7 ms·

Sure, security is a good idea, but how far do you want to escalate it? If you visit a higher-end store or a bank in Latin America or the Caribbean you'll likel

by _l4lu 5y ago

Sure, security is a good idea, but how far do you want to escalate it? If you visit a higher-end store or a bank in Latin America or the Caribbean you'll likely see a security guard or two with a shotgun. I'm not anti-gun, but I don't want to live in an environment where this is the norm. The ultimate root cause is extreme inequality driving some people to act out. If people's lives are generally tolerable, fewer will feel justified in stealing a luxury item. I think it's less about the handbag and more about giving a middle finger to the established order. And no, I'm not saying we should give criminals carte blanche, or that the status quo is fine. But there is certainly a correlation between inequality and crime and focusing only on security isn't the whole answer.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I'm not sure that I want to live in an environment where, while I'm peacefully shopping in a store, a bunch of people with crowbars race in and start smashing things either.
aerostable_slug 5y ago
> The ultimate root cause is extreme inequality driving some people to act out. Inequality isn't driving opportunistic looting. Inequality really doesn't drive organized retail crime rings. Those are convenient excuses for persons who have chosen not to participate in mainstream society. The number of zeros in Elon Musk's daily net worth has nothing to do with the actions of opportunistic criminals who are able and willing to rationalize their actions with no need for anyone's help ("insurance will pay"; "big corporations" "they have lots of money anyway"; "the stores overcharge"; "I have Righteous Anger"; "only violence and crime draws attention to protests"; and, of course, "I want that now").
- nzmsv 5y ago
  I get it, I really do. This is an attack on our collective sense of security and it's close to home. The people who did this are in the wrong. But: do you generally associate a calm peaceful society with a lot of security or little? Typically it's dictatorships that have soldiers with automatic rifles patrolling the streets, or failed states that are being run by the military. Tons of security, but does it feel safe?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    That's the wrong question, though. A calm peaceful society, with low enforcement of security, is obviously the ideal. But increasingly it is not an available option. The available options are mayhem with low security, or higher enforcement of security. So far as I can tell, those are the only available options. So, which of those do you prefer? Sure, tons of security feels unsafe. But a mob charging into a store with crowbars and smashing things doesn't feel very safe, either. (I mean, so far they're just smashing display cases instead of customers' heads, but still...)
    - nzmsv 5y ago
      It seems crazy to me that we don't even consider a calm and peaceful society as an available option. Those bad people are bad. How they got that way - who cares. Cue the downvotes. Canada doesn't need to pick either of these extremes. Most of Europe used to not have this problem until they had an influx of people in desperate conditions. Small towns in the US didn't need to pick between these extremes (most people never locked their doors) until recently. Somehow it used to work. Rather than asking what broke we'd rather apply a bandaid fix to the most obvious issue. It just seems bizarre that the same people who rightly call out a "let's ban all guns forever" type of knee-jerk reaction have knee-jerk reactions of their own when it favors their biases. Security good, welfare bad. Experience from other places could never work here. Never look at the broader picture, if someone tries to then they are changing the subject.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Sure, let's try to fix the people. Let's try to fix the conditions that led to them being that way, too. But while we're doing that, let's not let them destroy society. So maybe I should say that at the moment we don't seem to have the option of picking a calm and peaceful society without a huge security presence. That's based on the available evidence. But you're right, let's try to make that untrue in the future.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    You're changing the subject. Also, the UK has famously saturated their streets with CCTV. It's unclear how effective that's been. For a nation whose subjects often criticize the militarization of US policing, their armed police and CT police in major cities look like black- and grey-suited cop-SAS operators, sometimes driven around on the backs of motorcycles (which, admittedly, is kinda cool). And I've noticed that even with CCTV, crime's not great, though it doesn't hurt that the locals there seem to complain less about privacy than we do here. To your question: if we want things to be better without constant patrols, we need enforcement: early, often, and vigorous. NYC cleaned itself up from what it was to how it was when I lived there (I can't speak to today). Other cities can, too. Hammer the offenders — don't give them the kid glove treatment and then apologize for how their unfortunate circumstance in life really makes this all the victim's fault. Give them some Quiet Time behind bars to reconsider their life's choices. Give 'em the tough love they didn't get as children. It's pretty much too late to fix a blown childhood because their parent wouldn't read to them, at least until offenders age out naturally. When are we going to get realistic? That said, what with The City's leadership and the habits of our fellow voters, I fear Union Square is going to empty out even more and our economy will continue to hemorrhage dollars towards no real effect (except good feels). And life will get measurably worse for our service industry workers and many others.

by _l4lu 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I'm not sure that I want to live in an environment where, while I'm peacefully shopping in a store, a bunch of people with crowbars race in and start smashing things either.

aerostable_slug 5y ago

> The ultimate root cause is extreme inequality driving some people to act out. Inequality isn't driving opportunistic looting. Inequality really doesn't drive organized retail crime rings. Those are convenient excuses for persons who have chosen not to participate in mainstream society. The number of zeros in Elon Musk's daily net worth has nothing to do with the actions of opportunistic criminals who are able and willing to rationalize their actions with no need for anyone's help ("insurance will pay"; "big corporations" "they have lots of money anyway"; "the stores overcharge"; "I have Righteous Anger"; "only violence and crime draws attention to protests"; and, of course, "I want that now").

nzmsv 5y ago
I get it, I really do. This is an attack on our collective sense of security and it's close to home. The people who did this are in the wrong. But: do you generally associate a calm peaceful society with a lot of security or little? Typically it's dictatorships that have soldiers with automatic rifles patrolling the streets, or failed states that are being run by the military. Tons of security, but does it feel safe?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  That's the wrong question, though. A calm peaceful society, with low enforcement of security, is obviously the ideal. But increasingly it is not an available option. The available options are mayhem with low security, or higher enforcement of security. So far as I can tell, those are the only available options. So, which of those do you prefer? Sure, tons of security feels unsafe. But a mob charging into a store with crowbars and smashing things doesn't feel very safe, either. (I mean, so far they're just smashing display cases instead of customers' heads, but still...)
  - nzmsv 5y ago
    It seems crazy to me that we don't even consider a calm and peaceful society as an available option. Those bad people are bad. How they got that way - who cares. Cue the downvotes. Canada doesn't need to pick either of these extremes. Most of Europe used to not have this problem until they had an influx of people in desperate conditions. Small towns in the US didn't need to pick between these extremes (most people never locked their doors) until recently. Somehow it used to work. Rather than asking what broke we'd rather apply a bandaid fix to the most obvious issue. It just seems bizarre that the same people who rightly call out a "let's ban all guns forever" type of knee-jerk reaction have knee-jerk reactions of their own when it favors their biases. Security good, welfare bad. Experience from other places could never work here. Never look at the broader picture, if someone tries to then they are changing the subject.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Sure, let's try to fix the people. Let's try to fix the conditions that led to them being that way, too. But while we're doing that, let's not let them destroy society. So maybe I should say that at the moment we don't seem to have the option of picking a calm and peaceful society without a huge security presence. That's based on the available evidence. But you're right, let's try to make that untrue in the future.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  You're changing the subject. Also, the UK has famously saturated their streets with CCTV. It's unclear how effective that's been. For a nation whose subjects often criticize the militarization of US policing, their armed police and CT police in major cities look like black- and grey-suited cop-SAS operators, sometimes driven around on the backs of motorcycles (which, admittedly, is kinda cool). And I've noticed that even with CCTV, crime's not great, though it doesn't hurt that the locals there seem to complain less about privacy than we do here. To your question: if we want things to be better without constant patrols, we need enforcement: early, often, and vigorous. NYC cleaned itself up from what it was to how it was when I lived there (I can't speak to today). Other cities can, too. Hammer the offenders — don't give them the kid glove treatment and then apologize for how their unfortunate circumstance in life really makes this all the victim's fault. Give them some Quiet Time behind bars to reconsider their life's choices. Give 'em the tough love they didn't get as children. It's pretty much too late to fix a blown childhood because their parent wouldn't read to them, at least until offenders age out naturally. When are we going to get realistic? That said, what with The City's leadership and the habits of our fellow voters, I fear Union Square is going to empty out even more and our economy will continue to hemorrhage dollars towards no real effect (except good feels). And life will get measurably worse for our service industry workers and many others.