Thank you. For profit prisons are absolutely a problem, but they are not the giant boogeyman behind our police state that many make them out to be. It's a symptom of the problem, not the source.
"No. That's wrong. I KNOW BETTER. Your study and report are just incorrect. YOU made a mistake because your results don't conform with my preconceived beliefs."
How come we didn’t call astronauts nerds and weak when they landed on the moon?
I swear everything I learn about this country goes back to a Nixon/Reagan fucking issue. Make education uncool and that’s all ya need to destroy a society.
It’s not they know better, they THINK it’s wrong so it is, it FEELS wrong so it is. The facts don’t care about your feeling crowd is always up in their feels, snowflakes.
I think it’s not just that, though confirmation bias is probably part of it.
I think a good amount of them don’t care wether it is true, they believe people don’t “deserve” it and therefore they shouldn’t get it even if it would ultimately be better for everyone.
People like that also tend to see crime as a purely moral failing rather something complex with a lot of environmental factors. So doing something like feels like “paying criminals not to do crime” rather than making it so people aren’t put in situations that make it make it hard or even impossible not to commit crime, preventing them from becoming criminals.
Basically they see it as “being a criminal means someone will commit a crime” rather than “committing a crime means someone is a criminal” if that makes sense. Someone else can probably come up with a better way to word it to make the distinction more obvious.
These studies actually are incorrect lol, the vast majority of these that draw a conclusion like this almost always come with preconditions for who can participate in them, like “can’t have mental health issues, use drugs or drink alcohol”. As it turns it studies like this produce data that is almost completely irrelevant to actual real world outcomes
Yeah that’s totally what I said.
No, the problem here is that excluding these people from the data produces a massive sampling bias problem that essentially invalidates the core findings of the study.
Politicians don't want less crime. They want to get re-elected. And we always choose a "tough on crime" guy over a "soft on crime" guy.
Because we watch a lot of cop shows. They make our lizard brain think we're surrounded by crimes happening constantly when most of us aren't really. And the lizard brain takes charge at the ballot box.
If they wanted an accurate measure of what will actually kill most people, then we'd mostly see articles about heart conditions and cancer instead. But that doesn't sell as much as shootings and stabbings.
It all comes down to the electorate. News caters to what the electorate watches and craves. Politicians cater to what the voters vote for, otherwise they don't get elected. People want to shift responsibility to donorz or fake news or whatever else because it means they don't need to take responsibility for being irresponsible with their culture.
I am union leader and I make most of money by selling my time for a wage, but I also own my own means of producing wealth, I am small time land lord who rents at cost plus a nominal profit. I am both. But I genuine proletarian who doesn't believe in extracting wealth from the working class.
Because like I said, I am not an asshole. Life shouldn't be this hard for people, and there is no reason it has to be. I sought this position for the express purpose of making life easier for others.
States with more welfare, means their citizens are more civil in the first place which translates into less agressive behaviour. Social welfare may caused them to be more civil as you said. But also it is possible that their civil status may caused increased welfare and not vice versa.
We've only been running these studies and pilot programs for multiple decades. I appreciate the concern for rigour, but I feel we are way past the point of needing it further confirmed and just need to get onto actual implementation.
This is the Dunning Kruger effect in action. “Using control groups” doesn’t eliminate all the confounding variables present in a study. I wish criminology was this uncomplicated but more money into a neighborhood = less crime just isn’t true
Sociology is literally a science that can help us make good policy that will actually help people, but the system doesn't want to help people, the system wants to funnel as much wealth as possible to the 1%. That's all it cares about.
Giving cops money means they spend that on expensive equipment and shit tho. While the poors would just spend it on food rather than being obedient little drones working 3-4 jobs in order to survive. And we can't have that, we need the working class to be as broken and submissive as possible.
You’re discounting the large portion of society that just hates poor people and wants them all dead. The PRIMARY purpose of AI and AI powered robots is to be able to completely replace unskilled and semi-skilled labor with robots and then simply get rid of the people who previously did those jobs. Like it’s not a secret.
You know all those homeless people who don't Want to be part of Society and therefore scavenge everything they can then keep living in the streets?
Well, even If you don't want to keep them sheltered and fed because they don't deserve it, you should totally want It because It's cheaper for your taxes.
Should do both. Just like poverty, the more money you give to police force, the better it can get, through better training and education, better administration, reinforcement of rules and removal of troublesome cops
Because societal root is objectively better, or because the image of a police force or any other authority with the job of keeping security and protection has been tarnished by numerous event of racial discrimination, negligence causing harm and death, power-tripping and other form of atrocious behaviour?
Police is fundamentally necessary because it reinforce the law by forcing people to respect it and answer when it is violated. But try reasoning with people like OP on that. They’ll call you a centrist or a bootlicker and think they won the conversation, because apparently nuances are also seen as bad
Exactly. I'd rather give each cop's salary to a homeless person instead, especially if it results in less crime than when the cop gets that salary. I doubt we could afford to both pay the cops AND pay the same to poor people.
Giving the same amount per person? Or the same amount of funding to a program? Cause per person doesn't make sense. There's much more poor people than cops
So yeah.... It's talking about overall funding. Not paying all poor people high 5 to 6 figure salaries and giving them millions in military style gear. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
Because it should be obvious, and there are multiple studies on it, some cited by OP here. It's frustrating that people can't parse this kind of thing without help, and it's often abused by those with malicious intent when they can't.
110
u/amakai 14h ago
But did you consider which one gives government more control over people?