8 ms·

In my opinion, there was never any doubt that there would be over-policing. Rather, people doubt that they would belong to the over-policed parties. I hear simi

In my opinion, there was never any doubt that there would be over-policing. Rather, people doubt that they would belong to the over-policed parties. I hear similar arguments about NSF funding from my relatives: "yes, funding has been illegally cut, but it will not be cut for the people I know, only for the 'bad' researchers."

madaxe_again 11d ago
Leopards, faces, and all that jazz.
scotty79 11d ago
Calling fishing for vengance "overpolicing", that says a lot.
- GymInMeCricket 11d ago
  Appologies, but I don't know what you mean.
  - Hikikomori 11d ago
    Its a fair bit more than overpolicing. If you don't think it is hope that boot is tasty.
  - repeekad 11d ago
    Being anti police is a bit of a wedge in US politics, it's privileged to say we don't need as much police because the poorest communities are often who need it most. Abusing surveillance tools has nothing to do with legitimate policing, so "over-policing" is probably the wrong word.
    - wredcoll 11d ago
      > Being anti police is a bit of a wedge in US politics, it's privileged to say we don't need as much police because the poorest communities are often who need it most. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it sure sounds bad. Poor communities have frequently suffered the most from police forces, since by and large police are designed and funded by the wealthy to protect their interests.
      - decremental 11d ago
        [dead]
      - lokar 11d ago
        The origin of many (or most) of the first organized police forces in the US were to control slaves and catch runaways. The police have always been oriented towards protecting the wealthy from the poor.
      - jknoepfler 11d ago
        They have suffered from abuse because of unregulated police. They have not suffered because of police simpliciter. Police perform an important function. Unregulated, unchecked, untrained, militarized police taught that they are immune from prosecution for crimes against citizens do not. Drawing an equivalence between these two muddies the waters in an extremely unhelpful way. A well-regulated police force drawn from the population it is sworn to protect is a good thing. It's a hard, important job. And yes, it's obvious Flock was going to be abused and no I don't think a well-regulated police force should have access to pervasive surveillance. But that doesn't mean I want to do away with police in general. The whole ACAB narrative is one of the most deeply unpopular views of the American left, polling at something like 80% disapproval. I guess ACAB people think my friend who went to the police to report sexual abuse by her step father (leading to his arrest and incarceration) should have hired a... community councilor? A mercenary? Gotten out the community pitchforks? Because that ends well as a mechanism for justice? I genuinely don't know, but I think people who want less policing (as opposed to accountability, transparency, and demilitarization) aren't thinking very clearly.
        wredcoll 11d ago
        > They have not suffered because of police simpliciter They also suffered from a lack of point to point teleportation. Or, I mean, they would if that existed. The point being that it's not terribly useful to talk about things that only exist in theory. Police, rather by definition are regulated by the people with money because they can afford it. The people in "poor neighborhoods" can't afford to pay for police. > Drawing an equivalence between these two muddies the waters in an extremely unhelpful way. Says the person trying to change the topic of discussion to hypothetical ideal instead of the world we actually live in. As for ACAB and its polling, well, that's like saying "socialism polls badly", it probably does, but also nobody answering the polls actually agrees on how to define it. There is an absolutely massive amount of (american) propaganda devoted entirely to portraying police in the best possible light and influencing people towards that end. We have endless movies and tv shows and books and cable news shows and radio talk shows and on and on. > I guess ACAB people think my friend who went to the police to report sexual abuse by her step father (leading to his arrest and incarceration) should have hired a... community councilor? No, literally nobody thinks that and it's a pretty sad attempt at rhetoric to suggest it. > but I think people who want less policing (as opposed to accountability, transparency, and demilitarization) aren't thinking very clearly. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to draw a distinction here, if you actually look at americans, you can pretty easily divide them into two groups, one of which that wants "transparency and demilitarization" and one of which wants a police force with more military style weapons and equipment, and if you are on the side of demilitarization, then guess what, you're on the same side as everyone yelling acab. You aren't some kind of special person who can some how see the perfect compromise between all positions that everyone else has missed. "Police should be monitored by a complete separate agency with no chain of command in common with the police force, answerable to voters in a more direct way, as well as trained to de-escalate situations and held accountable for their crimes" doesn't fit on a placard and it's hard to chant. ACAB is a lot shorter. Also, as a final takeaway, the phrase is "a few bad apples SPOILS THE ENTIRE BARREL" not "a few bad apples are perfectly fine and nobody minds them". I'm sure most police aren't actually committing crimes and abuse of power. But they also refuse to hold the ones that do accountable and are therefor 100% complicit with all the abuses.
    - mohamedkoubaa 11d ago
      Associating the term policing with legitimacy is not something every person defaults to
    - AngryData 11d ago
      The poorest communities are the punching bags for police. It is the wealthy communities that don't care because they have money for lawyers to make charges disappear and connections to make cops play nice in their communities, poor people with public defenders don't and cops and courts know it and use them as easy funding/extortion.
  - 9x39 11d ago
    Overpolicing is the term used by one side that claims that any disparities in crime rates along demographic lines are due to an excess of police activity rather than any other factors. Malfeasance is the $10 word that's probably more appropriate here for the actions of officers intentionally abusing the systems their authority grants access to.
    - GymInMeCricket 11d ago
      By "over-policing" I meant something like "fishing for a crime."
      - overfeed 11d ago
        i.e. if some crazy, cartoon villain scientist were to create the perfect tool to enable fishing for crimes, the Flock cameras and drones would be the first.
      - joquarky 11d ago
        Even Sim City implemented this concept decades ago. If you overfunded the police, you would get "complaints" about tickets for jaywalking and lose approval.
  - rgbrenner 11d ago
    I think he's saying fishing for evidence is not "policing", since fishing for evidence is illegal, and therefore not within the bounds of the job.
    - GymInMeCricket 11d ago
      Thank you. Then he and I are probably in agreement, and my choice of words was incorrect. Illegal searches/stalking is a subset of the harmful actions I had in mind.
  - wlesieutre 11d ago
    It’s a tweet from 10ish years ago ‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party IIRC originally posted in reference to anti-trans women who voted Republican and were shocked to find out that women’s rights weren’t a priority
    - blooalien 11d ago
      For Reference: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards-eating-peoples-faces-party https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards-eating-peoples-faces...
      - wlesieutre 7d ago
        But in hindsight, I misread what grandparent comment was replying to so my explanation is for a question nobody asked. Whoops!
bko 11d ago
> Rather, people doubt that they would belong to the over-policed parties I don't think the people recording regular police interactions and refusing police instructions when stopped ever had any doubt about being over-policed. > NSF funding from my relatives: "yes, funding has been illegally cut,..." How is a cut illegal? Does any additional dollar in funding have to persist for all of eternity. For reference: | FY | NSF appropriation | | 1952 | $4M | | 1960 | $153M | | 1970 | $440M | | 1980 | $992M | | 1990 | $2.08B | | 2000 | $3.91B | | 2010 | $6.87B | | 2020 | $8.21B | | 2024 | $9.06B | | 2025 | $9.06B | | 2026 | $8.75B |
- Forgeties79 11d ago
  The cuts can be illegal if one doesn’t have the authority to cut it and/or violates the procedures required.
  - bko 11d ago
    [flagged]
    - Forgeties79 11d ago
      > You're trying to back into a position that you read in some article and trying to come off as just an impartial judge who cares about procedure and rule of law. Excuse me? I was answering the question, I didn’t say anything beyond that. Ease off the gas. Also, based on your other comment chain it looks like Congress did not approve it. But I don’t know enough about the specific cut to say either way. You came in here with a clear ax to grind and decided I was going to be your target. Don’t project your anger at some caricature on to me. Take a beat.
- odo1242 11d ago
  Government funding must be approved by Congress. If Congress already approved funding the NSF, then it has to be Congress that removes the funding.
  - 11d ago

madaxe_again 11d ago

Leopards, faces, and all that jazz.

scotty79 11d ago

Calling fishing for vengance "overpolicing", that says a lot.

GymInMeCricket 11d ago
Appologies, but I don't know what you mean.
- Hikikomori 11d ago
  Its a fair bit more than overpolicing. If you don't think it is hope that boot is tasty.
- repeekad 11d ago
  Being anti police is a bit of a wedge in US politics, it's privileged to say we don't need as much police because the poorest communities are often who need it most. Abusing surveillance tools has nothing to do with legitimate policing, so "over-policing" is probably the wrong word.
  - wredcoll 11d ago
    > Being anti police is a bit of a wedge in US politics, it's privileged to say we don't need as much police because the poorest communities are often who need it most. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it sure sounds bad. Poor communities have frequently suffered the most from police forces, since by and large police are designed and funded by the wealthy to protect their interests.
    - decremental 11d ago
      [dead]
    - lokar 11d ago
      The origin of many (or most) of the first organized police forces in the US were to control slaves and catch runaways. The police have always been oriented towards protecting the wealthy from the poor.
    - jknoepfler 11d ago
      They have suffered from abuse because of unregulated police. They have not suffered because of police simpliciter. Police perform an important function. Unregulated, unchecked, untrained, militarized police taught that they are immune from prosecution for crimes against citizens do not. Drawing an equivalence between these two muddies the waters in an extremely unhelpful way. A well-regulated police force drawn from the population it is sworn to protect is a good thing. It's a hard, important job. And yes, it's obvious Flock was going to be abused and no I don't think a well-regulated police force should have access to pervasive surveillance. But that doesn't mean I want to do away with police in general. The whole ACAB narrative is one of the most deeply unpopular views of the American left, polling at something like 80% disapproval. I guess ACAB people think my friend who went to the police to report sexual abuse by her step father (leading to his arrest and incarceration) should have hired a... community councilor? A mercenary? Gotten out the community pitchforks? Because that ends well as a mechanism for justice? I genuinely don't know, but I think people who want less policing (as opposed to accountability, transparency, and demilitarization) aren't thinking very clearly.
      - wredcoll 11d ago
        > They have not suffered because of police simpliciter They also suffered from a lack of point to point teleportation. Or, I mean, they would if that existed. The point being that it's not terribly useful to talk about things that only exist in theory. Police, rather by definition are regulated by the people with money because they can afford it. The people in "poor neighborhoods" can't afford to pay for police. > Drawing an equivalence between these two muddies the waters in an extremely unhelpful way. Says the person trying to change the topic of discussion to hypothetical ideal instead of the world we actually live in. As for ACAB and its polling, well, that's like saying "socialism polls badly", it probably does, but also nobody answering the polls actually agrees on how to define it. There is an absolutely massive amount of (american) propaganda devoted entirely to portraying police in the best possible light and influencing people towards that end. We have endless movies and tv shows and books and cable news shows and radio talk shows and on and on. > I guess ACAB people think my friend who went to the police to report sexual abuse by her step father (leading to his arrest and incarceration) should have hired a... community councilor? No, literally nobody thinks that and it's a pretty sad attempt at rhetoric to suggest it. > but I think people who want less policing (as opposed to accountability, transparency, and demilitarization) aren't thinking very clearly. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to draw a distinction here, if you actually look at americans, you can pretty easily divide them into two groups, one of which that wants "transparency and demilitarization" and one of which wants a police force with more military style weapons and equipment, and if you are on the side of demilitarization, then guess what, you're on the same side as everyone yelling acab. You aren't some kind of special person who can some how see the perfect compromise between all positions that everyone else has missed. "Police should be monitored by a complete separate agency with no chain of command in common with the police force, answerable to voters in a more direct way, as well as trained to de-escalate situations and held accountable for their crimes" doesn't fit on a placard and it's hard to chant. ACAB is a lot shorter. Also, as a final takeaway, the phrase is "a few bad apples SPOILS THE ENTIRE BARREL" not "a few bad apples are perfectly fine and nobody minds them". I'm sure most police aren't actually committing crimes and abuse of power. But they also refuse to hold the ones that do accountable and are therefor 100% complicit with all the abuses.
  - mohamedkoubaa 11d ago
    Associating the term policing with legitimacy is not something every person defaults to
  - AngryData 11d ago
    The poorest communities are the punching bags for police. It is the wealthy communities that don't care because they have money for lawyers to make charges disappear and connections to make cops play nice in their communities, poor people with public defenders don't and cops and courts know it and use them as easy funding/extortion.
- 9x39 11d ago
  Overpolicing is the term used by one side that claims that any disparities in crime rates along demographic lines are due to an excess of police activity rather than any other factors. Malfeasance is the $10 word that's probably more appropriate here for the actions of officers intentionally abusing the systems their authority grants access to.
  - GymInMeCricket 11d ago
    By "over-policing" I meant something like "fishing for a crime."
    - overfeed 11d ago
      i.e. if some crazy, cartoon villain scientist were to create the perfect tool to enable fishing for crimes, the Flock cameras and drones would be the first.
    - joquarky 11d ago
      Even Sim City implemented this concept decades ago. If you overfunded the police, you would get "complaints" about tickets for jaywalking and lose approval.
- rgbrenner 11d ago
  I think he's saying fishing for evidence is not "policing", since fishing for evidence is illegal, and therefore not within the bounds of the job.
  - GymInMeCricket 11d ago
    Thank you. Then he and I are probably in agreement, and my choice of words was incorrect. Illegal searches/stalking is a subset of the harmful actions I had in mind.
- wlesieutre 11d ago
  It’s a tweet from 10ish years ago ‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party IIRC originally posted in reference to anti-trans women who voted Republican and were shocked to find out that women’s rights weren’t a priority
  - blooalien 11d ago
    For Reference: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards-eating-peoples-faces-party https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards-eating-peoples-faces...
    - wlesieutre 7d ago
      But in hindsight, I misread what grandparent comment was replying to so my explanation is for a question nobody asked. Whoops!

bko 11d ago

> Rather, people doubt that they would belong to the over-policed parties I don't think the people recording regular police interactions and refusing police instructions when stopped ever had any doubt about being over-policed. > NSF funding from my relatives: "yes, funding has been illegally cut,..." How is a cut illegal? Does any additional dollar in funding have to persist for all of eternity. For reference: | FY | NSF appropriation | | 1952 | $4M | | 1960 | $153M | | 1970 | $440M | | 1980 | $992M | | 1990 | $2.08B | | 2000 | $3.91B | | 2010 | $6.87B | | 2020 | $8.21B | | 2024 | $9.06B | | 2025 | $9.06B | | 2026 | $8.75B |

Forgeties79 11d ago
The cuts can be illegal if one doesn’t have the authority to cut it and/or violates the procedures required.
- bko 11d ago
  [flagged]
  - Forgeties79 11d ago
    > You're trying to back into a position that you read in some article and trying to come off as just an impartial judge who cares about procedure and rule of law. Excuse me? I was answering the question, I didn’t say anything beyond that. Ease off the gas. Also, based on your other comment chain it looks like Congress did not approve it. But I don’t know enough about the specific cut to say either way. You came in here with a clear ax to grind and decided I was going to be your target. Don’t project your anger at some caricature on to me. Take a beat.
odo1242 11d ago
Government funding must be approved by Congress. If Congress already approved funding the NSF, then it has to be Congress that removes the funding.
- 11d ago