I've said this about the conduct of the local homeless population. It's male aggression and male entitlement. Economic deprivation does not absolve anyone of responsibility, nor does it nullify anyone else's expectations that other people follow rules. Mental illness is different, but that's not the topic.
Middle-class people have a right to expect that the rules they follow will be enforced. Their expectations are valid, and constantly telling them to follow rules when there are so many exceptions undermines the whole social contract. It's a power game, and it's obvious.
So if I move to NYC, not only are there mice and rats galore, I can at least wash my ass in the conference room without someone complaining to Feline Resources that i am making her uncomfortable?!?
I'm admittedly spitballing here, but it doesn't seem that long ago that the left believed their ideas could not only withstand debate but would triumph. The plan seemed to be to win people over with the power of their ideas. For whatever reason, that strategy seems to have been abandoned in favor of bumper sticker propaganda. It's as though someone decided winning on the merits is just not worth pursuing anymore. Not sure how we got here.
Oh yes the idea of communal behavioural standards will absolutely send on any into a tailspin. I actually look forward to reading the comments, left, middle, right, just plain loony and my personal favorite “and how does this make sense”. Rock on Mr Freddy!!!!
Yes! Thank you! I am old enough that I remember a time when smoking was ubiquitous. My mom had eye surgery in the late 70s, and her roommate in the hospital was a chain smoker. People on the left worked hard to get smoking banned in indoor spaces so that people would be protected from smelly, toxic fumes on the job.
And now we seem to have backslid, to the point where some people on the left think it’s wrong to object to nasty behavior in public. But it is not a left position to allow some people to hurt other people; quite the contrary, we on the left should be speaking out against bullies, and praising those who, like this woman, spoke up for regular people who would like to get to work unmolested, by smoke, by harassment, or by anything else.
Ugh. Again, as always, thanks for this. One should be able to handle multiple thoughts and feelings at the same time. I consider myself well-left-of-center. I believe that civil disobedience is right in some cases. And I also believe that the concept of rule-of-law, carried out fairly and consistently, rocks. Just rocks. I grew up in some pretty lawless places, and a) lawlessness sucks, specially for poor people; and b) when confronted with anarchy/chaos, the majority will always opt for a strongman to bring "order." So—no, thanks. (Yes, history: many of these "leftists" look back at the hippie/rowdy late 60's with nostalgia, but conveniently forget that Nixon won twice.) So yes, please do not effing smoke on the subway.
The skyrocketing amount of antisocial behavior in public spaces makes me feel like I'm losing my mind. I do not have a car and have to take the train in Minneapolis most days and it's a mess. A woman was beaten within an inch of her life in the middle of the day on a train platform in the middle of the day on Monday.
People are completely unable to admit that they were wrong on the merits about the "no rules" thing. It's not working. Things were not like this ten years ago. We stopped enforcing the rules and conditions deteriorated, badly. It preceded the pandemic. You started letting people smoke meth on the train, you started letting kids throw chairs at teachers, you started letting people blow red lights, you started letting people carry trash bags of merchandise out of stores, and now this is what things are like. This is not complicated. It doesn't need to be unpacked by a six month series of public meetings organized by $1,000 an hour consultants that produce a 50 page PDF recommending another series of meetings. Jesus! Christ!
"I have no idea how anything that I’m saying could be controversial, but it no doubt will be."
On the one hand, yes, amen to the general point. On the other, there's some semi-strawmanning here, in that I don't think the attitude you describe is nearly as widely embraced among most progressives/leftists as you think. I mean, look at the ratios on the screenshotted tweets at the top of the page...
I am not a defund the police guy. I think it's a huge mistake for the left to adopt the attitude that the police have no place in society. But ... I also get where it comes from.
I mean, it seems like you disagree with Chris Hayes' conclusion in his "Smoker on the Subway Platform" scenario. So does that mean you'd prefer his "A" in that scenario (cops confront and arrest the person) above the "B" (nothing happens, no consequences)? Yes, that's a binary, but the whole point is that when law enforcement gets involved, things tend to get reduced things to a very stark binary.
In the subway platform scenario, I agree with Chris Hayes. I'd take B. In many other scenarios, I'd take A. Not sure about the "smoking in a subway car with a baby" one ... probably A? I think? Even if I know there's a good chance the offender is going to suffer a lot as a result, and perhaps their family as well, and etc? I dunno.
I think the elephant in the room is that the kind of no-rules leftist you're complaining about knows full well that more enforcement of current community standards almost assuredly will result in disparate impact on BIPOC persons, since community standards are set by the dominant culture. And said leftist has been thoroughly captured by an ideology that says the worst possible thing for a white person to do is use their power in a way that makes a BIPOC person mad.
Here: "Defund the police" means cutting economic perks to force them to do serious reforms.
And instantly firing cops for misconduct (like at every other job) thereby trimming millions in violent, shitty officers' pay, overtime, and lawsuit payouts that can then go to mental health care and economic opportunities. Yes, I know that one lady that one time wrote a dumb story in the NYT about how we REALLY mean get rid of ALL police, immediately.
And I know what I describe is "reform." But in our current world "reform" means "more diversity training" coupled with more money. Real reform can't happen without serious consequences—I bet cops would learn to do better real fast when they see their buddies lose their salaries and pensions. Yet, not a single actor in the system has the slightest incentive to do this.
I think defund was an unfortunate slogan. But I also think it's a mistake to take what the dumbest people on the internet say and present it as the totality of the idea.
Also for the love of god do not cast Soviet police in a positive light, they were the literal manifestation of your Planet of the Cops theory.
Whenever I voice this opinion online i'm shouted down as racist for giving the police the power to arrest delivery workers or something...but delivery workers are only a small slice of the problem. Walking to work involves 4-5 jump scares each time and I was hit last year. NYC is classically a pedestrian city, but having to dodge bikes, scooters and sometimes motorcycles ON THE SIDEWALK makes me want to move.
The long term solution is to make more/safer bike paths—but is that happening? Are the cyclists using them? Is the police enforcing this?
My vision of "defunding the police" is to figure out what problems are inefficiently addressed by simply dumping more cops onto the issue, and then put the money into addressing them more efficiently.
For example, in my city of Toronto, there is currently a TON of homeless people sheltering from shitty winter weather on public transit, and there were also many homeless encampments in parks over the summer. The conventional solution to this has been more (expensive) policing, which just plays whack-a-mole with homeless people, because there simply are not enough shelter spaces (much less supportive or affordable housing) to accommodate everyone.
Another example is road safety. It's much more effective to prevent collisions by designing streets that force you to drive slower and more carefully (as well as providing reasonable alternatives to driving) than it is to spend tons of money on cops with a speed gun.
Mental health is another good one. Plenty of examples of cities introducing mental health emergency response teams as alternatives to policing and the cops themselves saying "these guys are better at this than we are, and it means we're not tied up for hours on calls where we become social workers."
This is a great post and I think pairs well with this one- that if you want to give special dispensations to groups in need then you must ensure that those dispensations aren’t abused: https://dilanesper.substack.com/p/the-left-has-a-problem-with-cheaters
I've said this about the conduct of the local homeless population. It's male aggression and male entitlement. Economic deprivation does not absolve anyone of responsibility, nor does it nullify anyone else's expectations that other people follow rules. Mental illness is different, but that's not the topic.
Middle-class people have a right to expect that the rules they follow will be enforced. Their expectations are valid, and constantly telling them to follow rules when there are so many exceptions undermines the whole social contract. It's a power game, and it's obvious.
So if I move to NYC, not only are there mice and rats galore, I can at least wash my ass in the conference room without someone complaining to Feline Resources that i am making her uncomfortable?!?
Tell me more!
I'm admittedly spitballing here, but it doesn't seem that long ago that the left believed their ideas could not only withstand debate but would triumph. The plan seemed to be to win people over with the power of their ideas. For whatever reason, that strategy seems to have been abandoned in favor of bumper sticker propaganda. It's as though someone decided winning on the merits is just not worth pursuing anymore. Not sure how we got here.
Oh yes the idea of communal behavioural standards will absolutely send on any into a tailspin. I actually look forward to reading the comments, left, middle, right, just plain loony and my personal favorite “and how does this make sense”. Rock on Mr Freddy!!!!
Yes! Thank you! I am old enough that I remember a time when smoking was ubiquitous. My mom had eye surgery in the late 70s, and her roommate in the hospital was a chain smoker. People on the left worked hard to get smoking banned in indoor spaces so that people would be protected from smelly, toxic fumes on the job.
And now we seem to have backslid, to the point where some people on the left think it’s wrong to object to nasty behavior in public. But it is not a left position to allow some people to hurt other people; quite the contrary, we on the left should be speaking out against bullies, and praising those who, like this woman, spoke up for regular people who would like to get to work unmolested, by smoke, by harassment, or by anything else.
Good god Freddie, you have no excuse.... we have been here before, your thinking lost for the same reason then!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7d6VCFeGHI
Smoke em if you got em. Obviously. Ok. Next issue.
Ugh. Again, as always, thanks for this. One should be able to handle multiple thoughts and feelings at the same time. I consider myself well-left-of-center. I believe that civil disobedience is right in some cases. And I also believe that the concept of rule-of-law, carried out fairly and consistently, rocks. Just rocks. I grew up in some pretty lawless places, and a) lawlessness sucks, specially for poor people; and b) when confronted with anarchy/chaos, the majority will always opt for a strongman to bring "order." So—no, thanks. (Yes, history: many of these "leftists" look back at the hippie/rowdy late 60's with nostalgia, but conveniently forget that Nixon won twice.) So yes, please do not effing smoke on the subway.
The skyrocketing amount of antisocial behavior in public spaces makes me feel like I'm losing my mind. I do not have a car and have to take the train in Minneapolis most days and it's a mess. A woman was beaten within an inch of her life in the middle of the day on a train platform in the middle of the day on Monday.
People are completely unable to admit that they were wrong on the merits about the "no rules" thing. It's not working. Things were not like this ten years ago. We stopped enforcing the rules and conditions deteriorated, badly. It preceded the pandemic. You started letting people smoke meth on the train, you started letting kids throw chairs at teachers, you started letting people blow red lights, you started letting people carry trash bags of merchandise out of stores, and now this is what things are like. This is not complicated. It doesn't need to be unpacked by a six month series of public meetings organized by $1,000 an hour consultants that produce a 50 page PDF recommending another series of meetings. Jesus! Christ!
"I have no idea how anything that I’m saying could be controversial, but it no doubt will be."
On the one hand, yes, amen to the general point. On the other, there's some semi-strawmanning here, in that I don't think the attitude you describe is nearly as widely embraced among most progressives/leftists as you think. I mean, look at the ratios on the screenshotted tweets at the top of the page...
I am not a defund the police guy. I think it's a huge mistake for the left to adopt the attitude that the police have no place in society. But ... I also get where it comes from.
I mean, it seems like you disagree with Chris Hayes' conclusion in his "Smoker on the Subway Platform" scenario. So does that mean you'd prefer his "A" in that scenario (cops confront and arrest the person) above the "B" (nothing happens, no consequences)? Yes, that's a binary, but the whole point is that when law enforcement gets involved, things tend to get reduced things to a very stark binary.
In the subway platform scenario, I agree with Chris Hayes. I'd take B. In many other scenarios, I'd take A. Not sure about the "smoking in a subway car with a baby" one ... probably A? I think? Even if I know there's a good chance the offender is going to suffer a lot as a result, and perhaps their family as well, and etc? I dunno.
What about the whole "It's not cancel culture, it's accountability culture" line? Aren't there consequences for smoking in the non-smoking section?
I think the elephant in the room is that the kind of no-rules leftist you're complaining about knows full well that more enforcement of current community standards almost assuredly will result in disparate impact on BIPOC persons, since community standards are set by the dominant culture. And said leftist has been thoroughly captured by an ideology that says the worst possible thing for a white person to do is use their power in a way that makes a BIPOC person mad.
Here: "Defund the police" means cutting economic perks to force them to do serious reforms.
And instantly firing cops for misconduct (like at every other job) thereby trimming millions in violent, shitty officers' pay, overtime, and lawsuit payouts that can then go to mental health care and economic opportunities. Yes, I know that one lady that one time wrote a dumb story in the NYT about how we REALLY mean get rid of ALL police, immediately.
And I know what I describe is "reform." But in our current world "reform" means "more diversity training" coupled with more money. Real reform can't happen without serious consequences—I bet cops would learn to do better real fast when they see their buddies lose their salaries and pensions. Yet, not a single actor in the system has the slightest incentive to do this.
I think defund was an unfortunate slogan. But I also think it's a mistake to take what the dumbest people on the internet say and present it as the totality of the idea.
Also for the love of god do not cast Soviet police in a positive light, they were the literal manifestation of your Planet of the Cops theory.
I am a one issue voter: bikes off the sidewalk.
Whenever I voice this opinion online i'm shouted down as racist for giving the police the power to arrest delivery workers or something...but delivery workers are only a small slice of the problem. Walking to work involves 4-5 jump scares each time and I was hit last year. NYC is classically a pedestrian city, but having to dodge bikes, scooters and sometimes motorcycles ON THE SIDEWALK makes me want to move.
The long term solution is to make more/safer bike paths—but is that happening? Are the cyclists using them? Is the police enforcing this?
My vision of "defunding the police" is to figure out what problems are inefficiently addressed by simply dumping more cops onto the issue, and then put the money into addressing them more efficiently.
For example, in my city of Toronto, there is currently a TON of homeless people sheltering from shitty winter weather on public transit, and there were also many homeless encampments in parks over the summer. The conventional solution to this has been more (expensive) policing, which just plays whack-a-mole with homeless people, because there simply are not enough shelter spaces (much less supportive or affordable housing) to accommodate everyone.
Another example is road safety. It's much more effective to prevent collisions by designing streets that force you to drive slower and more carefully (as well as providing reasonable alternatives to driving) than it is to spend tons of money on cops with a speed gun.
Mental health is another good one. Plenty of examples of cities introducing mental health emergency response teams as alternatives to policing and the cops themselves saying "these guys are better at this than we are, and it means we're not tied up for hours on calls where we become social workers."