I paid the additional payment because I hate watching ads and wanted to watch some series without it. Now Amazon Prime Video has made some ads show even while having this additional payment!
> Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against.
"Obstructive" in this scenario results in the organization keeping functioning effectively. Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing.
I see your point, but I think you are missing their point.
They are saying, the action taken by the administration is to cut funding to the department. This can't really be "obstructed" short of the director using their personal funds to pay people's salaries. It would require either people to work for free, or an outside source of money.
Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
That is to say some of the incompetent are so incompetent they can’t distinguish between their incompetence and an actual expert. This is exhibited very publicly in some contestants of the American Idol genre of shows.
D&K ironically misengineered their tests and inadventently misconstrued their data due to floor and ceiling effects. If you ran the gamut of their tests against random noise you get similar results.
I’ve been using a CPAP for 15 years. A few items I had to adjust when getting that suffocating feeling a few times:
1. When getting a new CPAP I had to reduce the pressure from 15 to 14 or 13 to mitigate the suffocating feeling. I still get my normal 0.5 events per hour while I’m use. I also got a different type of mouth and nose mask which may have contributed to needing to adjust the pressure.
2. I was trying to mitigate the colder air being distracting by enabling the humidifier and tube heater. With the humidifier level too high at 5 I got a suffocating feeling, reduced it down to 2 or 3 and the air was warmer while not feeling suffocating.
3. I also turned off the dynamic pressure on breathe out as the timing felt off and would cause a hitch in breathing, so I have just plain constant pressure.
The name of the game is tweaking and experimenting.
"Defund the police" doesn't mean what you think it means here.
It doesn't mean removing all funds from the police as the name implies. It actually means reallocating funds from the police to trained professionals for appropriate situations. Like having a government division that hires psychologist / mental health workers to respond to mental wellness checks. Having mental health / homelessness services workers respond to calls about vagrants. So instead of getting a boot to the teeth or death as seen in the news, those at risk groups and people get the directed help and support they need.
I'm not sure this distinction matters much to most people, though. People hear "defund the police" and draw their own conclusions as to what that means, and it's not a far leap to go from "defund the police" to "welp, guess they want to tie the hands of cops and take away all of their funding so they can't do their jobs"
I think what your saying is that people are drawing the wrong conclusion when they hear 'defund the police'. But, if they knew what was really meant they may actually support it. So the distinction actually matters a lot.
Like if they heard that it meant sending trained mental health professionals to deal with a mental health crisis called into 911 instead of just sending some cops who may very well just shoot them, that might change their minds about it.
No, what we are hearing is that a group for some reason chose a horrible catch phrase that they now say does not mean what the phrase specifically, on it's face, means, and that the group now wants to tell everyone it's not them it's us.
Edit: I think the USA needs to completely change how we approach mental health. My grandfather spent his life cruisading for that. Allowing the catch phrase to distract from that point to the extent that the catch phrase is now pretty much a central focus shows that 'defend the police' very much is a problem.
But, let's complete the idea to make it bulletproof.
Regardless of moving goalposts due to changing definitions, the luxury belief still remains:
Reallocate (vs defund) police still moves funds around. Funds are not infinite.
- Less police means more crime. This means fewer personnel to combat crime. Crime strikes directly at the poorest.
- Less police means more mental care. This means more personnel and facilities to combat mental cases. This had been tried already, with no meaningful decrease in mental problems.
It isn't a good catchphrase, I fully agree. But the reason its been derailed is because there are people actively derailing it and deliberately misleading its meaning. They fight any plan that would diminish the authority and power of police. That's the problem here.
They correctly understood it to mean abolish the police. As was made very clear by those who created the statement as they carried it the BLM riots in 2020
Fair enough. I've heard 'abolish the police' and 'all cops are bastards' (whatever that means) too, so such a sentiment definitely exists. Either way, those usually espousing such things don't seem to have much of a concrete plan in mind (and don't have to, because offering concrete solutions isn't the purpose of such rhetoric).
> According to the New York Times, the slogan and movement failed to result in any meaningful policy change. This was attributed to the slogan having no clear definition of its goals.
> I've heard [...] 'all cops are bastards' (whatever that means) too
Is that an honest question?
Usually it asserts that police institutions operate similar to organized crime, where some level of bad acts (e.g. perjury, evidence tampering, abuse of power) are a de-facto requirement of continued membership. Thus the corollary that anyone who survived there long-enough to be "a cop" must have become "a bastard" to do so.
Compare to: "All mafia members are bastards."
Such systems are self-sustaining because each cohort has the dilemma of defending itself against being denounced by the next. Forcing incoming members to commit the same crimes means they are "stuck in the same boat" , changing incentives from "reveal their crime" to "hide our crime."
To add to your point: sometimes people point to the videos catching cops abusing their power and say “it’s just a few bad apples.” They’ve been saying it for decades. It turns out that is correct as the full saying is “a few bad apples spoil the bunch”. Police departments don’t get rid of the bad apples, the bunch is spoiled and rotten. So far gone that the few good cops who join and speak up are railroaded out. Look at the Los Angeles CA police where there are different gangs within the police department.
That's a thoroughly sensible proposition. However, right there in the Wikipedia article you post:
> some ["Defund the Police" advocates] seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services.
"Defund the Police" is my nomination for the worst political slogan of the 21st century (so far). It contains such multitudes that it's become a Rorschach test for both users and hearers. I wish the reformers (like yourself - whom I fully support) and the abolitionists (I think they're wack jobs) would decide to march under different banners.
It came out of the BLM riots, and very much meant complete police abolishment. All the long winded after the fact redefinitions was just people wrapped up in it stepping in to save face. Since at this point they're linked to it and know it looks bad now that they've had a second to step back and think about it
This feels like the equivalent of mansplaining on this topic, with a heavy dose of gaslighting for bad measure. We were all around for the 2020 riot period, wherein what it means explicitly was made clear over and over and over again.
If I were to place a bet, I would bet on car manufacturers abandoning updates to the vehicle software far earlier than I desire, rather than maintaining it appropriately. I’d also guess ads or other unwanted intrusions will be coupled with it.
I’d rather connect my phone, for which I’ll update the hardware 4+ times over the time I own my car, and get the corresponding OS and software updates yearly or more frequently. Send that data to the car’s reliable and dumb screen(s) from my chosen phone and I’m in control and happier for it.
reply