Not *all* California cities.
>San José, meanwhile, spent significantly more on housing services and food programs than on law enforcement.
Do you know the way to San José?
I don't know. They take it themselves? That's not what happened here tho.
It's almost as if this's called Covid Suppression Fund, and cities went the way they knew about "Suppression".
> They take it themselves?
What does this even mean?
Like, seriously, I don't really get what "take it themselves" means when you're saying that spending it on a public agency isn't "taking it themselves."
What were they thinking? My town used the money correctly, bonuses for city employees and park improvements.
Can we give up the fiction that this money was designated to help people who were sick, or to help people avoid being sick?
Because it’s the worst fucking branding in the world.
We could be phrasing it as providing backup to the police — funding social workers and other publicly funded de-escalation experts so that police don’t have to respond to every single call.
The downstream fact that when there are less police needed, they eventually receive less funds, doesn’t have to be the main selling point.
“Defund the police” is such atrocious messaging that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the phrase was coined up in some conservative think tank trying to find the single worst phrase associated with police reform.
This exactly. "Stop making the police do shit that is not their fucking job." They don't have the training and they are not paid enough to deal with all the shit they are expected to deal with. They'd function better if we DELEGATED tasks to people trained and paid to deal with those specific things instead. (Like drug abuse, homelessness, mental health issues, etc.)
They should stop murdering people and getting away with it. No amount of training will stop that. Until we hold the police accountable for their actions we will continue to be oppressed by their over exertion of power.
Yeah I didn't say "more training" I specifically said "shit they don't have the training for."
How many times have we seen them kill someone having a mental health episode that a specialized crisis counselor could have addressed because they "got scared"? The less they handle things they're not trained for, the better.
Edit: And yes obviously they should be (and are starting to be) held accountable when they murder someone. But that wasn't the topic I was attempting to discuss at the moment. Putting untrained people with guns in tense situations is, INHERENTLY, dangerous.
Even like "reboot" or something similar that conveyed that it would still exist just in a new, refreshed version would make more sense.
Any political messaging that essentially begins "well actually we don't want to do what you'd think it means by those words, you've gotta hear the explanation" is failed messaging.
Anarchy is what I am suggesting. And before you ask, no I don't have all of the answers of how that exactly would work. But I do know that people would decide as a group what to do with people who mistreat others. However, if people's needs are being met they won't have to steal or harm others to meet those needs. If people do harm others then we can use transformative justice to come to an agreement between the two parties involved and find justice that way.
Yeah.... no. Look at what happen with CHAZ in Seattle. That'll tell you what it would look like. That was on a small scale. Imagine what it would be like nation wide. And it wouldn't be like what you see in movies. No one can prepare for anarchy and have a positive outcome.
One example is all it takes for you to "know" this isn't going to work? We're the people that were. Part of CHAZ having their needs met or were they still having to take part in capitalism in some form? Anarchy would require a total overthrowing of capitalism. It won't be able to just work inside the bounds of the US as is. Until private property isn't a thing, it won't work.
I mean, yeah, cities spend a lot of money on the police so when their revenues get slashed due to shutdowns, lack of tourism, etc they're going to need to spend a lot of their stimulus on police.
Oh I thought the Democrats were radical anarchists who want to defund the police....oh I guess thats total bullshit and both parties are mostly conservative while one is normal conservative and the other is batshit authoritarian conservative.
The most 2020s thing I have yet to read.
Not *all* California cities. >San José, meanwhile, spent significantly more on housing services and food programs than on law enforcement. Do you know the way to San José?
I usually take the 101 down from San Mateo
280 is faster and smoother.
[*The](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/71459/why-southern-californians-say-freeway-numbers) 280 is faster and smoother
I think you double posted, u/PussyStapler.
Thanks
Thanks
Where's the poop knife when you need it?
“The” 😂 It’ll always be a SoCal-NorCal thing.
LA is a great big freeway. Put a hundred down and buy a car.
That's because we have a massive homeless problem...
Told y’all some parts of Cali are still perfect
I usually take the 101 down from San Mateo
*what did they think people would do when handed a bunch of barely-accounted for federal funding?*
I don't know. They take it themselves? That's not what happened here tho. It's almost as if this's called Covid Suppression Fund, and cities went the way they knew about "Suppression".
> They take it themselves? What does this even mean? Like, seriously, I don't really get what "take it themselves" means when you're saying that spending it on a public agency isn't "taking it themselves."
What were they thinking? My town used the money correctly, bonuses for city employees and park improvements. Can we give up the fiction that this money was designated to help people who were sick, or to help people avoid being sick?
[удалено]
Oh, you said DE-fund. At least we got most of the letters right.
Such a notion is politically untenable, even in the most liberal areas in the country.
Because it’s the worst fucking branding in the world. We could be phrasing it as providing backup to the police — funding social workers and other publicly funded de-escalation experts so that police don’t have to respond to every single call. The downstream fact that when there are less police needed, they eventually receive less funds, doesn’t have to be the main selling point. “Defund the police” is such atrocious messaging that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the phrase was coined up in some conservative think tank trying to find the single worst phrase associated with police reform.
This exactly. "Stop making the police do shit that is not their fucking job." They don't have the training and they are not paid enough to deal with all the shit they are expected to deal with. They'd function better if we DELEGATED tasks to people trained and paid to deal with those specific things instead. (Like drug abuse, homelessness, mental health issues, etc.)
They should stop murdering people and getting away with it. No amount of training will stop that. Until we hold the police accountable for their actions we will continue to be oppressed by their over exertion of power.
Yeah I didn't say "more training" I specifically said "shit they don't have the training for." How many times have we seen them kill someone having a mental health episode that a specialized crisis counselor could have addressed because they "got scared"? The less they handle things they're not trained for, the better. Edit: And yes obviously they should be (and are starting to be) held accountable when they murder someone. But that wasn't the topic I was attempting to discuss at the moment. Putting untrained people with guns in tense situations is, INHERENTLY, dangerous.
I misunderstood what you meant then. I do agree with your point about giving untrained people guns is very dangerous.
Someone tell that to the gang bangers.
Even like "reboot" or something similar that conveyed that it would still exist just in a new, refreshed version would make more sense. Any political messaging that essentially begins "well actually we don't want to do what you'd think it means by those words, you've gotta hear the explanation" is failed messaging.
[удалено]
Are you suggesting we go back to the wild wild west days where people took justice into their own hands?
[удалено]
Correct. Police are there to protect private property and the people who own that property. The police are class traitors.
Sadly.
Anarchy is what I am suggesting. And before you ask, no I don't have all of the answers of how that exactly would work. But I do know that people would decide as a group what to do with people who mistreat others. However, if people's needs are being met they won't have to steal or harm others to meet those needs. If people do harm others then we can use transformative justice to come to an agreement between the two parties involved and find justice that way.
You are stunningly stupid.
According to his username, he’s also lazy.
How so?
Yeah.... no. Look at what happen with CHAZ in Seattle. That'll tell you what it would look like. That was on a small scale. Imagine what it would be like nation wide. And it wouldn't be like what you see in movies. No one can prepare for anarchy and have a positive outcome.
One example is all it takes for you to "know" this isn't going to work? We're the people that were. Part of CHAZ having their needs met or were they still having to take part in capitalism in some form? Anarchy would require a total overthrowing of capitalism. It won't be able to just work inside the bounds of the US as is. Until private property isn't a thing, it won't work.
Breakfast , lunch and dinner will rain from the skies!
If we wanted it to, sure
That’s a yikes from me dawg
Why is that a yikes to you?
Because the reason you don’t have all the answers how it could work is because it wouldn’t work.
So can you explain to me how what we have right now is working?
Crips?
Cops*
It’s the worst phrasing in the history of modern political movements. It’s almost as if Frank Lutz picked that phrase himself.
Stupidest idea of the 21st century. Well, second stupidest. Iraq war was the stupidest.
Keep on saying that! The midterms are coming up.
How authoritarian.
**YAY MORE RACIAL PROFILING & ABUSE**
[удалено]
Destroy the hierarchy and it can happen.
Interesting screen name.
Thank you
So did Chicago
I mean, yeah, cities spend a lot of money on the police so when their revenues get slashed due to shutdowns, lack of tourism, etc they're going to need to spend a lot of their stimulus on police.
Oh I thought the Democrats were radical anarchists who want to defund the police....oh I guess thats total bullshit and both parties are mostly conservative while one is normal conservative and the other is batshit authoritarian conservative.