ObjectivityIncarnate

This isn’t a good argument in general–you can call anything anything, even if it doesn’t fit what it actually is. This would be like accusing someone of being anti-democracy for opposing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), or anti-life for opposing the “pro-life” movement.

Whether the label is accurate in any given circumstance doesn’t change the fact.

practically speaking, cities and towns would have to be able to sustain that high level of policing, which hardly anyone wants.

But it’d be temporary for it to be that high, no? Am I misremembering, or is this basically the way that NYC stopped being so infamously crime-ridden? I was under the impression that it’s not as aggressive now as it was then.

Hastily-googled, but this seems to confirm at least some of what I remember reading a while back: https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city

I think there’s very little appetite in America to actually put a police officer on every corner. Nobody would like living in that world.

Yeah, probably. Was just wondering about it hypothetically.

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?

You might want to do some more research and have sources.

I brought up a handful of VERY easily-verifiable, non-controversial data points, and just did some simple math. But, I guess, for the extremely lazy:

• $1000/mo x 12 months in a year = $12000/yr
• Number of working-age (16-64) Americans = ~210 million (I rounded down to 200 and counted working-age only (i.e. no elderly/retired), two things that make my argument WEAKER)
• $12 thousand x 200 million = $2.4 trillion
• Combined net worth of US billionaires is ~4.5 trillion. But hey, I found a much higher estimate that puts it a bit above 6 trillion. That gets you almost a whole extra year!
• Latest US defense spending budget is $850 billion

Assuming stripping defense down to zero (which again, is an absolutely absurd hypothetical made for the sake of argument, and making my argument AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE) and applying the entire $850 billion to the UBI price tag, you’re left with a yearly cost of $1.55 trillion. And even using the higher estimate of $6 trillion from the billionaires, 1.55 goes into 6 less than 4 times.

The only thing ‘wonky’ is your refusal to accept mathematical reality.

P.S. Telling me to “look at really good sources” for ‘it’s not universal if it’s not given to everyone’ made me laugh pretty hard.

Why the hell would we give the rich $12k/year.?

Because the administrative costs associated with making sure they don’t, will cost even more. That’s one of the main upsides of UBI–no means testing makes it have practically no ‘overhead’. If means testing were added, its price tag would be even higher.

Related, I’ve heard people argue against UBI by saying that it would just make people lazy and not want to work at all.

I mean, it’s completely unrealistic to think that this would not be the case for some X% of the population. It’s already the case now, with the welfare programs we already have, after all. What number that X is, is what’s unclear. People saying “nobody will work” are definitely wrong, though, lol.

It was almost 25 years after the St. Louis (maybe wrong city, it’s been a while) Crime and Control study proved that flooding the streets with more police officers only pushed crime into other neighborhoods.

Small point about this in particular, but isn’t the above evidence that this is effective at removing crime from an area? Why not do the same in the “other neighborhoods”, too, then?

Especially if you combine the above with what you described later to reduce recidivism:

the way to reduce recidivism to almost nothing is to provide good health care, good mental health care, and to teach people marketable skills, all in a safe environment.

Seems like a solid plan to me, and police forces would naturally/gradually shrink over time, to suit the overall crime rate as it goes down.

It’s not “universal” unless/until it’s given to everyone. Until then, it’s just another targeted welfare program, “offered to a select portion of a city’s population instead of all residents”, as your link says.

You can’t say UBI has been “proven mostly successful” without actually doing UBI, considering its main hurdles are related directly to giving out that much money to everyone. A UBI of $12000/year ($1000/month) for just all working-age people in the US (a bit over 200 million) would cost the government $2.4 TRILLION, yearly.

Even seizing the entirety of every US billionaire’s net worth (est. $4.5 trillion), assuming you could convert it straight across into cash 1:1 (which you can’t), and cutting defense spending (~$850 billion), the two most common ways I’ve seen people claim we can pay for UBI in the US, even if defense was cut to literal zero (also absurdly unrealistic), that still wouldn’t even cover the cost of this UBI for three years.

This seems reasonable, honestly.

Let them know that they changed the term to “climate change” so that stupid people would understand that the Earth getting hotter on average will make some places colder, because ice that used to be staying put, will now melt into water, which will flow into places where there wasn’t water before.

That’s about as dumbed down an explanation as is possible, I think, lol.

Everyone of race X who lived in location Y at time Z thinks the same

No. This is textbook bigotry. You’re literally implying all white people around his age who were raised in South Africa are just like him.

That’s fucked up.

No, the explanation that involves conspiracy is not the simpler explanation.

Cool homophobia dude

Wtf? We know where morality comes from.

Uh yeah, that was an analogy specifically referring to another situation where someone has a completely wrong idea about a topic (morality) and feels smug and self-assured when their ‘target’ doesn’t fit within their framework. I wasn’t agreeing with my hypothetical fundamentalist–you’d think me calling them a “fundamentalist” would make that kind of obvious, lol.

Another simple example would be people thinking global warming isn’t a thing because it’s cold somewhere.

You don’t understand what centrism is. There is no such thing as a single “centrist position”.

Centrism defines a collective of views; it describes a set of points of view that lie on both ‘wings’, such that it’s not really accurate to label that person as either.

Defining centrism the way you just did is kind of like defining bisexuality as being attracted only to a person who is a 50/50 mixture of male/female (which of course doesn’t actually exist), instead of someone who is capable of being attracted to males and females. And just how most bi people have a preference ‘lean’ toward one sex over the other, centrists also tend to ‘lean’, based on where the lion’s share of their values sit.

Basically, anyone who describes themselves as “left/right leaning” is a centrist, specifically who has volunteered a bit more specificity about their set of values.

Wow, author doesn’t know what centrism OR horseshoe theory are, lol.

Hint: Neither of them are accurately described as “both sides are equally bad”.

I’m reminded of a Christian fundamentalist depicting an atheist being gotcha’d by being asked where his morality comes from if there’s no God, and literally having a “checkmate atheists” moment over it. Equally smugly dumb.

He’s not the president.

Yeah, that is definitely a newer development. I’d bet the vast majority of men’s rooms that have them didn’t get them at the same time as the women’s rooms, unless the building itself is fairly new construction.

At the same time, any effect like this would likely be present to an equal or very similar degree in any measurement of DV among the general population, so while it could be harder to confidently report an absolute figure, you could much more confidently compare them relative to each other (such that you can easily refute “three times more likely” claims like in the OP).

And I’d be right to, if I was the kind of person who called someone else names for no reason beyond supplying evidence that contradicts an assumption/bias of mine.

You’re the one who fits that description here, though.

The original source of the oft-spread “40%” figure also counted incidents where the one reporting was the victim. If cop/civilian couple had “a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger” within the relationship, with the cop being on the receiving end of the civilian spouse’s ‘abuse’, that relationship was tossed into the ‘domestic violence’ bucket, because it was actually counting relationships, not cops.

My point is that yes, you can definitely argue one might be reluctant to admit to one’s own acts of DV, but I don’t think anonymously reporting your spouse’s acts against you would be ‘stifled’ the same way.