Bro, you said what you said and you're throwing a titty baby tantrum over it. whatever. If you meant something different it isn't a big deal, happens to everyone, even happened to Shapiro in the very podcast we're talking about.
To be clear, the claims that I was making about what Shapiro said aren't about the number of police or whatever political bullshit you want to bring up. He said a thing, then when asked for solutions instead of saying "I don't know" or something his first instinct was something that would, immediately, make every problem he just talked about worse. "More police" doesn't solve family unit issues, community investment, jobs, poverty, drugs, mental health, etc. If it did, it would have already been solved the last time we did "more cops".
and lol at "traditional policing." as if there's anything traditional about the way policing is done in low income areas. Is this what they're calling it now? jesus fuck.
No tantrums here. I just keep reiterating my clear point and you keep thrashing against it because you know you trapped yourself.
Case in point. Your first paragraph attacks me and disingenuously tries to claim that i meant something different when I clearly meant one very specific thing and reiterated it repeatedly. I meant exactly what I said, and you tried to mangle it because you realized you painted yourself into a corner.
In your 2nd paragraph you now try to reframe the argument and get away entirely from what you agreed to originally, that more cops = bad, but less cops also = bad and pivot back on Shapiro whom you mischaracterize again. Shapiro clearly states that more police isnt a long term solution to everything, he says the first and immediate step has to be more police to restore order because you cant even begin to work on other problems without a standard of basic public safety.
I'm also glad that you confessed that my suspicion about what you actually think of policing and "social workers" is more or less true. Which leads me to the final point:
You see poor areas filled with crime, and see you rich areas that are crime free and you immediately think poor = crime, rich = no crime. Your first instinct to solve that problem is to eliminate poverty, and thus you eliminate crime. Its why War on Poverty has failed, its why the Welfate State has failed, its why every wealth redistribution program has failed to accomplish its intended goals.
Don't worry, I used to think the same thing until I realized this
Its not the abundance of money that makes people commit less crime, its that the character required to become rich (being studious, diligent, hardworking, scrupulous, responsible, NOT BEING A CRIMINAL) is lacking in most poor people. In 99.9% of the cases, you literally have to be consistently not a piece of shit over the course of decades, which is where the "poors" fail. Even if you give the "poors" a ton of money, they will almost always fuck it up (look at lottery winners, or professional sports players who came from the ghetto). Now look at same lottery winners and sports stars who come from middle class families and see how many end up blowing through all their earnings in next 10 years.
This is why wealth redistribution always fails because youre giving money to people who have no idea how to manage it, save it, nurture it i.e. they dont have the character and the habits to do day in and day out of what is required to advance in society.
And this is why guys like Shapiro go completely over your head.
