Human decency. Societal expectations. And we still would have laws.

Someone got arrested at the Trump rally for wearing an "I can't breathe" shirt. She had a ticket.

The party of free speech, everyone.

The Party of free speech is now unironically making the argument that it's OK to ban protests at political events. If you do not support Trump's ideas, you are not allowed to speak your mind. This isn't a strawman either. Their argument to a T.

Posted by tangplay on 6/20/2020 5:25:00 PM (view original):
The Party of free speech is now unironically making the argument that it's OK to ban protests at political events. If you do not support Trump's ideas, you are not allowed to speak your mind. This isn't a strawman either. Their argument to a T.

But what you really need to be worried about is the Twitter gulags.

Trump made up a story about protesters blocking entrances to the rally, keeping attendance down and his supporters are just... going with it? With zero evidence.

I swear, everything that guitarguy says about the left can apply to the right twofold. Except instead of being random socialists on Twitter, it's the President of the United States and the majority of his base.

I think MSNBC actually first reported protesters blocking an entrance and Trump just ran with it...

Yeah but it didn't actually stop people from getting in in the end. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence to the contrary. To say otherwise is to lie.

There wasn't ANY "overflow" from outside because they were all let in.

Yeah, but what's he going to do, admit that holding a giant indoor campaign rally in the middle of a pandemic was a bad idea? Admit that the "fake news" media was right about this after all? Apologize to his supporters for exposing them to risk? Those are way too much like things a mature adult might do.

He'll just keep trying to hold these rallies, and if the next rally or two also flop he'll announce that he's suspending campaign rallies in spite of how wildly successful they are, because rising case rates in the red states where he wants to hold rallies are making it too dangerous.

Maybe those states should have enforced social distancing a little longer. Like his pandemic response team officially recommended.

Unfortunately his supporters will eat all of that up.

Posted by all3 on 6/20/2020 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/20/2020 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody took the Purge movies too seriously.

What would stop it from becoming reality?

(I'd really LOVE to hear the newby try to explain, but you're fair and rational, so go ahead.)

Other responses, but no effort at all to answer this. Wonder why.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2020 12:43:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, but what's he going to do, admit that holding a giant indoor campaign rally in the middle of a pandemic was a bad idea? Admit that the "fake news" media was right about this after all? Apologize to his supporters for exposing them to risk? Those are way too much like things a mature adult might do.

He'll just keep trying to hold these rallies, and if the next rally or two also flop he'll announce that he's suspending campaign rallies in spite of how wildly successful they are, because rising case rates in the red states where he wants to hold rallies are making it too dangerous.

Maybe those states should have enforced social distancing a little longer. Like his pandemic response team officially recommended.

He doesn't give a **** about his supporters. This is a vanity thing for him. He'll keep hosting rallies as long as he can.

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2020 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/20/2020 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/20/2020 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody took the Purge movies too seriously.

What would stop it from becoming reality?

(I'd really LOVE to hear the newby try to explain, but you're fair and rational, so go ahead.)

Other responses, but no effort at all to answer this. Wonder why.

Tang already answered this. People just aren't that bad.

Look, I've already expressed my opinion about this "defund the police" business. An ~15% average increase in spending on policing in the 90s resulted in a >75% reduction in homicides, including about 8000 fewer homicides per year with black victims. Defunding the police is not going to help vulnerable populations, even in the more moderate sense of "reduce funding for the police." Several economists have done studies in the past ~15 years demonstrating that there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between police funding and crime rates. This at least strongly suggests that people are responding to the risk/reward balance - make it harder to get away with murder, and less people get murdered.

But the ceiling isn't that high. Let's try to be realistic. Most US cities didn't have professional police until the mid- to late-19th century. Many rural areas didn't have police until well into the 20th century. It's not like the average family was experiencing regular burglary, rape, and murder. Neurotypical human beings are built to be pro-social. We're willing to push the rules, but not totally break them until we're very desperate. The founding fathers left lots of correspondence records. They didn't seem to spend a lot of time fretting about being pillaged and murdered in their beds. I think the suggestion that without police everyone should expect their kids to be napped, their wives to be raped, and their TVs to be stolen is incredibly unrealistic. Crime rates would rise, but that doesn't mean everyone would be routinely victimized.

Posted by tangplay on 6/21/2020 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2020 12:43:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, but what's he going to do, admit that holding a giant indoor campaign rally in the middle of a pandemic was a bad idea? Admit that the "fake news" media was right about this after all? Apologize to his supporters for exposing them to risk? Those are way too much like things a mature adult might do.

He'll just keep trying to hold these rallies, and if the next rally or two also flop he'll announce that he's suspending campaign rallies in spite of how wildly successful they are, because rising case rates in the red states where he wants to hold rallies are making it too dangerous.

Maybe those states should have enforced social distancing a little longer. Like his pandemic response team officially recommended.

He doesn't give a **** about his supporters. This is a vanity thing for him. He'll keep hosting rallies as long as he can.

Sure, but he has a built-in excuse if it keeps flopping. Was my point...

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/22/2020 12:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2020 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/20/2020 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/20/2020 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody took the Purge movies too seriously.

What would stop it from becoming reality?

(I'd really LOVE to hear the newby try to explain, but you're fair and rational, so go ahead.)

Other responses, but no effort at all to answer this. Wonder why.

Tang already answered this. People just aren't that bad.

Look, I've already expressed my opinion about this "defund the police" business. An ~15% average increase in spending on policing in the 90s resulted in a >75% reduction in homicides, including about 8000 fewer homicides per year with black victims. Defunding the police is not going to help vulnerable populations, even in the more moderate sense of "reduce funding for the police." Several economists have done studies in the past ~15 years demonstrating that there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between police funding and crime rates. This at least strongly suggests that people are responding to the risk/reward balance - make it harder to get away with murder, and less people get murdered.

But the ceiling isn't that high. Let's try to be realistic. Most US cities didn't have professional police until the mid- to late-19th century. Many rural areas didn't have police until well into the 20th century. It's not like the average family was experiencing regular burglary, rape, and murder. Neurotypical human beings are built to be pro-social. We're willing to push the rules, but not totally break them until we're very desperate. The founding fathers left lots of correspondence records. They didn't seem to spend a lot of time fretting about being pillaged and murdered in their beds. I think the suggestion that without police everyone should expect their kids to be napped, their wives to be raped, and their TVs to be stolen is incredibly unrealistic. Crime rates would rise, but that doesn't mean everyone would be routinely victimized.

Correct. Furthermore, crimes would still be illegal. Even in this strawmanned Democratic utopia where police don't exist, rape and murder would still be punishable through the criminal justice system. I would imagine that most people who are deterred from committing criminal acts are concerned with the prison time, not that police might potentially catch you.

um, don't the police have to catch someone before that someone can face prison time? Or do they voluntarily turn themselves in?