I meant “government successfully fighting poverty”. Apologies if that was not clear.
Yeah that was kind of the problem. Not only did they not successfully fight poverty, they created perverse incentives that undermined societal structures and that contributed to an increase in crime in Black communities.
I’m not seeing the connection, unless wecarevtalking post statue controversy. Also, confederate generals do not equal horsewhippers. I would think ones experience inside the courtroom would be a more powerful factor.
Cite?
I’m not pro statue. But I am anti ridiculous rhetoric which is so common in this Trump world. 2 years ago those dumb statues were something that people passed by but didn’t pay any attention to. The idea that a rational person of normal intelligence would think a statue would decrease their chance of receiving justice in a courtroom is silly.
Again, should an Irish be afraid of getting justice in England because of Oliver Cromwell statues?
Be that as it may, unless you hold that successfully fighting poverty is impossible for a government (as I suspect you do), it remains true that, as I said, “if we’re talking about what the government can do to reduce murder, fighting poverty can go on the list as well”.
No, two years ago the statues were something that you passed by but didn’t pay any attention to.
Some of them were. And the dedication speech for at least one of those statues spoke explicitly of the “great joy” in whipping an uppity black woman.
If we could get into the way back machine and go to 2009 and if we could get pics of any five confederate statues and conduct a survey asking 1)who is this person. 2)what war did he fight in 3) what did he do to deserve a statue; what do you think the result would be?
The horsewhipping guy should be horsewhipped himself but one moron doesn’t translate into multiple morons without atribution.
Oh. No, that isn’t true. Government fighting poverty has actually contributed to the increase in the murder rate, so putting “government not getting involved in poverty fighting” on the list makes more sense.
Put another way, poverty was decreasing at a faster rate before government started fighting it. If they hadn’t started fighting it, it makes sense to assume that trend would have continued and poverty would be lower today in that alternate scenario than it is today. If your less poverty=less crime claim stands, and I agree, then we would have less murder today.
Do you think we’d have less fire if the government stopped fighting fires?
No because they know how to fight fires. This could be a sidetrack, and I’m not an expert FYI.
I get it, you believe that governments can’t fight poverty, or at least not without horrible side effects. That’s not a debate I particularly want to spend my time on right now, as the poverty angle was John Mace’s, not mine. I’d rather focus on policing.
If the government was fighting fires with gasoline, yes.
Are cultures of honour also associated with more police killings? Is that much of a factor in the current situation in the US?
Actually we might have less severe fires in the long term if nature could clear the undergrowth.
Because it makes more sense to protest against the government regarding something that the government’s agents are directly responsible for.
This is a now ancient trick argument. Entirely based on intentionally misusing the statistics involved.
Simplest explanation: the real concern in this area, is with state-supported race-based crime. Black on black crime, and white on white crime, don’t qualify as state-supported racist attacks.
I don’t know. I can look into it.
Pretty much. That’s the only way they can get any serious race-baiting done.
If the NFL players were truly serious about “taking a stand”, they’d hike their collective asses up to Chicago and try to do something about the wholesale slaughter of black people by black people up there.
Like I said before, the two issues are related.
Why do you supposed there was so much murder on the Western frontier, relative to the Eastern US? And it wasn’t protests of murderers that brought the rates down, it was the growth of powerful and effective governments, with a monopoly on force. Again, what we’re seeing in places like Chicago is exactly what we’d expect to see from communities that don’t have access to law enforcement.