Let us also acknowledged that we're living in the safest time in history and modern American cities are extremely safe, despite the unhinged propaganda from the right.
In my opinion apps like the Citizen[0] app are some of the worst offenders. They constantly bombard you with scary notifications, creating a constant environment of fear. With that app people are constantly aware of things that are happening in your general area without any real benefit of informing you. It turns the mildly-annoying-but-ignoreable mentally ill person on the street corner from someone that "scares" the 10 people around them into someone that scares 10k people in the area.
Oh, and Citizen is also directly integrated into Axon's Flock-like surveillance product.
[0]: https://citizen.com/
However, it appears that when I looked at the list of investors earlier, I've missed that Peter Thiel is among them. So yeah, there are clear political ties.
I’m not disagreeing with the trend, but it effects people differently.
It is not "unhinged propaganda from the right" for people living in those cities to wonder why the rate cannot be under 2.5 per 100,000 like it is in most European cities. Except for a few years in the early 2000s, London's rate has stayed below 2.5 for the last 250 years.
PS Tracking crime stats is tough as property crime is inconsistently reported. This is why you often see criminologists take murder stats and only murder stats in their analysis and then estimate other crime stats back from that. Basically, once people realize the police won't investigate property crime, they stop reporting things that aren't insured.
The random smattering of shoplifting is never reported, the unhoused man in a fit of rage yelling at passers-by is never filed with the police. But in the privacy of the voting booth, people will vote for more Flock cameras.
Instead of waving off concerns we should be addressing them better.
"the unhoused man in a fit of rage yelling at passers-by is never filed with the police"
Good. That's not a crime.
If we don't make better governance possible, we make Flock inevitable.
Just because much of the public think of the homeless as an eyesore that they don't want to see, and they make them briefly face uncomfortable realities, doesn't justify blanketing cities with cops and cameras.
"shooing them away constantly" is also not the only option, but the bare point is the sidewalk has a purpose and it isn't housing. If the government can't enforce that, what else can it not enforce? The unhoused person needs better options and incentives and there are people far more qualified than me to tell us what they are, but they all agree the street is about the worst place for them.
This speaks volumes on the state of the US.
It is actually true. In pretty much any other country this will be "people don't trust the government? Well, guess what? We does not care".
Meanwhile the police say (and act) that they aren't legally required to protect you [1].
The public is screaming for solutions, today you'll scream back at Flock, tomorrow there will be another "solution".
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
It probably loops back to better mental health care provision? But might also relate to provision of social housing? Or any number of things. These sorts of indicators can feed into a 'gross happiness quotient' to help us focus on improving society for all of us, not just feeding the greed of the billionaires which a lot of Western society seems to be subservient to right now.
You already came to the proper conclusion by just thinking about it for a few minutes. Let's just skip building out a surveillance state, and put that money directly into mental health & housing initiatives instead.
What is also missing here is that even if there is not criminal activity occurring, there is a general influx of highly anti-social behavior occurring that feeds in to the perception that higher rates of criminal activity occurring. This is very noticeable when you see people casually running red lights, driving without registration, yelling and screaming at people on the street or at the bus stop, and more. Even if I'm unlikely to be a victim of a crime, I don't feel safe when these anti-social behaviors are occurring, people are shoplifting and now going to CVS feels like going to a third-world country.
Framing this as right-wing propaganda I believe is a mistake and if you are a leftist it just loses elections for you because even if the folks who are concerned about crime levels are wrong (they're not though) the perception matters much more than reality. Denying the perception implies you deny the reality too and fewer people are going to vote in favor of candidates who tell them that what they see for themselves isn't happening.
Also your comment about "shrinking population" - you are referring to white Americans right? You're welcome to go look for yourself to see Trump's election results from the last election and see how he increased voter share across blacks and hispanics (and maybe more). How is this "shrinking population" happening when Trump also had the most votes of any president in American history? Maybe the population isn't shrinking in the way that you think.
If you want to know why Democrats are losing elections despite it being so obvious they shouldn't, your comments and rejection of the reality that many Americans face every day is precisely why. And before you try and accuse me of being some Trump sycophant I have voted for Obama twice, Clinton, Biden, and then Harris and will be voting for Sherrod Brown and Amy Acton here in Ohio. Denying reality because you think that the picture other Americans see must be some right-wing propaganda feed is confusing you. It's simply not accurate. Most Americans do not agree with your point of view. If the Democrats want to start winning elections they better come to grips with reality.
Even if these keyhole slices of reality were not being fed by right-wing propaganda (let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no right-wing propaganda at all), it's still not a reality that is applicable broadly across the country.
As an example we saw this during COVID. "Nobody around me that I know personally has died of COVID, therefore it doesn't exist, it's a hoax, or it's not a problem."
The example I gave is just an example. It's real no matter what the data says. When folks experience that, they experience it and it informs their opinions about the rates of crime and how safe an area is. I can tell you I believe the area I live in is safe, but with the introduction of these anti-social behaviors it is less safe regardless of the level of reported crime.
I think statistically the numbers show there is much less crime than there has been, but the statistics aren't perfect. For example, can you provide a report or measurement that measures how unsafe people feel when they walk by a pile of needles and have a homeless person screaming at them? If you can't, then you can clearly see there are flaws in the measurements that need to be addressed.
Chalking it up to right wing propaganda just doesn't help here and only serves to lose votes. I'm not "right-wing". I live in a city. I walk by this stuff. I don't feel safe of comfortable walking by these people. I also don't think my quality of life is improved when I have to go ask someone to unlock a case so I can buy a razor blade or something. If your metrics aren't capturing that then that would explain the disconnect you are seeing.
By all measurements and all sources of data available, violent crime has been absolutely plummeting since around 1991. Property crime is plummeting in direct parallel. Yet, nearly every year, a large majority of people (~66% or so) who are polled believe that crime is higher this year than it was last year.
We measure actual crime and we also poll people about their feelings. The large difference between these two doesn't mean that the measurement of actual crime is flawed. It just means that people are not informed, or if they are informed, they are letting their perceptions and feelings override the actual information. We shouldn't be making public policy based on how people feel.
A few sources:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-...
Part of the survey response you are seeing is that while crime itself may be down, citizens are uncomfortable and feel less safe (I provided an example that you can come and see for yourself any time of day) and I believe that helps to explain the discrepancy in the data you are seeing. How do you account for increases in crime when someone runs a red light (that's a crime) that simply is not reported? What am I going to do, call the local police? Are they going to actually do anything?
Data is only just one piece of the puzzle. Arguably not the most important in many circumstances. If the data is telling you crime is down, but people feel as though it is not, that doesn't necessarily mean "right-wing propaganda", and for someone who is inclined as you are to look at data you would think you wouldn't immediately draw such a conclusion and instead you would want to question your data collection process, the methods you are using, whether or not specific groups have stories they want to tell.
> You're not really talking about actual crime--you're talking about your own perception/feelings.
> By all measurements and all sources of data available, violent crime has been absolutely plummeting since around 1991. Property crime is plummeting in direct parallel.
> Yet, nearly every year, a large majority of people (~66% or so) who are polled believe that crime is higher this year than it was last year.
Maybe the majority is right and your data is wrong?
Why are you taking it so personally? It’s funny you say you’re leftwing, but this comment screams that you’re deep into the rabbit hole being pushed by the right that there should be no personal accountability for societal failures. The same rabbit hole that is pushing “uncomfy” topics out of schools so white kids don’t feel guilty about slavery.
Which, is honestly a great strategy. It’s an echo of the libertarian right that has fizzled out under Trump. Erase all of the wrongdoings of political conservativism because conservatives shouldn’t have to demonstrate self-reflection or empathy. That would get in the way of being conservative.
Because it pisses me off and it's stupid. I don't like this anti-social behavior. You think folks shouldn't be pissed off about it?
> It’s funny you say you’re leftwing
I'm not left-wing.
> but this comment screams that you’re deep into the rabbit hole being pushed by the right that there should be no personal accountability for societal failures.
If my comments mean I'm right-wing, you've found your problem. Your perception is really far to one direction and doesn't reflect how people actually think. It's kind of like an Internet view.
> The same rabbit hole that is pushing “uncomfy” topics out of schools so white kids don’t feel guilty about slavery.
I don't feel any guilt about slavery lol. I don't think anyone else needs to either.
> Why are you taking it so personally?
I was talking about the part of your comment where you literally say:
> It's my fault they did it I bet?
The whole point of my comment is an observation that for some reason conservatives, including yourself (despite your voting record?) have a visceral negative reaction to being informed about how the society they participate in has demons that they are - by virtue of being part of that society - partially responsible for. It doesn’t mean you have to feel guilty. I don’t feel guilty about things I do not have an inordinate amount of personal responsibility for, but I do feel guilty whenever I know that there’s something I could do but don’t - usually out of laziness or convenience. But I chalk that up to having a conscience.
"Someone disagrees with me, therefore I have a conscience and they don't". C'mon. That's boring.
Anyway, if you are asking me I'm conservative about some things, liberal about others. Feel free to ask me if you are curious. I'm anti-MAGA, but I'm also anti-DSA. I'm anti-woke and anti-Proud boys too. All of these groups of small-minded people are annoying and destructive and generally produce bad policy and the ways in which our society and government have become dysfunctional is in a large part because of people who identify with these groups.
Part of the reason for my response was due to the path the OP was already going down in their earlier comments. The drug addict on the corner yelling at people and walking with his dick out (yes that's real shit that happens where I live) doesn't show up in the data, yet it doesn't make me feel safe. Yet the OP seems to suggest that they have no reason for someone to not feel safe and it's all right-wing talking points. The next step is to make it my fault somehow. It's a very tried and true trope that I've seen over and over.
This counts for white collar crime too. And unethical behavior that’s technically legal because the scales of justice haven’t tipped yet, like predatory payday loans.
The social contract isn’t only being broken by petty criminals that do things like steal hardware tools, but also those who come in to your firm that you’ve worked for for 8 years and fired you without cause because they’re some Jack Welch acolyte.
Tools cost a few hundred bucks at most. Jack Welch bastards siphon millions or even billions in aggregate from the working class, one dismissal at a time.
But I'd disagree about but also those who come in to your firm that you’ve worked for for 8 years and fired you without cause. There are also plenty of people who don't do anything and siphon off value so if you wanted to use that example I think you have to use the thieves and bums who don't do anything too.
True, I forgot the whole category of rent-seekers. And grifters as well. Liars. Cheats. Snake-oil salesmen.
Boy this is fun.
You can correct me if I’m wrong though.
Edit: actually, from what I find in the 1950s there was even ongoing heroin epidemics, in addition to gang warfare, and of course racial inequality
>Edit: actually, from what I find in the 1950s there was even ongoing heroin epidemics, in addition to gang warfare, and of course racial inequality
I can confirm the gang warfare (at least in the 1970s and early 1980s) -- there were street gangs every few blocks and the police were (mostly) just considered the biggest and best armed gang -- and for good reason.
I didn't know Verdi Park[0] was called "Verdi Park" until the late 1990s. It was (but not any more) shaped like a triangle which is why I (incorrectly) thought it was actually named "Needle Park" But that was actually because of the heroin.
But all that's changed and has been for more than 20 years. NYC is the safest it's ever been.
Very easy to keep the parks 'beautiful' when you could just shift anyone undesirable to a prison, asylum, or skid row.
N.B. Littering also wasn't seen as a social failing in 50s America, so there's a bit of a juxtaposition there versus the contemporary reality.
Given the public policy of the 50s, if the Sacklers had been around, I would imagine a much higher death toll and much more damage to the public welfare than the opiate epidemic of the 2000s.
Probably would’ve put the Opium Wars to shame.