For one thing, I think that crime is bad and we, as a society, should put forward more resources into making sure that women aren’t set on fire, even if it is statistically rare that it happens.
I’m more than happy enough to argue that “arresting criminals and trying them” probably sounds like fascism to someone sufficiently compassionate.
We have NOT nationally or locally stopped doing that.
I think crime is bad too. That's a moral statement.
So is the idea that throwing more money at it won't fix what's wrong, because what's wrong is that policing can't solve the underlying drives of crime.
Like I said though, you can not drive the occurrence of crime to absolute zero. Even in the Judge Dredd distopia that you seem to favor.
You can minimize the chances, which is what NYC has done, or so the statistics tell us.
those two facts say nothing, nada, zero, zilch about whether murder should be acceptable.
Because it's not. Not to me, or CJ or anyone else. The key difference here is we see your preferred Judge Dredd society response as morally wrong because it won't do anything but cause further immoral outcomes.
All because you think crime can be eliminated since you never experience it in the Springs.
on the VERY RARE occasions you make statements of moral position it takes us hours to days to tease them out of you. You desire to cast everything as an aesthetic question makes determining your values nearly impossible.
I don't want to be where you are. Its a world devoid of right and wrong and is an insult to everything I've ever learned or believed. That clear enough for you?
Well he's one of the 3.6 million people who was on the subway that day (or could have been). But sure, lets dismiss his real life in favor of dissing the tastes of people who might be willing to tolerate the aesthetics of really rare, freakishly rare, crimes because it doesn't actually change the underlying issues or their actual real lives.
Since all we need to debate are aesthetics masquerading as morals.
One could argue my vote doesn't matter in a deeply red state, even in local elections (where no one has run as a Democrat in what I am told is decades). Unfortunately my obligations as a citizen don't allow me the conclusion you have reached. Your shouldn't either ad it's all the more a pity that you believe as you do.
My experience around here is you will do whatever you want whenever you want regardless of how any of us predict you might respond. And you will do it because it amuses you. Not because you are actually clinging to any set of principles. The folks you reference are not likely to do that walk back in any meaningful way because the principles they cling to won't let them.
I still think he's a fascist, and will use the powers of his office thusly. I have maintained he's more like a South American tinpot then a Na.zi and I think the analogy holds up. I also think the true believers he has assembled for this round of Cabinet Secretaries and White House senior staff will be very much fascist/authoritarian in how they operate. Especially with respect to their opponents.
They won't do any of the things they promise d their constituents in order to get elected - fascists never do. They are already walking back the "Make Groceries Cheaper" promise afterall.
Tuning out is obeying in advance. It's sacrificing a few fragmentary bits of peace (which aren't peaceful at all) for a lack of clear eyed understanding of what's happening and why. It's allowing others to dictate your reality and your responses to that reality. It's dangerous and morally lazy.
When all you have is performative politics, all you get is performance. One has to wonder what the true believers he intends to employ in his White House will do when his short attention span turns away from their cause.
Of course they don't. But when the facts don't align with the panic-ers narrative I will happily call them idiots in public because they richly deserve the derisive shame I intend to pile on them.
The crime that exists on the nYC subway - and on every other major mass transit system - may have increased measurably (since most anything can be measured) but that doesn't mean its a significant increase nor that it would actually be noticed by riders absent media hype. I mean you can doubt my statistical analysis all you want, but Our resident NYC subway riders refute your story with their actual experience.
You imagine a lot of interesting things Jaybird. Currently you are imagining that the imposition of congestion pricing will somehow force Westchester Democrats to vote for Republicans in some sort of Don Quixote'esque quest to have to avoid encountering mentally unstable people on the subway in a city with fewer murders per capita then your own beloved Colorado Springs. Which might well amuse you but does nothing at all to further any sort of solution of the issues of mental health the OP layed out.
1.3M is the total universe, not the universe actually receiving medical treatments under psychological supervision - which is much smaller. That aside, this is still a vanishingly small community in a country of 340,110,988, and their receiving standard of care (under the supervision of physicians and psychologists with parental permission) makes them no threat to anyone - as if helping people live as their authentic selves should be a threat to begin with.
All this boils down to the fact that those who waste political energy on "battling" transgender people this cycle did so from a morally corrupt and cynical position, a statement now backed up by empirical fact. Those "warriors" deserve derision and mockery for attempting to inflict pain and suffering on a tiny number of children - and public shame if they attempted to do while claiming to be Christian.
On “Meta Ends Fact-checking Program”
I think the January 6th Attack on the Capitol is in form, function, and morality akin to the Beer Hall Putsch.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
Which resources other then additional money would you redeploy from where to prevent another woman from being set on fire?
"
Do you ever read your own stuff?
We have NOT nationally or locally stopped doing that.
"
I think crime is bad too. That's a moral statement.
So is the idea that throwing more money at it won't fix what's wrong, because what's wrong is that policing can't solve the underlying drives of crime.
Like I said though, you can not drive the occurrence of crime to absolute zero. Even in the Judge Dredd distopia that you seem to favor.
"
Doing X can lead to Y, Z, Q, E, and even A. You are no more assured of the outcome breaking your way then I am of it breaking my way.
Do you remember when the election didn't break my way what I said? No? I said I was wrong about America and what we valued.
I can't ever remember you saying your aesthetics were wrong.
"
You can't prevent every murder.
Full stop.
You can minimize the chances, which is what NYC has done, or so the statistics tell us.
those two facts say nothing, nada, zero, zilch about whether murder should be acceptable.
Because it's not. Not to me, or CJ or anyone else. The key difference here is we see your preferred Judge Dredd society response as morally wrong because it won't do anything but cause further immoral outcomes.
All because you think crime can be eliminated since you never experience it in the Springs.
"
on the VERY RARE occasions you make statements of moral position it takes us hours to days to tease them out of you. You desire to cast everything as an aesthetic question makes determining your values nearly impossible.
"
when you share your moral positions on something then we can hammer that out.
"
I don't want to be where you are. Its a world devoid of right and wrong and is an insult to everything I've ever learned or believed. That clear enough for you?
"
Well he's one of the 3.6 million people who was on the subway that day (or could have been). But sure, lets dismiss his real life in favor of dissing the tastes of people who might be willing to tolerate the aesthetics of really rare, freakishly rare, crimes because it doesn't actually change the underlying issues or their actual real lives.
Since all we need to debate are aesthetics masquerading as morals.
"
Says the guy who freely admits that what others see as moral issues are, to him, merely aesthetics.
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
One could argue my vote doesn't matter in a deeply red state, even in local elections (where no one has run as a Democrat in what I am told is decades). Unfortunately my obligations as a citizen don't allow me the conclusion you have reached. Your shouldn't either ad it's all the more a pity that you believe as you do.
"
My experience around here is you will do whatever you want whenever you want regardless of how any of us predict you might respond. And you will do it because it amuses you. Not because you are actually clinging to any set of principles. The folks you reference are not likely to do that walk back in any meaningful way because the principles they cling to won't let them.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
Tough to fact check politicians who feed you billion dollar contracts. Just ask Jeff Bezos.
On “The Virtue of Tuning Out”
I still think he's a fascist, and will use the powers of his office thusly. I have maintained he's more like a South American tinpot then a Na.zi and I think the analogy holds up. I also think the true believers he has assembled for this round of Cabinet Secretaries and White House senior staff will be very much fascist/authoritarian in how they operate. Especially with respect to their opponents.
They won't do any of the things they promise d their constituents in order to get elected - fascists never do. They are already walking back the "Make Groceries Cheaper" promise afterall.
"
Tuning out is obeying in advance. It's sacrificing a few fragmentary bits of peace (which aren't peaceful at all) for a lack of clear eyed understanding of what's happening and why. It's allowing others to dictate your reality and your responses to that reality. It's dangerous and morally lazy.
"
Steve Bannon's 2018 quote comes to mind:
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
When all you have is performative politics, all you get is performance. One has to wonder what the true believers he intends to employ in his White House will do when his short attention span turns away from their cause.
"
Of course they don't. But when the facts don't align with the panic-ers narrative I will happily call them idiots in public because they richly deserve the derisive shame I intend to pile on them.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
The crime that exists on the nYC subway - and on every other major mass transit system - may have increased measurably (since most anything can be measured) but that doesn't mean its a significant increase nor that it would actually be noticed by riders absent media hype. I mean you can doubt my statistical analysis all you want, but Our resident NYC subway riders refute your story with their actual experience.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
No weirder then anything else going on here today.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
You imagine a lot of interesting things Jaybird. Currently you are imagining that the imposition of congestion pricing will somehow force Westchester Democrats to vote for Republicans in some sort of Don Quixote'esque quest to have to avoid encountering mentally unstable people on the subway in a city with fewer murders per capita then your own beloved Colorado Springs. Which might well amuse you but does nothing at all to further any sort of solution of the issues of mental health the OP layed out.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
1.3M is the total universe, not the universe actually receiving medical treatments under psychological supervision - which is much smaller. That aside, this is still a vanishingly small community in a country of 340,110,988, and their receiving standard of care (under the supervision of physicians and psychologists with parental permission) makes them no threat to anyone - as if helping people live as their authentic selves should be a threat to begin with.
All this boils down to the fact that those who waste political energy on "battling" transgender people this cycle did so from a morally corrupt and cynical position, a statement now backed up by empirical fact. Those "warriors" deserve derision and mockery for attempting to inflict pain and suffering on a tiny number of children - and public shame if they attempted to do while claiming to be Christian.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
you and I mostly agree here - though the need to move that volume of people absent economic activity seems vanishingly small.
"
And there will still be a whole bunch of them thusly "insulated" after congestion pricing.
Also an outcome that won't be impacted by congestion pricing. And an especially bad example given the extreme rarity of the event.