me such a consternation: that there may be some element of educational or cultural interference in the lives of people in certain communities.

Glorification of crime through for example the hop cop culture plays a big role as to why people living in "certain communities" are drawn to street crime.

Few other minority communities are as wrongly policed as black communities for example.

In what way "wrongly policed"?

This creates an oppositional environment to the law that may not exist as prevalently in other communities.

Or maybe the "oppositional environment to the law" came first. Not to mention the higher crime rates.

 

[bilby]

Nope, that's poor logic. You're demonstrating that poverty is not sufficient to cause street crime, which tells us nothing about whether eliminating poverty is sufficient to eliminate street crime - ie whether poverty is a necessary cause of street crime.

You are even less along in showing that "eliminating poverty" via some sort of Mega-UBI would eliminate street crime.

You would need an example of wealthy people committing street crime to support your claim

Your Mega-UBI would not make everybody wealthy though, so that's a non-sequitur.
You also have not addressed other problems of Mega-UBI.

That depends what you consider 'wealthy', which is a relative, not an absolute, condition.

The meaning of the word is contextual, and if you are using your societal context, rather than the context of this discussion, it's understandable why you are so consistently and woefully wrong.

'Wealthy' in this context need not mean anything more than 'not in poverty'.

Nobody's suggesting a "Mega-UBI"; Just a UBI.

 

[Derec]

That's a common blind spot among the right wing.

Not on the right wing!

Anything that they don't like is automatically "government spending", and they refuse to accept that anything they do like is "government spending".

Nonsense! Government spending is government spending. Whether I (or you) like it is irrelevant. Not all government spending is good. Not all government spending is bad.

There was a self-styled centrist Democrat who claimed that hiring social workers was outlandishly expensive, as if hiring cops and judges and prison guards isn't.

Cool story, bro. Without knowing how many social workers were to be hired, at what cost, and what their purpose was to be, it is impossible to say whether the unnamed Democrat was right or wrong.
And of course the present system of policing and courts is expensive, but it is necessary. Even if you hire a bunch of people with MA in social work!

I think that many right-wingers seem to consider street crime some sort of rebellion against them. White-collar crime like tax evasion and fraud and embezzlement they seem completely OK with, except if politicians from the opposite political party do such things.

Again, not a right-winger. And I do not think anybody here is "completely OK" with white collar crime. Embezzlers and tax cheats should be punished. But so should street criminals.

You are projecting. Nobody here is suggesting white collar criminals not be punished, but at least two (prideandfall and bilby) have suggested that street criminals not be punished but instead paid off not to commit any more street crime.

Note also that street crime is more serious than white collar crime because of presence of violence. A mugger or convenience store robber might shoot you. A tax cheat will not.

As to crime, there are criminals and there are criminals.

True. A bit of tax dodging is not as serious as being a stabbist or a strangler.

There's a difference between pilfering to survive and running a scam that nets one a huge income.

Oh, come of it! Nobody is pilfering to survive. This is not a Dickensian novel or Les Misérables. We have a social safety net. People don't steal a loaf of bread but maybe expensive sneakers and the like.
Video: Teen Beaten In Middle Of NYC Street, Robbed Of Nike Air Force One Sneakers — Before UPS Driver Comes To Rescue

I do not think this kind of scum should be paid off - they should go to prison.

 

[bilby]

Derec, I would be very interested to know what you think is a necessary requirement for being 'on the right wing' that you do not meet, because literally everything you have ever posted here strikes me as stereotypically right wing, and I am truly struggling to think of any reason why you might imagine that description not to apply to you.

If you're not on the right wing, who the fuck is?

And why?

 

[Derec]

Derec, I would be very interested to know what you think is a necessary requirement for being 'on the right wing' that you do not meet, because literally everything you have ever posted here strikes me as stereotypically right wing, and I am truly struggling to think of any reason why you might imagine that description not to apply to you.

Well just for starters, stuff from lpetrich's post. I do not think only stuff I don't like is "government spending" or that government spending is a bad word.
I support a well designed social safety net (but paying off street criminals is the opposite of being "well designed"), I support broad personal liberties - e.g. marijuana should be legal as should sex work. I supported gay marriage well before Biden and Obama - I guess if I am right-wing they are even more so!
And so on.

If you're not on the right wing, who the fuck is?

People who are actually on the right.

 

[Derec]

If you think your police remembers what the Constitution looks like you haven't been paying attention. This is not just a black people getting killed issue yo.

People of all races get killed. But in vast majority of cases it is justified.

 

[Derec]

You're too focused on those "not like you" protesting, looting & occupying a grain of sand on the beach, and some other cold-war or Israel-related bullshit.

People rioting, looting, burning etc. is a problem. Whether they look like you or they look like me. That doesn't matter. What matter is that there is legitimate ways to protest and illegitimate ones. Also, where did Israel come from all of a sudden?

 

[Derec]

because thieves and robbers thieve and rob out of lack of economic flexibility and not because it's a sustainable economic model.

Stealing is a sustainable economic model in a place like San Francisco, where there is little chance the pro-crime DA will do his job and actually prosecute the thieves.

 

[bilby]

Derec, I would be very interested to know what you think is a necessary requirement for being 'on the right wing' that you do not meet, because literally everything you have ever posted here strikes me as stereotypically right wing, and I am truly struggling to think of any reason why you might imagine that description not to apply to you.

Well just for starters, stuff from lpetrich's post. I do not think only stuff I don't like is "government spending" or that government spending is a bad word.
I support a well designed social safety net (but paying off street criminals is the opposite of being "well designed"), I support broad personal liberties - e.g. marijuana should be legal as should sex work. I supported gay marriage well before Biden and Obama - I guess if I am right-wing they are even more so!
And so on.

If you're not on the right wing, who the fuck is?

People who are actually on the right.

So you are firmly right-wing, but not a crazy libertarian with respect to economics? Because that'd all make you right wing in most people's eyes.

I can understand not wanting to be associated with crazy libertarians, but saying 'I am not right wing' is simply untrue - except in the very tiny and specific context of a worldview that sees everything other than crazy libertarian economics as "left wing".

I mean, I am fairly used to the idea that America is so far to the right, politically, that they think their Democratic Party is 'centrist', and I am aware that some crazy Americans even think the Democratic party is on the left; But the idea that your firmly right wing ideology shouldn't be described as 'right wing' because your economic ideas are not completely unhinged seems a truly odd one to me.

Particularly when your social positions are hard right.

I mean, surely you're aware that a political focus on economics above all other considerations is itself a right wing position, right?

 

[Derec]

This would indicate that you think the status quo with regard to policing changed immediately prior to, or at the onset of 2020/21.

There was a discontinuity in the status quo in Summer 2020 with the George Floyd riots in many US cities, including Atlanta. Those riots also led to many mayors and city councils turning against police.
In Atlanta there were George Floyd riots where ATLPD was ordered by our mayor Keisha Lance-Bottoms (who had the vainglorious hope to become Biden's running mate at the time) not to do shit against the rioters, with images like these being the result.


The rioters then moved from Downtown toward Buckhead, ending up at the Lenox Square Mall where they looted a bunch of stores.

Then a drunk driver passed out in a Wendy's parking lot, resisted arrest and attacked police officers with a taser he stole off them. When he was shot and killed, that triggered more rioting and more inaction by the mayor. In ended up with rioters burning down the Wendy's and establishing an "autonomous zone" which they guarded with armed force.

The police chief was fired by the hapless mayor and ATLPD was not allowed to do anything until an 8 year old girl was murdered.

Please elucidate regarding this change in the policing status quo in Atlanta, specifically regarding how reallocation of funds from policing to mental health initiatives in Atlanta led to the change.

Did I say anything about "mental health initiatives"?

Please further explain how a news report about a criminal who was in and out of the system for nearly a decade prior to 2020/21 is an indictment of this perceived very recent change in the status quo.

While you are right that we've had a problem with revolving door prisons, 2020 did present a particularly bad year. The mayor prevented ATLPD from controlling George Floyd rioters, then fired the police chief and the two cops over Rayshard Brooks. The corrupt DA charged the officers even though they were attacked by Brooks.

All that led to a demoralized ATLPD and shell-shocked city. Since the Olympics, things have been going better, but lately, and especially since Summer 2020, things are going to shit. We have already had over 100 homicides in the city.

You decry criminality and the way it has been handled by the system for years, but you rail against any change to that system.

I want change for the better. Defunding police would be a change for the worse. As would the prideandfall/bilby plans to pay off street criminals.

 

[Derec]

So you are firmly right-wing,

Again, no I am not. How is the stuff I have mentioned in my reply "right wing" by any definition?

I mean, I am fairly used to the idea that America is so far to the right, politically, that they think their Democratic Party is 'centrist', and I am aware that some crazy Americans even think the Democratic party is on the left;

The Democratic Party runs the gamut from center-left (Clintons for example) to solidly left (the Squad).

Particularly when your social positions are hard right.

My social positions are not "hard right". Your positions are loony left.

 

[bilby]

Again, no I am not. How is the stuff I have mentioned in my reply "right wing" by any definition?


The Democratic Party runs the gamut from center-left (Clintons for example) to solidly left (the Squad).

Particularly when your social positions are hard right.

My social positions are not "hard right". Your positions are loony left.

OK.

Well, now that we've established that we're not speaking the same language, it is dramatically less surprising that you don't understand a fucking thing we are saying, and that your guesses come across as bizarre caricatures of our actual positions.

BTW, not only is nobody suggesting that crime should be rewarded, but the very idea that criminal activity should be (or can be) subject to a reward/punishment paradigm is monumentally stupid, and depends on the belief that criminals aren't real people, but are instead cartoon villains, to whom evil is a goal in itself.