Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, sorry. Something like that happens in fewer than one in 10 million police interactions. You don’t need to weaken the police and put their lives more in danger in order to avoid the one in 10 million chance that a criminal will be killed. What you do is punish the INDIVIDUAL who perpetrated it.
Example: Let’s say a black guy is caught shoplifting. So in response, the storeowner decides to “reform” access to the store by blacks. He then insists that blacks wait outside until a security guard comes to the door, letshim in, and follows him around. Is that acceptable? NO. The majority of blacks are not shoplifters. You punish the INDIVIDUAL, not the entire group.
You don’t even know what specific reforms I’m proposing and you’re already shutting it down. So you’re saying that no matter how many police officers use excessive force, act improperly, and kill unarmed civilians that we should just stick with the status quo? How do you feel about body cameras? Make them optional?
Nope, sorry. Something like that happens in fewer than one in 10 million police interactions. You don’t need to weaken the police and put their lives more in danger in order to avoid the one in 10 million chance that a criminal will be killed. What you do is punish the INDIVIDUAL who perpetrated it.
Example: Let’s say a black guy is caught shoplifting. So in response, the storeowner decides to “reform” access to the store by blacks. He then insists that blacks wait outside until a security guard comes to the door, letshim in, and follows him around. Is that acceptable? NO. The majority of blacks are not shoplifters. You punish the INDIVIDUAL, not the entire group.
Good post. One of the many eye-openers of 2020 for me has been just how many people are completely incapable of assessing relative risk of competing scenarios. Like, people simply don't have the faculties and/or the will to do it. Instead, they pick one risk (e.g., Covid) and let their emotions and/or social pressure guide their decision-making.
Not saying emotions and social pressure shouldn't play a role. As someone with experience in the actuarial field, my approach has been something like, "I already assess relative risk naturally, so I don't need to work on it that much or "lead" with it in social situations. I'm a little weaker naturally at incorporating emotions and social considerations into my decisions, so if I value those elements highly and consciously improve on them, the overall effect will be strong holistic decisions that lead to harmony." After 2020, I'm rethinking this some. Now it seems that our society is in real danger, due to the silencing of voices of people who can actually assess relative risk, and the amplification of those who can't.
Good post. One of the many eye-openers of 2020 for me has been just how many people are completely incapable of assessing relative risk of competing scenarios. Like, people simply don't have the faculties and/or the will to do it. Instead, they pick one risk (e.g., Covid) and let their emotions and/or social pressure guide their decision-making.
Not saying emotions and social pressure shouldn't play a role. As someone with experience in the actuarial field, my approach has been something like, "I already assess relative risk naturally, so I don't need to work on it that much or "lead" with it in social situations. I'm a little weaker naturally at incorporating emotions and social considerations into my decisions, so if I value those elements highly and consciously improve on them, the overall effect will be strong holistic decisions that lead to harmony." After 2020, I'm rethinking this some. Now it seems that our society is in real danger, due to the silencing of voices of people who can actually assess relative risk, and the amplification of those who can't.
Precisely. I too never realized how little people understand statistics - and I have no experience in the actuarial field and never took a course in statistics. But I do have common sense: Over the summer, the adjacent county declared that COVID cases were spiking, and there was mass panic about what further restrictions they could put in place. What was the number? 26 cases for every 100,000 people!
The overwhelming % of the Muslim, black, and gay communities here are law abiding people. And if they want to play the call to prayer, so be it...we allow church bells after all. Same thing.
No, it's not the same thing. What an ignorant thing to say. Churches ring bells at specified times and usually only on Sunday, well after most people are awake. Mosques on the other hand, play a loud call to prayer that sounds, to many, like a camel squealing, on top of that every single day and far more often than any church. If you took a survey of any non-Muslim group, I bet the vast majority would take church bells any day over a screeching and squealing Imam who obviously has no singing voice.
He obviously doesn’t go during the night. I’ve been there during the day myself and it is eerily quiet. Besides all the profanity scrawled everywhere, I didn’t feel in danger. Night time is a different story.
I guess we are down to calling everyone who doesn’t agree with the left as racists. We can all see the crime statistics and the city council meetings describing out of control streets, so there’s really no comeback besides Tucker Carlson, racists, and let’s make fun of the suburbs. Council members report unheard of levels of constituents calling in to complain about crime and how they don’t feel safe in their neighborhoods. Facts are facts.
As I’ve said before to green_mariner, I don’t know if there is a resolution that can be had. There’s too many white liberals ready to downplay the increased crime and happy to vote for more of the same. They aren’t personally affected, so they don’t seem to care what happens to others living in the high crime areas. In a local poll, only 35% of black voters supported reducing the size of the police force, yet the city council tried to push forward with the idea of cutting the MPD by 138 officers anyway. Luckily, Frey was able to stop them this time.
Every day the local news has another shooting, another carjacking, street racing, here’s a car jacking where they shot the woman, the other day a car jacking with a kid in the back seat, a gunfight taking place across a park filled with kids in broad daylight...I’ve lived near big cities before, but my goodness, for such a small city.
How do you stop white liberals from voting for the destruction of their city, telling you they don’t care about local politicians undermining the police force and pretending the insane levels of crime are not a problem for them?
Again, it's the fallacy of "cities = crime" that some on the left here endlessly perpetuate. It doesn't take a genius to admit Minneapolis is very violent for its size, but that does not mean "all cities have lots of crime deal with it lolz." As I've pointed out previously, there are large American cities with a per capita violent crime rate 1/5, 1/10 that of Minneapolis.
But these same white liberals have their heads so deep in the sand they continue to make excuses for Minneapolis.
Again, it's the fallacy of "cities = crime" that some on the left here endlessly perpetuate. It doesn't take a genius to admit Minneapolis is very violent for its size, but that does not mean "all cities have lots of crime deal with it lolz." As I've pointed out previously, there are large American cities with a per capita violent crime rate 1/5, 1/10 that of Minneapolis.
But these same white liberals have their heads so deep in the sand they continue to make excuses for Minneapolis.
Why are you so concerned with Minneapolis if I may ask?
Boise is a small metro, where the city of Boise itself comprises a large % of the metro's population. That's not the case with Minneapolis, which is a smaller central city in a big metro area. Horrible comparison.
Japan and European countries have significant welfare states including universal health care, strict gun controls, and just about everything else republicans hate. So you really shot yourself in the foot by using those as comparisons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minnomaboidenapolis
You guys need to stop it with the "cities are cities and thus have crime" tirade. It's actually totally false. Tokyo is a megacity 30x the size of Minneapolis and has virtually no crime. Pick any European capital (maybe except Paris?) and it is several times MSP with less overall crime. Even closer to home, Boise, a city with roughly half the population of Minneapolis, has a violent crime rate of 279 per 100K while Minneapolis is way up there with 1100 per 100K.
So, saying "cities always have crime lolz ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" is just BS. It all depends on WHO lives in the city and HOW the city enforces the laws. That is it.
Boise is a small metro, where the city of Boise itself comprises a large % of the metro's population. That's not the case with Minneapolis, which is a smaller central city in a big metro area. Horrible comparison.
Japan and European countries have significant welfare states including universal health care, strict gun controls, and just about everything else republicans hate. So you really shot yourself in the foot by using those as comparisons.
Do leftists know any other comebacks aside from "welfare state" and "strict gun control?" How's Venezuela's welfare state working out for safety? You know Algeria has universal healthcare AND gun control. Might wanna move to Algiers.
Switzerland has a high ownership of guns, so I can substitute "Zurich" and say that's a safe city. Czechia has a gun culture too, no violence in Prague. Finland, as well, I don't see Helsinki burning in riots and having 1100 violent crimes per 100K citizens.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Minneapolis has a relatively robust welfare state AND super strict gun control! Shocker!
Do rightists know any other comebacks besides "Venezuela?" We've said over and over again that's not even remotely close to what we want to emulate, but right-wingers keep on repeating it anyway. We could tell you a zillion times (and we have) our goal is more like a Canadian or European welfare state, but because right-wingers don't want to admit those are reasonable goals with good outcomes, they keep repeating "Venezuela! Venezuela!"
BTW in Switzerland you need a license to own a gun - which is exactly what many of us liberals (myself included) would like to see. So once again you shot yourself in the foot by citing an example that many of us democrats would like to see! Your view of Swiss gun laws is outdated by 30 years.
As for Minneapolis and Minnesota they are still part of the US, within which movement and transport of goods is unrestricted, so whatever rules apply to Minnesota and Minneapolis can only have so much effect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
