That cartoon unintentionally proves the point of those who oppose Defund: The author either intentionally or accidentally discards the stones marked "Theft", "Gang Violence", and "Domestic Violence." Who should response to a gang shooting, a theft, or someone in the middle of beating up their spouse/partner, if not the police?
I agree that addressing underlying causes would reduce those problems but it would take decades even if we went all in on fixing those things. What exactly do we do about them in the mean time?
Many people seem to take it to mean that. It even seems like some are trying to implement it that way. Catchy slogans tend to result in shitty implementations.
Sure, just like no one actually knows what "critical race theory" actually means. A concerted effort to encourage these misunderstandings hardly helps.
Instead of being passive aggressive with this psuedo-scoratic bullshit, why don't you just say outright what you mean? You're talking about covid.
A global pandemic is a shitty excuse for these hyper-local phenomena. It's not covid; it's the voting public of San Francisco (and two or three other west coast cities) and the disastrous politicians they elect.
These comics (and the ones suggesting "defunding police" will lead to school funding) are essentially a trick because 1. reducing police funding won't lead to money going to those other places 2. half those things are done under the police department 3. the other half are much more expensive than police funding.
Affordable housing is a notable case of the last one, it's very very expensive to build in SF and nobody actually wants it. The reason people dislike "luxury housing" is that it actually exists, so they want "affordable housing" because they know it won't happen. When it actually shows up, they oppose it too.
It does demonstrate that anything presented in cartoon form is probably false, because the people drawing cartoons are not specialists in whatever the topic is. Basically Gell-Mann Amnesia.
> These comics (and the ones suggesting "defunding police" will lead to school funding) are essentially a trick because 1. reducing police funding won't lead to money going to those other places 2. half those things are done under the police department 3. the other half are much more expensive than police funding.
You should look in to the defund proposals, then, because that's what they're typically advocating; moving these responsibilities (and their funding) out of the police department.
> "Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources.
I have, which is why I already responded to this with "reducing police funding won't lead to money going to those other places".
"Education" is a trick because the same taxes don't fund police (cities) and education (school districts). Making one go down wouldn't cause the other to go up, or even increase voter support for it.
Can you clarify: Are you asserting it's literally impossible, along the lines of being actively unconstitutional or impossible in some fashion, or that "well voters won't want to"?
