what fklag is that, it looks like usa but colors are off
It’s the thin blue line flag , you’ll see it all over the US by right wingers who think police are the only thing keeping us from murdering each other.
Crime is down because there’s less cops to commit it lmao.
depends, which areas are they counting crime? Which areas are they counting police quitting?
Don’t take the word of a meme for something like this. Look into how those statistics were counted.
(edit: Spelling error)
What’s the percentage chance someone has misunderstood the difference between causation and correlation?
Not saying less cops = less crime, just debunking the classic thin blue line narrative of less cops = more crime
They would say it’s because police are getting better at their jobs or something
Or maybe that fewer police = fewer crimes being caught and tracked for statistic purposes
But you see that would be an intelligent argument.
That’s not the kind of argument these people make.
They also don’t vote intelligently either, apparently…
A big question I ask people is “Why do we feel less safe even though crime is at an all time low?” Not a lot of people have answers, and I think way too many people aren’t aware of that fact. It’s one of the safest times to walk through any downtown core, yet people feel the least safe they ever have.
My ex spouse got an app that gave alerts every time there was anything going down in our neighborhood. They went from cautious to walk around at night to “omg we live in a crime riddled hellhole with people being murdered everywhere” and stopped going outside. People now have access to so much information, often explicitly designed to make you fearful, and we suck at statistics
The answer is the media.
It’s not all of the media, it’s editorialized news, opinion pieces, debate format shows, etc.
Yes, those are the media to which they are referring.
But it’s not “the media” it’s the heavily editorialized media. There are plenty of credible sources who remain neutral who don’t deserve to be lumped in with the rest.
The problem is not everyone agrees on what exactly “editorialized” and “credible” means. You’re making the same arguments they would make against you.
The thing is, I don’t feel less safe walking down the street. I can’t really relate to people who do. That drives the divide further.
it’s all vibes, you are way more likely to get hurt from a car crash than crime yet people have no problem driving.
Here in my city we just opened up a rail line extension. I’ve seen literally hundreds of comments saying it’s not safe, all calling back to a stabbing in February. Which is horrific I know. But that’s one death in a decade.
No one seems to know what to say when I call out the average 100 traffic fatalities every month in our state. That’s just normal apparently, but city bad scary when 1 person in 10 years is killed
And when there are 0 cops, 0 crimes will be recorded. Brilliant!
I don’t think that’s what anyone suggests. However the opposite is what needs to be called out. Why do police departments consistently ask for more and more funding, usually looking for reasons to spend it (see urban assault vehicles, larger and more militarized forces) when crime is down already? If they’re doing fine with the budget they have, why do we need to give them even more money?
“Defund the police” doesn’t mean we have no police. It means they’re overfunded. Let’s see about defunding them and giving some of that money to other people, like mental health advocates or groups that help with homelessness - some of the main causes of crime. Wouldn’t that mean the police can focus on things they are trained for while also cutting crime down at it’s source? If someone is never desperate enough to mug someone in the first place, doesn’t that mean the crime was prevented?
Defund the police doesn’t mean abolish the police
Me:
That’s incredibly dumb.
Just because you don’t know the first thing about a subject doesn’t mean it’s ‘dumb’
It means you’re ignorant and lazy
And maybe you should approach a new subject and belief as a student before you decide to mouth off like a fool
That’s your assumption based on literally nothing.
It means your presumptuous and dumb.
The same applies to you ya fuckin hypocrite.
Lol, I disagree- sorry not sorry
So no laws then huh?
Right. Is this your first time encountering an anarchist?
Nope, I do just enjoy pointing out stupidity when I see it.
You’re definitely on the right track.
The only actual job of the police is to file crime reports.
They do not prevent crime. Protect innocents. Make people show up for court etc. They have no obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect someone being hurt, even if they’re standing right there and could stop it.
Anything in the justice system that you value is either done by someone else, or actually isn’t done at all.
Let’s abolish the police, therefore no one can report crime to the police, but then we see people reporting crimes elsewhere and as it turns out, crimes still happen, even when not reported to the police. This is a very good argument for increased gun ownership! No police, no law enforcement, no law, well I’ll just have to take the “law” into my own hands. Can’t see how that would cause chaos.
And when cities get revenue from traffic violations, traffic violations go up. Funny how that works.
Same with covid, if you don’t look for it, you will not find it.
It’s hard to hide some crimes. If someone reports a body, someone reports a body.
veritassium did this fascinating af video mirroring a study on people’s political biases and how it influences reasoning: it seems like the more educated or intelligent you are, the more your biases interfere with your ability to analyze positions that are contrary to your own views and that interference is proportional to your level of education/intelligence and the people who don’t have either are able to reason mostly the same whether or not their biases where challenged.
Alternate title: A single “study” presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone’s perspective on a subject, especially if that “study” presents “facts” that are contradictory to the listener’s previous knowledge.
Humans aren’t rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn’t have much of an opinion to begin with.
it’s literally a study conducted by Yale; as in the ivy league university: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992
the video reproduces the study in a shortened format suitable for youtube.
Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on “gun bans”, even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don’t change, only the public perception of them.
It’s like if they showed people a new study for “Earth gravity” vs “Moon gravity” and act surprised when people don’t immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn’t be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.
Yes, they found bias. Cool.
