Math and statistics are clearly conspiring with him to hide the truth. Why else would they use Arabic numerals?
Science is woke and therefore to be abandoned.
So what I'm getting from this is that Sharia Law works? The Christian Nationalists are gonna be so upset.
Just a reminder to the Mamdani stans in Lemmy, at some point he will (or already has) done things you will disagree with, because you have to make compromises in politics, and I fear the left doesn't understand that basic fact of the job and are always too ready to completely cut ties with anyone who doesn't check all the boxes at all times. The left's motto is "I want it perfect or nothing at all!" and this is great if you're an artist, not so great if you're trying to push a largely liberal population to better outcomes.
Whatever missteps you think you will think you're seeing are going to get amplified by the worst voices on the left too, with a lot of "Wow I thought I liked this guy, but this is uncool" sentiments. Just be ready for it, don't let yourself be influenced by mobs of people you think are your peers.
edit: yah, lot of people don't understand the actual job of politics and think they do from watching TV and movies. I worry deeply for our future.
"The Left needs to fall in love; The Right simply falls in line."
Already happening. He has a good working relationship with governor Hochul and endorses her above a DSA candidate.
But she put out her neck for him and made things possible. If he did not reciprocate nobody in Albany would cooperate with him any more.
Somewhat related based on arguments I keep seeing, the number of people who don't understand that Albany is the state capital and that New York is a state as well as a city, and that the mayor of New York has to also deal with a governor, is really frighteningly high. What the fuck are people learning in school? Anything at all?
Prolly depends on where they are from, I'm from SoCal and was convinced that New York was a city state until I was like 11. I could see other people having the same thought for even longer if they aren't told explicitly like how my history and geography classes did, looking at you Utah and your idiotic claim that you guys colonized San Bernardino, you cunts.
It's not entirely wrong to think of nyc that way. It's not strictly true, but practically the city dictates much of the state's politics. It's similar with Chicago and Illinois.
This just reads like a bad faith interpretation of anyone on the left who might have ideological differences between themselves and Mamdani. That doesn’t mean they aren’t pragmatic. For example, if you believe that our current government cannot be reformed then compromise with the right wing is often the least pragmatic way to bring about change. Pretending that this means you’re making perfect the enemy of the good either means you’re being disingenuous or you just don’t understand the perspective you’re critiquing.
I don't think you actually don't understand what kind of attacks or pushbacks I'm talking about, which makes me question the whole reply.
Well your argument sounds like ones I’ve heard 1000x over defending elected officials like AOC whenever they do something like vote to fund Israel’s iron dome or forcibly stop a railway strike. The problem is, trading favors and votes is the kind of game that only works when you have a network of wealthy benefactors. If you think that these types of compromises are necessary, it likely means that you have some degree of blind faith in the American political system.
I am not rejecting my rare-as-fuck, popular pro-social candidate who actually works towards better outcomes over isolated actions that I don't fully agree with, we have to get out of this black-and-white mentality or we will never have someone "good enough" and that's what I am rejecting, this fucking binary attitude that both the right and left have embraced with all their heart, what's most infuriating is this attitude is artificially implanted and people like you think having a 2-dimensional perspective of politics is equivalent to having "principles."
This isn't "principles" it's performative.
You’re arguing against a caricature of the left wing critiques levied at politicians like AOC or Mamdani. You’re ignoring how those actions, which are frankly not isolated, are indicative of a very different perspective and theory of change than many on the left have. Pretending that any other theory of change is actually just black and white moralism is an incredibly bad faith way to argue. Honestly, it’s just a ridiculous perspective to have when you would be hard pressed to find similar critiques levied at electeds like say Rashida Talib.
You’re arguing against a caricature of the left wing critiques levied at politicians like AOC or Mamdani.
Sure, because the critiques I see leveled at good, progressive politicians ARE in fact caricatures of actual political criticism, they're often narrow-minded and out-of-touch with the moral complexity of actual political work.
My problem isn't with the impotent criticism itself, it's the millions of people who browse lemmy and twitter and reddit and other online spaces where deeply online, impressional young self-described leftists hang out and get all their values from the majority, and if they see an attack on a leftist or progressive leader that seems effectual and aligned with progressive values, they will latch on immediately and not change their mind, because people just work that way.
I don't care what your actual criticisms are, I just want people to be aware that not all criticism is going to be good faith, and not all criticism is going to be smart. The left gets caught up in groupthink as easily as the right but hate to admit it. We're all just people, but the left is particularly good at shooting themselves in the dick because they want their representative to be perfect.
Your comment reads as a bad faith interpretation of their post.
It doesn't matter if it is or not. That's how it reads.
(stop guessing at the motivations of a poster and deal with their points pragmatically, otherwise it's all just a fantasy... you have no insight into them (or anyone else)... you are not the "faith decider")
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and oh look it replies like a duck too, forgive me for thinking it’s a duck. Maybe take your own advice and engage with my points instead of getting so needlessly defensive.
NYC should have basically no crime because Spider-Man lives there
This is almost entirely due to the fact that January was frigid. It's pretty well documented that cold temperatures reduce crime.
"safest January on record" implies that the stats are being compared to the same time period of different years, no? Was this January that much colder than average?
This was the coldest January in about a decade.
Well, that'll do it. Thanks, wasn't sure
I've gotta be cozy when I'm breaking laws, I'm a comfort kind of guy.
That makes sense, I was imagining the general 'feel good' nature of a charismatic and energetic candidate might have an effect on the public mood, police priorities, and general alertness.
Where's my woke Jihad?! SMH
Admiral Akbar told us it was a trap!!
Wild that Mamdani is doing so much to separate himself from the smooth-talking Obamas of the world.
LOVE IT
Woke sharia putting in the work.
"Shooting incidents declined in January by 20% (40 vs. 50) and shooting victims declined by 30.9% (47 vs. 68).
Murders plummeted by a staggering 60% (12 vs. 30), marking the fewest for January in recorded city history. Murder declined in every single borough.
Tisch credited an enhanced police presence through the department’s Winter Violence Reduction Plan, launched last month, for the decrease in shootings.
As part of the cold-weather anti-violence plan, the department deployed up to 1,800 uniformed officers to nightly foot posts across 64 zones in 33 precincts, public housing, and the subway system.
Major crime is down around 36%, Tisch said, since the program started."
So the answer is more police after all. Where's the 'abolish police' crowd now?
It looks more like "police can't just sit in squad cars all day looking for people to harass" which is a better use of resources.
Was that what "abolish police" crowd was advocating? To get the police out of squad cars and put them on the streets instead? Wow, their slogans are really confusing...
But seriously, the left (be it "abolish police" or "defund police" crowds) was advocating for less police. Claiming otherwise is simply trying to rewrite history.
You sound really dumb when you summarize an entire political movement based only on the slogans that would be put on signs.
"Abolish the Police" is a catchy slogan you can put on a sign. A rational person would see that sign and think "wow, that seems pretty radical. I should look up that group or go talk to that person to learn more. How would you even do that?"
To learn more about what people are saying it's usually a good idea to go talk to that group. Especially, someone that speaks for that group and can outline exactly what they believe.
You, on the other hand, seem to go the opposite route. You seem to go listen to and ask the people or listen to the news media that oppose those groups with the signs. And that's why your entire knowledge of what "abolish the police" means is so one note. You never actually looked into what that means beyond a slogan. You literally think it means those people want the government to overnight create a law that says "no more police".
Of course you think it's silly and irrational. You have no idea what those people are actually advocating for. You're arguing with a slogan.
It's the same idiots that go "well, all lives matter". Because they summarize an entire political movement by a slogan, listen to the people that oppose it for an explanation, and then critize it without ever understanding it.
It's amazing how many people form their entire understanding of "the left" in this exact way.
And that is the issue. I literally though the same until I saw your comment.
However, you seem to have no solution for the few who cannot be fixed by a kinder environment and are essentially wired for crime.
I'll try to explain something that is fundamental to why right wingers are incapable of understanding what leftist are saying. Then, hopefully, you can reach the answer to this yourself. Leftist aren't saying that there is no need for some form of peace officers.
Right wingers (and really most apolitical people) see the world through the lense of "Ideas". They first define the "idea" of the Police. They look at slogans and ideas like "serve and protect". They see the Police as an institution based on how it is supposed to operate. This is likely what you do. It's how we are taught to think about the structures of society from a young age. It's not unexpected to have this perspective of the world. It's comforting in a lot of ways.
Leftist, on the other hand, do not simply accept the "ideas" alone. The ideas are important. They influence how systems operate and who is given power in society. But, what is most important to a leftist are the material outcomes. Do the material outcomes of the Police fulfill the ideas and purpose that they are supposed to. Who do the Police as an institution "serve" and who/what do they "protect"?
I'll leave that up to you to think about or answer. But, the fundamental problem with trying to convince a right winger is this disconnect. They think the "idea" of Police is being attacked because that's their only understanding of them. They are not subject to their violence, they are not discriminated against by them, and they don't have empathy for those that are. They are mostly entirely disconnected from them in any meaningful material way. Maybe a speeding ticket or an uncle that's a cop and "a nice guy".
When most leftist are talking about "abolish the police" we are not talking about the "idea" of a State operated enforcement agency meant to maintain peace. We are talking about abolishing an institution that does not do that at all. Because we are looking at the material outcomes of what their presence in society actually results in.
If you can understand that. Then that's a great starting point to actually have a conversation about "the Police".
But, right wingers, they can't get that far. They are incapable of thinking that "hmmm, maybe the Police don't actually serve the purpose I think they do". You don't even need to come to that as a conclusion. Maybe, you personally think they do a good job. But questioning the default ideas of a society, looking at the material outcomes of those ideas, and then pointing to their contradictions are fundamentally what leftist do. It's, in a way, a scientific form of thinking. It is taking the hypothesis of what "Police" are meant to do and then testing it on their actual outcomes.
It's often difficult for people to do this for the current structures of society. They are what we are used to and "how could anything be any different" is often the rebuttal to leftist ideas.
However, it's really obvious to apply this form of thinking to the past. Feudalism, Slavery, Woman's Suffrage, Apartheid, etc. Its easy to look back and say "well, clearly those things were bad". But, at the time, there was the same right wing though attempting to prevent progress by defending the "idea of the King" or "the idea of White/Male supremacy".
Sorry. This was longer than I meant it to be. But sometimes I gotta type out what I believe and why I believe it to solidify my own understanding of it. Hope the rant was worth a read.
But, if you can understand this, you'll see it a lot. You'll see a conservative defending the "ideas" of something and using everything they can to deny the criticisms of the outcomes. It's why they get stuck on "slogans". They live in a world of Ideas alone.
I understand this, and I wished the UK (where I am) had a sane middle party, that could, for example, reduce illegal immigration while making the legal routes quicker and cheaper
He's making shit up. The left was totally for less policing not to scare the minorities. There were very reasonable arguments for demilitarizing police and moving the resources to crime prevention and social services, there were batshit crazy arguments for completely abolishing the police and middle ground arguments for limiting the numbers of police officers. They are now pretending that everything other than the reasonable takes was invented by the right.
To learn more about what people are saying it’s usually a good idea to go talk to that group. Especially, someone that speaks for that group and can outline exactly what they believe.
You mean like reading a letter from AOC on the topic? Like the one I linked to? You mean like checking what was her stance on the very specific topic of putting more police on the ground?
I showed a very specific example of something AOC said but you're claiming I listen to news media that oppose the left and that I'm arguing with a slogan. I don't think I'm the one sounding really dumb here.
Did you read it? Did it advocate for "abolishing the police" or did it talk about a specific police policy that was making police interactions more dangerous for citizens?
Like, we can talk about THAT if you want. But, did you notice you linked to something that really had nothing to do with abolishing police or even directly reducing police? It's talking about not expanding and hiring more police to prevent victimless and nonviolent crime. A policy that has lead to increased police violence towards citizens.
See how even when you try to link and point to someone on "the left" explaining something you're not even understanding it.
What point are you trying to make? You didn't even mention or talk about the specific policy she is talking about.
You barely have to dig into it man. It's literally the first part of the letter. My initial response to you was literally because you don't actually understand what "the left" believes and you're just arguing with a slogan. Thanks for proving my point.
I'm not going to play "No true Scotsman" with you. Any example I will show you will just turn into "that's not what the left really wants".
The fact is that AOC opposed putting more police in the subway in order to reduce crime. Mamdami put more police int he subway and crime went down.
I remember George Floyd protests. Mayor of some town (don't remember which) went to visit the protesters and they asked him directly, "are you going to abolish the police?". He said 'no', he was booed by the crowd and wasn't allowed to say anything more.
Here's The Daily covering this topic: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/326-the-daily-28076606/episode/policing-and-the-new-york-mayoral-83976608/
You can hear "the left" talking very clearly about having less cops, decreasing founding for the police, how defunding is first step to abolishing police, how "police doesn't provide safety", how police can be a threat to black and brown people.
As I said: claiming that the left was not for reducing the number of police is a lie and intent to rewrite history.
First of all, it was defund not abolish. The point was to reduce the workload of the police to just dealing with criminal activity and not have them dealing with stuff better suited to others like medical professionals or counselors.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1opyOlgSzs8
Minneapolis mayor says "I do not support full abolition of the police" and the crowd tells him to "get the fuck out".
They ask him about "defunding police" and clarify that they mean "we don't want no more police". Hard to put it clearer.
Now, please, tell me again that there was no 'abolish police' crowd.
The "abolish police" crowd you're talking about were never asking for no policing. They were asking for a change in how it's done. In my opinion, ideally, it would be abolishing the police as it exists today, and implementing community policing in some form. This seems to be a step towards that at least, but one important compenent is that the police should have to be a part of the community being policed. If they're outsiders, like they frequently are today, they have no stake in the community.
Anyway, obviously we still need some kind of policing. The shit you're told is a lie though. People wanted the police system we have today gone and replaced with more effective alternatives. Showing that changing how policing works having a positive effect only proves the point.
However, this doesn't prove anything else. For all we know, from this information, getting rid of police entirely could have a beneficial effect. The data here doesn't give us any information on that, so even the most extreme "no policing" stance that you're strawmaning isn't disproven here. We don't have information to make an inference. It just makes you look stupid to claim this proves more policing is good. I can show you data where that alone has been bad, but obviously that wouldn't prove that sometimes more policing can be good, and I wouldn't make that claim because I'm not an idiot.
God is indeed the greatest.
What did God do here?
I just translated the post's title, lol.
Has he upzoned housing for better density yet?
I'd assume the poors largest problem is housing prices in New York, so that would be the first step to actually being a progressive.
I'm still waiting for planning to approve upzoning my foot in your ass.
Approved.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
