I'm not really understanding why it was necessary to single out black voters in the thread title.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
85% of New Yorkers (91% of black voters) favor more police in the subway and 60% support homeless encampment sweeps
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
Didn't you know? It's because we're the nation's mammies. The foot soldiers. We're expected to be down for, and ride out in front of, every progressive movement, every person, everywhere, everytime. It's just assumed. Expected.
Like, why even bother allocating resources to appealing to Black voters? They're going to vote regardless, right???
And so when something breaks this illusion--that Black people, despite being the most consistent Leftist voting block in the country, aren't necessarily monolithic and need to be appealed to and convinced and have fears that must be addressed like every other voter--it really throws people.
I may be wrong but aren't white liberals the demographic group that tend to support defund in polls the most?
When you don't have Universal Healthcare the homeless issue gets worse and worse. They're also a nuisance for capitalism, they would rise the unemployment numbers, so it's much easy to just try to erase them completely from society.
To me they way the US treats their homeless is what makes it a failed society/country/nation.
To me they way the US treats their homeless is what makes it a failed society/country/nation.
Apparently, not in the US. Unpopular proposals continue to be passed and popular proposals continue to be ignored. One party doesn't even look at polls to see if what they are proposing is popular among their own base. Popular will isn't as important to decision making as you seem to believe. That's why we are a plutocracy.
Sweeps don't do any of that for the most part. They just destroy the little unhoused folks have and move them to another area.
If there is someone who wants to live without a home, these folks are incredibly few and far between, I don't think we should force them to do things they don't want to do.
Last edited:
I mean, if the police are going to be anywhere then I'd like it to be in the subway stations.
The questions isn't "Do you think the police should exist at all?" It's do you think there should be more of them in the subway system. There has been a lot of crime recently and it's not always easy to quickly get help when you're underground or stuck on a train car. So yes, as someone who lived in NYC for a number of years, I would.
The homeless sweeps are a different issue. That's fucked.
The questions isn't "Do you think the police should exist at all?" It's do you think there should be more of them in the subway system. There has been a lot of crime recently and it's not always easy to quickly get help when you're underground or stuck on a train car. So yes, as someone who lived in NYC for a number of years, I would.
The homeless sweeps are a different issue. That's fucked.
I don't remember the subway situation ever being this bad in the 10-years I have been in the city. My sister has practically taking it all together. The shit is real.
They wanted suburb community policing after all that neglect and got a police state.
Now they are asking for safe subways…and will get a police state.
In both circumstances the powers that be promised the later wouldn't be the case. Its wrong, but I understand the math considering they are more likely at the front of the violence as opposed to a white person…its pick a poisoned pill.
It's also to shit on white progressives. People who are pro-cop generally also don't want to feel like they're being racist.
And sometimes, white progressives like to use that information to show that their methods, etc. are truly good for everyone. So they highlight the response of black people to prove they're on the good side.
And then sometimes activists...
In short, the responses of black people are often used to prove/disprove a point depending on what side of an issue you're on. Especially because the other side has probably already used black people in their argument.
---
However, I think for this thread, it's likely just because black people have been closely associated with the movement to defund the police. Therefore, highlighting that they want more police is attention-grabbing.
Most people with something to lose instinctively want more police and protection
This is human nature. I've been saying this for a while but the attack on police forces is not a winning ballot issue. The Rs figured this out in the 60s when Nixon went with the silent majority dogwbistle amidst the chaos of the anti Vietnam protests. Baffled at Ds trying to tilt at windmills here
To be clear that's not the same as saying we should not defund the police or push for more accountability but look at Rs push for their objectives under a different populist guise. Ds think explaining things will change minds, they won't. In a democracy you have to work with first impressions and base instincts of the population
This is human nature. I've been saying this for a while but the attack on police forces is not a winning ballot issue. The Rs figured this out in the 60s when Nixon went with the silent majority dogwbistle amidst the chaos of the anti Vietnam protests. Baffled at Ds trying to tilt at windmills here
To be clear that's not the same as saying we should not defund the police or push for more accountability but look at Rs push for their objectives under a different populist guise. Ds think explaining things will change minds, they won't. In a democracy you have to work with first impressions and base instincts of the population
Explaining things to folks does change minds. But, as everything else, it's how one says it that makes all the difference in the world.
This. The "problem" with this is it's a long term solution so it'll take time and people want results immediately otherwise they go right back to want heads cracked and it doesn't benefit the powers that be so they don't give a fuck.
The solution is to ultimately do a slow rearrangement of the budget that can sustain people's concerns of safety while also actually addressing the issue. Fine; have your cops in your subways if that's where you want them (just don't shout BLM when the next Black person gets their life taken), but you take 10% of the budget, which in NYPD's case last year was around 11 (fucking) billion dollars, and invest that 1.1 billion or so into affordable housing projects. When that starts reaping benefits, you take another billion and give it to healthcare and social welfare programs. And on and on until the police budget is where it needs to be and you've got a city that actually invests in its citizens' welfare.
Problem is this is a long term solution, which means it will immediately be railroaded by the next "Tough on Crime" asshole that gets elected.
That can work but then we gotta find a way to keep cops in line, cause they'll sod what they're doing currently with the work slow down. As soon you talk about redistributing some of their inflated budget they get pissy like the children they are and stop working. But then like you said, the next tough on crime asshole comes in and stops this. Not too mention all the special interests who don't want to make the city more equitable.
Inequality mostly, the pandemic has sped up the inequalities in the city. It's expensive as hell and crime goes up in situations like that. Not to say it's the only reason. But the the people I quoted below bring up more things in support of what I'm saying.
Not like the cops even fucking do anything in the first place.
Hell, crime goes down in Pittsburgh when their goddamn annual Furry convention rolls through. There's no direct correlation between police spending in crime rates. Half of them could probably fuck off and crime might actually go down because the citizenry isn't so damn stressed.
You need willing listeners and short term solutions which are basically impossible as you need the entire local government behind it. You aren't going to be able to overcome fear just by talking about how homeless folks are not to blame for the rise in crime and highlighting their plight.
NYC already elected Adams.
I wonder if it would be cheaper in the long run to just set up a government housing commune where the long-term homeless are simply paid to exist in peace.
I'm pretty cynical and don't have much faith in any widespread rehabilitation push. Middle class drug addicts with family and support structures already have a hell of a hard time getting their shit together. I can't imagine the challenges associated with trying to make a decade-long homeless person self-sufficient.
I'm pretty cynical and don't have much faith in any widespread rehabilitation push. Middle class drug addicts with family and support structures already have a hell of a hard time getting their shit together. I can't imagine the challenges associated with trying to make a decade-long homeless person self-sufficient.
I know; I'm not suggesting anything with the hopes that it'd be implemented lol.
More police is not even a solution though. Police will spend their harassing folks for different offenses rather than actually do anything people want them to do.
It also doesn't make sense when folks that are upset about police citing and releasing folks want more police. More police would just mean more citing and releasing.
I think I get what you mean but it sounds like you want to house those who are unhoused in prisons.
Last edited:
Most of us agree that more police is definitely not the answer but we are a society that's wired to think that they are the common solution. It also doesn't help that there aren't any feasible short term/immediate solutions that our elected officials want to engage in outside of pressing the more cops button. As we discussed in the Boudin thread, the is a large section of people that sees homeless folks as subhuman or simply wants them gone at all costs.
I think homeless people should be placed in shelters (easier said than done given the complexities of housing that many people, there are already over 48,000 folks using shelters in NYC every night) and be provided with much needed medical care. Homeless people are literally rotting away around MSG and that has been the case for close to 20 years now.
That's the point of activism. To educate people that cops are not the solution even if they seem as if they are. You gotta talk to empathize with folks to get change. It doesn't happen quickly.
Instead of shelters, unhoused folks should be placed in actual housing. Housing first with access to other resources if they wish to use them. It's no secret how to help unhoused folks and what works well.
They only missed the words "Instead of" at the beginning of the sentence.