(03-12-2021 07:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (03-12-2021 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I wonder if FW would have the money for this if the police were defunded.
That last comment is a fundamental misunderstanding of the aims of defund the police.
And the entire rest of this conversation is a fundamental misunderstanding of many and perhaps MOST people's (on the 'requesting' side) understanding of THIER aims of 'defund the police'.
I agree that there are many and often large swaths of the movement that do just as described here, but much of the PROTESTS and protesters in favor of these things view it more as a means of reducing the number and power/capabilities and 'armament' of police. THAT is what their signs say. THAT is what they chant. THAT is what they talk about when you get 'joe average' in front of a reporter... and politicians happily support, encourage and don't correct them.
SOME of those people want to 'defund the police' because they're criminals.
The best evidence of this is that I- Hambone10- a CLEAR right wing supporter and supporter of the police (in general, there are certainly BAD BAD BAD cops) was the one carrying the water for this sort of redirecting of funds from patrol, arrest and incarceration to intervention and treatment on this forum, taking POLITE heat from a few... and the 'left' on this issue was mostly silent... UNUSUALLY so on an issue where they actually had some bipartisan support. I was disappointed because it seemed that 'confrontation' was more important than agreement or actually working towards solutions, which is precisely what we're talking about here. It is the focus on the CONFRONTATION with police that is more important than the agreement that police shouldn't be targeting people based on race or income or whatever else, and certainly shouldn't be harming innocent people or those with any of a variety of challenges.
There was even discussion (by me) that JUST AS IN HEALTHCARE UNDER THE ACA (another time when politicians lied about this same thing), an effort to provide future cost savings would REQUIRE more investment upfront... and that you couldn't count on the benefits of future training or the benefits of future employees/departments or the benefits of cultural shift months if not years before they were in place, and you can't CUT police funding until you have those other options in place without consequences. Not all consequences are bad
In the above articles, ONE very clearly claims $840m in cuts and only $160m in new investments.
If ANYONE believes that you can replace 840m in policing with 160m in 'non police' interventions and therapy, they're out of their minds. If you COULD, THAT would be the selling point and you'd have tens of millions of fiscal conservatives on board with this. Of course what i don't see there is any talk of tax cuts, meaning the money is still there, and just being spent elsewhere. Unlike the feds, a city can't run a perpetual deficit.
Another (Seattle) says the same thing I said months ago and am still saying now. Gee, I wonder why they decided instead to 'hollow' the police at the same time as they funded other initiative? Is it perhaps because that was EXACTLY what most people in favor of 'defunding the police' wanted? OF COURSE it was. They did precisely what they said they would do... and its floundering as a result.
The bottom line is this....
When we were having this conversation, I don't recall ANYONE on here or in the press from the left being particularly vocal about 'investment' in these alternative efforts. I recall VERY CLEARLY all of the talk about how awful police were and how they essentially needed to be 'punished' by defunding them.
THAT is what culture seems to be all about today... PUNISHING those who 'don't fit', whether or not you have an alternative.
Yes, I agree that by the time it gets to legislation, in order to get enough votes to pass specific legislation, CALMER voices (including people like me from 'the other side') get addressed, but the CLEAR DRIVER of the legislation (and often as in Seattle, the OVERPOWERING driver) is 'hate'.
I find it especially funny because in the other direction, you can't merely be 'indifferent' towards many issues without being attacked. Regardless of the words being used, HATE is the clear driver of a lot of this.