This comment is pretty much the definition of a straw-man argument. You're presenting an extreme opinion as the opinion of hundreds of millions of human beings. Just adding to the hate in the world.
1: https://twitter.com/search?q=cops%20common%20from%3Agreg_dou...
2: https://news.gallup.com/poll/393119/americans-remain-steadfa...
If you really think that a significant chunk of Americans actually believe something akin to “literally every police action historically and every practice is ok” then you’re totally delusional.
No one thinks that. These super general polls are terrible because they really just serve to confuse. But what’s worse is when people who should know better latch into them because it makes the other side look bad.
The fact commenters here actually think that people who generally happy with law enforcement are also in agreement with every action taken is a really bad look on them, it shows they are happy to reduce their opponents to strawmen publicly, and also that they think that sort of argument is convincing.
For example, I think we need more and better policing in general. I’m happy they exist, but obviously they can be dramatically better. There’s any number of polls that would capture me as status quo. Yet the truth is so far from that - obviously police have a ton of stupid policies, laws are flawed, abuses are rampant. It’s just my solution isn’t removing police or whatever, it’s a case by case fix for each issue.
You can be pro anything but also anti abuses within it. I could come up with a massive amount of strawmen against liberals this way and you’d rightly point out similar refutations.
As far as what I assumed about the "worshippers" comment, I didn't think it was meant to be taken literally. If nothing else that comment can be taken as an indication of how some people perceive those who politically defended the police during recent protests. It's hard for them to understand why nothing has changed.
> It’s just my solution isn’t removing police or whatever, it’s a case by case fix for each issue.
There are several systemic problems with policing in the U.S. The whole idea of "internal affairs" is the biggest, and maybe the most straight-forward to fix. Why are the police allowed to investigate themselves? That is totally inconsistent with the idea of checks-and-balances in our political systems, and should be changed. There seems to be a culture in police departments protecting bad cops, and nothing is being done to change that.
There's so many things we could be doing better, but too often all we get from our representatives are platitudes and partisanship.
A different way to look at it is that nearly half supports defunding the police - one large city in the US had nearly 50% support for a referendum to abolish the police department entirely.
That's not a majority, no, but it's also much larger than would have been the case five or even ten years ago. To imply that the public discourse hasn't had measurable impact on public opinion is missing the mark.
So places actually hurt by crime tend to support the police. Because the medium place actually hurt by crime is somewhere like suburban Louisiana.
It is not "completely wrong". It is only somewhat wrong if taken literally as stated, because due to extremely strong political correctness norms, the crucial variable is typically left unmentioned in public. However, most Americans who have the above quoted belief, also understand the impact of that crucial variable. That crucial variable is, of course, how many black Americans live in the area. Once you control for that, you will indeed observe that Democratic cities have higher crime than Republican suburbs. This is why your example was Louisiana, which has very high black population, and so the suburbs have much higher percentage of black residents than other places around the country.
The reason why people think Democratic-ran cities have high crime compared to Republican suburbs, despite the country-level correlation analysis makes nonclear or even wrong, is that they do not do country wide analysis, but instead they look at a particular city close to them, and the actual suburbs and rural areas around it, and if you do that, the pattern actually is obvious, including in Louisiana. The fact that it breaks down on the national level is just Simpson's paradox.
I change my example to New Mexico. 80% White. Very high crime in both metro and nonmetro areas, with nonmetro higher.
I'm not sure exactly what data analysis you're describing. You might find this breakdown of death by assault by state and metro/nonmetro. This dataset doesn't have perpetrator race, so I restricted victim race to white. In the US perpetrator and victim race correlate strongly.
The statistic you’re referring to misleadingly disregards regional patterns in violent crime. Southerners are more violent than folks in the northeast, and midwesterners are somewhere in between. But within each region the bill of violent crime is still concentrated in the, usually blue, cities in those states.
It looks to me like the left dislikes the justice system and local police because of inequality. The right doesn’t like the federal breadth of powers.
Plenty of people express skepticism of the scope of government power in the abstract. Anecdotally they almost all behave inconsistently when things get a little more concrete.
I tend to assume that when people say "reduce government power" they mean "the government should keep helping me, and stop helping others". So far that's nearly always been right.
For example many Republicans have (correctly) condemned the treatment of the Jan 6 traitors by the system. They say it's wrong for someone to have to live in a cell flooded with raw sewage, yet they don't care their local jail treats ordinary people similarly.
A related example is abortion. Traditionally Republicans said they wanted to delegate abortion regulation to states. After they won that some started to say the Federal Government should ban abortion. Very very few Republicans condemned that.
I've focused on right-wing examples because their motivated reasoning has had more significant impact recently in this area. But the left exhibits similar flaws. Plenty of "in this house we believe" families that call the cops on people peacefully minding their own business because they felt uncomfortable.
The issue with hyperbole is when the response falls into one of the following buckets.
Hyperbole is taken literally by those who miss its intention.
Hyperbole is taken literally by those who abuse its intention; sometimes known as trolling.
The literal read is a math equation. People in tech often 'do the math' in their heads.
Patience for these misunderstandings is advised.
This is likely a bad faith argument with reference to an actual fallacy to give it the air of pseudo legitimacy.
To use a bad faith interpretation to attack a non-existent position is pretty effective.
Yeah… hyperbole is in now way unique to tech. The arrogance of this site sometimes.