Back in college the libertarians seemed to be people who don't follow politics and like to said they are in the middle. But libertarians are far far from the middle. And or they were just conservatives that want to smoke weeds before weeds were legalize. And then there is a segment of them that were just really a cult follower of Ron Paul. Who at least, had an anti war element to them.
Nowadays, libertarians are more like conservatives are not far right enough. Though the same talking point from way back that every single republican politicians are RINO unless they utter my conspiracy theories.
Back in college the libertarians seemed to be people who don't follow politics and like to said they are in the middle. But libertarians are far far from the middle. And or they were just conservatives that want to smoke weeds before weeds were legalize. And then there is a segment of them that were just really a cult follower of Ron Paul. Who at least, had an anti war element to them.
Nowadays, libertarians are more like conservatives are not far right enough. Though the same talking point from way back that every single republican politicians are RINO unless they utter my conspiracy theories.
Plenty of libertarians are just broadly anti-government though and that hasn't changed at all.
And yeah, some would use the word because they want to smoke weed or just don't care about most social issues, but the other side of it is people who are most definitely malicious with their views and/or want to marry 12 year olds.
Hmm, I guess in my own echo chamber, I haven't encounter too many of those. During my time, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are more of a hot topic discussion. Hence the anti war, and pro weed thing I see more common among the Paulites.
Have you ever been on Storm Front? It was honestly fascinating reading how they response to Jan 6th when it first happened.
Hmm, I guess in my own echo chamber, I haven't encounter too many of those. During my time, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are more of a hot topic discussion. Hence the anti war, and pro weed thing I see more common among the Paulites.
Have you ever been on Storm Front? It was honestly fascinating reading how they response to Jan 6th when it first happened.
That's the kind of thing they're willing to talk about, that's why you hear about it more. Most people are going to have a generally positive response to someone being anti-war or pro-marijuana. Then you have "taxation is theft" crowd which... well, no one likes paying taxes but it's kind of how government programs exist. That turns into Anarcho-Capitalists who don't even think the state should exist and the market will just magically provide for everyone. But then you get into those with crazier views because... well, if you remove a sort of moral starting point from your policies and say that the individual should have the only say in what they can or can't do, you get insane shit.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
And idk about during it, but yeah I'm aware of Stormfront. As much as some people like to act like it's irrelevant...
Just wanna interject that Idaho is a red state, so he can't use the excuse that they were democrats like he tried to do with the tiki torch Nazi rally.
Also, to remind everyone that he asked for one instance of BLM doing something positive, and after I posted about a dozen for him to contend with, he ignored every single one, choosing not to engage with the conversation he started.
Here's the problem, you're invoking "rationality" when talking about a group like the Patriot Front. A group that likely thinks Pride is a government PsyOp aimed at turning white people gay and thus reducing their population.
FWIW I didn't see anything about spears, but riot shields and riot gear. They were arming themselves to gaybash basically, not unlike what the Proud Boys do.
So let said, you called for wellness check for your family members, and these mental health professional came at the door but won't allow in. What legal power do they have to break down the door? And with the high percentage of gun ownership in America. If someone with a mental health episode with gun, how safe can that be?
So now, we go to the link above. Mental health nurses are in SHORT SUPPLY. If college are all free, how many will go for this profession? Knowing the job quality is terrible. Risking assaults and injuries to your own body? No need for polls or study, The people that already in these nursing, fled at high percentage. This is why I like conditional free higher education, to push people toward fields and careers that society needed.
And the people who had these jobs in the first place, may desperate for works. Probably less privilege than others because if anyone who had options of a better choice, not many will go for a lesser options. Why are we let these nurses bare the burden of physical assaults for the rest of society. We can raise their wages, but at some point, it is too not enough of an incentive. And the lowest among us would even go for it anyway if they doing for the money at the risk of their health. I mentioned this, because of "funding to mental health."
EDIT: Mental health professionals themselves are also in very short supplies to be stretch even thinner.
Oh man, I can rant a lot more about homeless situation and the complication of it.
Other countries have mental health problems too, but why is it in America it is so so so bad? Certainly even with the mental health things cannot explain all these people who do these properties damage.
Well, I can explain you how I imagine it and how it is done in some other countries (I am not form america).
When i say "defund the police" and what i gather from the more rational proponents of it is not that you just send nurses to domestic disputes. What I pretty much mean is this:
Kevin Robinson, a retired police chief and lecturer of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona State University, suggests that the slogan "defund the police" is misguided. He states that a more appropriate terminology would be "re-allocation" of specific portions of police department budgets. He states that most such budgets are tight, but says that a thorough review of spending is always warranted, and that program effectiveness should determine whether or not a program is continued. He says that criminals usually weigh the possibility of getting caught when committing a crime, and that "if there is a low likelihood of apprehension there will be more crimes committed—more people victimized." He further states that "Studies have shown ... that effective social programs can reduce criminality in adults and juveniles", and encourages police departments to incorporate social programs with police work
American police is armed to the teeth, they are trained to be more aggressive than their european counterparts (in part because every suspect might have a gun) and they often face criminals that are mentally ill, drugged up or otherwise mentally incapable of being dealt with rationally. That is a huge problem, because what your policeforce does is not fit to reduce violence on the long run, which is why america is (compared to europe, on average) a very violent place.
You have more mentally ill and drug addicted people and a first step in my opinion would be to tackle that problem instead of thinking you can stop it with even more aggressive police force.
The big thought is that preventing crime is far better than punishing crime. When there already is some drugged up guy with a knife, of course you cannot send some nurse in there. You use social services BEFORE that happens. For example, in my city, there is a place with many homeless people that often get into drunk fights and generally can be annoying or even scary. What the city did was not sending a nurse every time someone calls the police, what they did was to hire 2 social workers for the whole place. These social workers just hang out there at night and talk to people. As in, they know the homeless people, they build up trust and if a situation seems to escalate, they can deescalate BEFORE the knife is pulled or before someone overdoses or before someone becomes very aggressive. And of course they can call the police when they can see a situation is escalating before someone dies. That seems reasonable, hiring two social workers for a place is doable and it reduces how many police calls you get for that place.
Before, all the police did when they were called was pretty much beat up the homeless guys until they stopped being aggressive and then they drove away, that did not help anyone. The key is to identify problems that the police cannot solve. And then you have to see whether these problems can be solved by a different institution (for example social workers, but also preventive measures such as a safer environment with more ways to evade suspicious people or funding better home security such as safer doors and windows so break ins are reduced without the need to fight).
Sometimes it will also be best to educate officers better about deescalation
I have seen lots of of body cam videos and often thought that the policeofficers would lose their job if it happened here. And i do not mean the videos that are scandals in the US, i mean video in which americans found nothing wrong with the officer's behavior (for example, if they use their tazers quickly on an unruly suspect). American officers are so aggressive (and trained to be), that i can see why escalation often happens.
They are trained to use force when police officers in other countries would not, or even use tazers or guns very quickly for people that are not dangerous. They are also very authority driven and would rather protect their authority than pushing for a nonviolent solution. I am not saying that to vilify american police officers. As i said, they are trained that way. Many good people do things that i think are counterproductive because the doctrin of america's police force is done that way.
When i say "defund the police", i mean a thorough examination of nonviolent options both inside the police force and outside. The first step is the thought "how can we reduce the number of police calls by preventive action", the second is "how can we ensure police encounters are less violent".
Arming the police more and more and thinking if they are just tough and strong enough, they will reduce crime, that is the way that leads to further misery and that is, to me, what defund the police tries to counter.
Just wanna interject that Idaho is a red state, so he can't use the excuse that they were democrats like he tried to do with the tiki torch Nazi rally.
Also, to remind everyone that he asked for one instance of BLM doing something positive, and after I posted about a dozen for him to contend with, he ignored every single one, choosing not to engage with the conversation he started.
You aren't giving him enough credit, someone absolutely can travel from Democratland to do something unhinged and crazy like go to a Pride Parade in a red state.... but of course it's not thought of at all when talking about the shooting in Buffalo.
Exactly. The police do not prevent crime nor are they really trained to. The insane portion of the budget they take up would be far better served going towards social workers and such, like you said.
You aren't giving him enough credit, someone absolutely can travel from Democratland to do something unhinged and crazy like go to a Pride Parade in a red state.... but of course it's not thought of at all when talking about the shooting in Buffalo.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Exactly. The police do not prevent crime nor are they really trained to. The insane portion of the budget they take up would be far better served going towards social workers and such, like you said.
Crime is a very interesting topic that i am very invested into. Because historically, we just fight crime in very wrong ways but think that this is the way it has to be.
I personally see crime much like i view excessive violence among cattle: It strongly rises when the conditions in a habitat support aggressive or otherwise criminal behavior. As such, to reduce it, you have to change the environment people live in.
That can happen via enforcement of rules, of course. Most normal people would find the risk too high to get caught and thus would not commit a crime.
The problems really start when the criminals you have are not rational actors. With rational actors (for example white collar crime), as long as the rules are well thought out and enforced well, people won't do it (they are not well thought out and enforced well for white collar cirme, but that is another story).
But a drunk guy with no impulse control but a gun who was just left by his girlfriend? Even with death penalty, he doesn't care. And america has MANY of these people, VERY many.
You got junkies.
You got isolated people that radicalize themselves like q anons or domestic terrorists.
You got school shooters that are out for retribution and have easy access to weapons.
You got a huge homeless population.
You have districts that are basically ruins and invite gang violence between desensitized teenager.
All these kinds of crimes (and your usual "drunk knife fight" kind of crimes of course) are not preventable by police. Police can shoot the people doing it, or jail them, but as i see it, they multiply at a faster rate than they are locked up. The only way forward is to reduce the environments that create these kinds of people so they do not become aggressive, and that is a very complex task. You need police right now to deal with violence on street, but the HUGE push has to go into a thorough examination about WHY these environments happen.
It is not normal that so many people in america are addicted to drugs that are not quite as common in the rest of the world (i am talking legal drugs here, xanax and so on). My idea would be to push for crime reducation from the left. Defund the police was not a good slogan because most people that were not already on board with leftist ideals thought that it will make crime rise.
But if someone from the left would run with a slogan like "safe our cities" that has a comprehensive and holistic concept of crimefighting without vilifying the police giving police people better training, then i could see a better shot to sway moderates.
On an ideological level christians and muslims have religious teachings against indulging in alcohol and substance abuse.
Secularists and atheists have no comparable ideology.
It is possible societal issues relating to fentanyl, alcohol, tobacco and other chemical addiction disproportionately affect democrat demographics more than republican ones.
It is also possible that we have witnessed similar trends recently.
And yet plenty of them have substance abuse problems, rendering everything else you vomited out in this same post moot
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
It must be sooo convenient that pretty much everything can be explained so neatly across demographic lines.... religious vs atheist.... democrat vs republican. And when it isn't too convenient just boldly lie about it, like where shootings take place and what not.
It must be sooo convenient that pretty much everything can be explained so neatly across demographic lines.... religious vs atheist.... democrat vs republican.
Let me ask so in a mental health setting where there is no police involved. It got so bad that turn over rate for nursing is extremely high. And they run shortage to it. So what is the problem there? Before I address you post, maybe tomorrow or something. Since homeless is a topic. I so love to discuss.
You have more mentally ill and drug addicted people and a first step in my opinion would be to tackle that problem instead of thinking you can stop it with even more aggressive police force.
This is a youtube channel of terrible police behavior. You should really read what my solutions to those. Which is to HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. Period. And I already provide how I think we going about that. De-escalating is a must. No one disagree with you there. But I want to know what going on with these training. Why all the money that we threw in to these training so far doesn't work. Like the way we threw money at education in certain places. If you don't punished certain people, and hold them accountable to the results that the tax dollars go to. Then it gonna keep on going.
So you do these anecdote evidences. And I don't know what that Prove?? If you gonna go anecdotes, then so will I. I came from Vietnam. Within the USA, here are the places I have live in: South Carolina, Connecticut, Illinois (including Chicago), and Hawaii. I went to college in Chicago. Around our campus is ghetto in every single direction. We are safe within the campus zone due to the presence of the police. By presence, I meant just by them existing and moving around. I am not saying anything about beating the shit out of anyone. I am just saying by merely patrolling around the street of Little Italy, crimes on students reduced. Crime alerts on our phones going off all around us. And as long as we stay where we are, we are okay. So one thing happened that shook up the security. Was one dude in the middle of the day, broke in the girl dormitory and attempt to rape her. What is the prevention there? What talk no jutsu are we doing there? Teaching some homeless dude not to rape with pamphlet? How about all the stories of homeless punching random Asian elderly? Or pushing women into the train track? What talk no jutsu are you planning to do? When I see my people bleeds so much already. IN fact some places, CRIMES WENT UP due to some changes just as raise the bar of what consider shoplifting in California. What talk no jutsu are you gonna do to tell people not to steal? When people got killed over robbery. What talk no jutsu are you doing? It got ridiculous when I am starting to see security guards just stand by as thiefs just walking out of the store. May as well just keep the door open for them. I don't care if polices stop patrolling black neighborhood. I WANT POLICES TO PATROL ASIAN NEIGHBORHOOD. I don't want polices to disturb black people in their own neighbors. I want polices to keep ASIANS SAFE IN OUR BUSINESSES AND OUR HOMES.
The targeting of the Hmong in Minneapolis, the Koreans in LA, and all those east/south east/south/middle eastern Asians in Ferguson and Baltimore. What talk no jutsu are you gonna do?
It is nice that liberals care so much about white supremacists attack on Asian people. But that ain't just our problem, heck, it may not be the biggest problem. Asians, in particular, first generation immigrants are poor. Living in segregated district. And often next to black neighborhoods or Hispanics neighborhood. WE don't live near hill billies of West Virginia, nor some rich white Karen in rich neighborhood of New York. Those attacks from happened. But it ain't a problem since the media will focus on it and will help us got justice real quick. We tend to be victims to black perpetrators. I don't think these black folks are "RACISTS." So this whole angle of "anti-Asian" hate crime on the rise due to corona is BULL****. Since although there is an increase, the pattern and trend of crime predated corona. It is a crime of convenient. There are other reasons in which Asians are the targeted. I saw a crime documentary way back in which they explained the perception that Asian are physically weaker (hell they even targetting the weakest as in elderly people), Asians don't like to involved police sometimes due to language problem. Asians in particular carry cash. This is due to a lot of them are services worker and probably cheat on their taxes in term of tip report. Also a lot don't trust bank for some reason and like to stuffed their cash in physical places.
Then there is the whole economic status. First generation immigrants don't have money so they have to open stores where they can afford. And usually that would be in lower income serving their own community and or other minorities community. So when black Americans sticking it to the man, they ain't burn no rich white person's stores. They burned down sometimes minorities' businesses within their black majority places. And these constant complaint about it is a one way street of money transfer. That Asians people don't spent in black owned businesses. That I don't know. I know that ASians are cheapskate. They rarely consumers if they can offer their own services. Like why would a chef eat out. These immigrants will cut their own hair, do their own nails, save every pennies. To spend on their children's education.
So I don't meant there is some grand conspiracy that blacks people are racist in these attack. It just a matter of convenient. The LA riot for example, on top of racial tension between police/white people toward black community. A korean store owner killed a girl over what she thought the girl stole from the store. They found her guilty, though I think the punishment should have been harsher. But Asians and black community don't usually see that we are on the same boat. Black Americans destroyed Korean town over this. But for every wrong shooting. You go and talk to any Asian business owners and see all the trouble that they got. A vietnamese restaurant i talk to, talk about customers trying to get away with not paying. There are people dropping some sort of firework down the toilet. People barely making money. Some recklessly cling to the car of the people who stole their services. And people just drive off with the worker still clinging to their car. What talk no jutsu, are service workers gonna go then? What talk no jutsu are you gonna do when people are robbing uber drivers, and sometimes killing them using fake accounts. What talk no jutsu are you gonna do?
The progressives and liberals are the biggest sort of hypocrites when it came to homeless.
Let discuss NYC, California, and Hawaii. And let see where your social service workers can come and fix this.
So being poor, put Asian immigrants near crime ridden ghettos. But that is not the only thing. Progressives and liberals hang the Asians people out to dry for other stuffs. So let talk about affordable housing. Keep in mind, all the crime that homeless people doing to Asian Americans including assaults and murders. Heck even where I live, a homeless guy lit an asian guy on fire within 5 minutes of where I am. But hey, your service worker can talk no jutsu their way out of this.
So white liberals care care care care so so so so so much for the homeless, so let shoved them all out of white neighborhood. Hey, here an idea, let's shove them into China town where they already murder the Asians people anyway. The whole, we gotta take care of the homeless. But hey shove them somewhere far away from my back yard sort of thing. In NYC, Asians are but 14% of the population. Don’t make up that many homeless population, less than 1%. Not because they are rich. Because they had strong family tie, living sometimes 3 generation within one household. Unlike the children getting kick out once you reached 18 of other culture. And yet, “LES/Chinatown hosts over 1600 homeless, while Greenwich Village/Soho hosts zero, UES host whopping 80, UWS hosts over 1100.” Why is that? And on top of that they want to open even more homeless shelter. Causing a huge backlash after wave of homeless attacks on Asian Americans. And the nerve of them saying the shelter for Asian elderly. Which Asian household don’t take care of their elderly?? And when all other shelters flooded over, where the heck are they gonna go if not China Town???
Racist white people, at least when they hurt Asian Americans. At least, they did it intentionally. White liberals hurt Asian people, they did it while pretend like they have compassion. While crying about anti-Asian attack racism. When they did more to contribute to these attacks. The “go back to China” or “Chinese-virus” may hurt a feeling or two. But these moves that liberals made, actually kill people.
In Hawaii, similar thing. Hell, for some reasons, so many people fly from outside of Hawaii to come here to be homeless because of nice weather. And once again, shoving the homeless away from the tourists and shoved them into China Town. And when you concentrated all the homeless here. This shit happened.
They goddam closed it, and now all the homeless all over the street. I walked by human feces the other day. A man literally got lit on fire 3 minutes walking from my place. And outside of an apartment for the elderly, homeless encampment all along the other side walk. Which elderly feel safe walking out? And all these white tears about attack on Asian Elderly. Homeless people sleep in the middle of the day on pavement, on side walk, everywhere. In front of temple. In front of businesses. How the heck can you attract customers if outside your businesses look like this. Not to mentioned, once again, Asians don’t make up that much of this “homeless” population. Similar to Hawaii, people also flooded into California from other states to be homeless. I visited California last year. I have see human feces again on the street. Is this like a third world country?
Crimes is everyone’s issue. But affect everyone differently. Social services can’t fix this. Asian American is a small voting bloc. And too diverse in interest to be unite. When you face with this level of crimes, polices is the LEAST of your problem. Heck removing the polices from China Town and these Asian areas. The problems are worsen. And people are already dying and being assaulted. And not feeling safe. Asian Lives Matter as well.
You really really need to step out of your bubble. Did you think the Christian invent morality or something, and not all other cultures also develop their morality in parallel? Heck, let just take this meritocracy. Confucianism focus on meritocracy. And Confucianism is as secular as they come, “Respect the gods and the devils but keep them at a distance."
Ex oriente lux. With the spring academic term finished, I am in Japan and China, ostensibly to give papers at several Japanese and Chinese universities, but really to learn more about meritocracy debates in contemporary Asia. There has been a heated debate going on there among political...
Sorry, but what does this even have to do with what I wrote?
Why would world leaders create a world favorable to christian republicans? Even if that was true, what basis is there to say that that is something desirable? People need to alter their belief system entirely in order to get ahead in such a world? That sounds like a desirable environment to live in? Would you be willing to live as an "atheist democrat" if that was somehow the best way to "thrive"? No you wouldn't, would you?
Never mind this "competitive free market" brainrot you have going on here. You have this utopian vision of such a thing that doesn't exist. There is no "fair competition" when the difference is between living and starving to death. There are profoundly religious and yes, even Christian, countries that are incredibly poor despite how christian and conservative they are. How exactly do you account for such a thing if it's so very possible that world leaders are creating a world that is favorable to them?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
The biting irony here is that you clearly fashion yourself some sort of "free-thinking truth-teller" that understands the secret ways in which the world works, yet the way in which you go on and on about "christian republicans" and AnCap propaganda shows you're just as indoctrinated as anyone you criticize. Wake up man.
The biting irony here is that you clearly fashion yourself some sort of "free-thinking truth-teller" that understands the secret ways in which the world works, yet you go on and on about "christian republicans" and AnCap propaganda shows you're just as indoctrinated as anyone you criticize. Wake up man.
He could bring up the golden rules or something but meritocracy? Since when is it even a pillar in Christianity or even the Ancient/Medieval West. He didn't bother even do the most cursor of check like wikipedia that shit. In the ancient world, seemed like only China really implement this "meritocracy" in a wide spread systematic way. No other civilization even did it. They had a section on ancient Greek. But it just philosopher philosophizing. And there is no application of it. And that was pre Christian. Nothing post Christian. Nothing I have ever heard from Christianity that ever pushed for this "meritocracy." Hell the church was so depend on their believers to be illiterate and not able to contradict whatever they were preaching.
Sure, I guess that your conclusion. You should give up. The world is racist. You can never achieve your objective.
By the way, this is why "Build the Wall" work and "Defunding the Police" doesn't work. Build the wall is simple. Where as defunding the police. You need 20 page essay explain what you actually meant by it, how it work, blah blah.
I originally dislike Stacey Abrams but I grew to absolutely love her. In one interview, she gave a speech something about she cannot afford these go big or go burst kinda thing and living in a conservative state, if she doesn't believe in incremental change that she would just be depress and gave up.
And funny enough it was Abrams and "voting." That actually matter.
Discussing with you guys are weird. You don't believe in voting. So how are you getting this change that you spouting. Or is this all just internet venting to make yourself feel better. More so with xi0.
Guess what I will vote against Defunding the police. Defunding the police will not suit my interest. I have seen my family member getting assaulted. I don't trust the police. But I also don't trust criminals. If you cannot even swayed me. Who by the way, at this point in time. I can type out your post. I can type out your arguments for you. I can make an M3J post just as good as M3J write his own post. Then you definitely can't sway people to the right of me. I can budge into less funding for the police. But nah on the defunding.
Even defunding the police, a year ago. If you ask 3 twitter users who pro defunding the police. And explain what they meant. They would give 3 drastically different answers.
No, that's not why. "Build the Wall" works because it appeals to people's racism or misinformation that illegal immigrants are the result of crossing the border. "Defund the police!" doesn't work because people are either brainwashed to think police are important and help people or because they're okay with police brutality against Black people. You can explain exactly what it does, and people will still be opposed. Let's not kid ourselves that it's because of messaging or whatever.
Discussing with you is even weirder because you don't seem to understand much. Some people don't believe in voting because of people like Biden, who despite being voted for his policies have yet to really follow through. In the eyes of the left, what's the point of voting for a Democrat when they won't do what they can to help people, despite having the power to do so? Despite voting, barely any change has happened.
I don't care, if you want to stay ignorant and support a racist organization that uses excessive violence, then that's on you. As long as you know that Asians are not exempt from their violence either. You seem unable to understand the issues, so I highly doubt you can even come close to making any post as good as me as you claim. People to the right of you will not be swayed regardless, for reasons I explained, not as long as cops don't exclusively target white people or go after them.
Well, if you ask a right winger or a pro-cop, then you're gonna get a different answer from someone who actually has done research. Often, majority of the people who support defunding will tell you that the money used towards cops can be spent elsewhere, like better mental health care and resources that can help people. That's a better way to prevent or reduce criminals than having cops assault or kill them, throw them in jail, and make it hard for them to get their lives back.
He could bring up the golden rules or something but meritocracy? Since when is it even a pillar in Christianity or even the Ancient/Medieval West. He didn't bother even do the most cursor of check like wikipedia that shit. In the ancient world, seemed like only China really implement this "meritocracy" in a wide spread systematic way. No other civilization even did it. They had a section on ancient Greek. But it just philosopher philosophizing. And there is no application of it. And that was pre Christian. Nothing post Christian. Nothing I have ever heard from Christianity that ever pushed for this "meritocracy." Hell the church was so depend on their believers to be illiterate and not able to contradict whatever they were preaching.
The American religion is what slyly espouses meritocracy, it's easy for many to confuse that and Christianity when so much of the country's history hinges on people conflating the two.
