Gentrification by definition doesn't integrate residents. That's what makes it gentrification.

"the process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, typically displacing current inhabitants in the process."


If increased policing and arming the police was part of a comprehensive plan to solve the problem then you wouldn't see as much criticism. There's no real appetite among those with political powers.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on May 26 2022 11:32am

read again, i see what you're doing and i addressed it specifically, pointing out it's flawed "logic" - and wouldn't even apply to the overwhelming majority of countries on that list anyway. you're not even trying to make sense, you're just looking for a way to muddy the waters, it's so transparent.

but hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, keep shilling for programs that not only historians, legal, and medical experts, but even their creators admitted were terrible mistakes with racist motives. you're surely making a great "argument" there, lol.

educate yourself: https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/the-war-on-drugs-as-structural-racism/

meanwhile in reality, the simple truth is that guns don't do shit against your corrupt oligarchs. it's just a hollow narrative for dumb people to make themselves feel better about dead children, deluding yourselves it's worth it - while your actual government exploits, incarcerates, and brutalises you like in none of your peer countries. wilfully ignorant...

they spent almost 50 grand above board for the crisis actors alone:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HTxNXVlpcQ4u/






officers tasering parents and torturing kids right outside meanwhile encouraging "active shooter" inside school:


This post was edited by lodd222 on May 26 2022 11:40am

Reminder it's literally not the polices job to protect or serve.

Even if you're getting violently attacked in plain view of multiple police they don't have to lift a finger thanks to the dumpster fire that is our political system.

No. The argument is not "homicide incarcerations are comparable to the rate of homicide, therefore this is true for all crimes". Rather, homicides are proportional to the rate of overall incarceration once you adjust for America's vastly higher rates of homicide. As an example, the United Kingdom incarcerates 129 per 100,000. The United States incarcerates 664 per 100,000, for a factor of 5.1. The homicide rates in both countries are 1.2 and 5.0 respectively, a factor of 4.2. So do Americans just like to toss people in jail? No, most of it can be explained as a consequence of higher crime. I suspected that this was probably true of violent crime as well, so thanks to you for dredging up a chart that illustrates it. Take the case of Portugal and Massachusetts, identify roughly what their respective violent crime rates are, and how many people they have behind bars. Now represent it as a ratio. Is Massachusetts slightly more severe? Perhaps, it's hard to tell with those tick marks, but again, the majority of the difference is accounted for by higher rates of overall violent crime.

Total incarcerations include both violent and non-violent offenders. Violent offenders make up a majority of the prison population. So if total incarcerations are proportional to the rate of violent crime, it's really hard for there to be an enormous disproportional pool of non-violent offenders rotting in jail. That isn't to say that we shouldn't do something about the people in jail solely for non-violent crimes. We should. But it's not what's driving America's enormous prison population.

Oligarchy is a dated term. Elites rule everywhere. It's a function of bureaucracy and the accumulation of power. If Americans found their government to be intolerable, they would act. It's a terribly poor argument to say that a people doesn't need to be armed because they haven't yet seen the need to overthrow the status quo.

If you're being violently attacked in plain view of multiple police, its their job to protect you. Its their duty to intervene. Failing to do so is grounds for them to be fired.
They are not criminally liable for the person attacking you. The person attacking you is. If you are attacked and bystanders fail to help you, then unless the state has a good samaritan law, nobody can be found criminally responsible for the attack on you other than the person attacking you. Its not complicated. If you get mugged on the subway, you can't go demand the police arrest Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. He didn't mug you. The mugger did.

You can't prosecute cops for "not lifting a finger" for the same reason you can't prosecute anyone for crimes committed by other actors outside of their control.

The police have no legal obligation to protect you. Beyond them getting fired (which probably isn't going to happen) you have no recourse against an officer that watches you get murdered and does nothing even if they outnumber the suspect and are specifically positioned there to arrest that specific suspect with all the necessary preparation to do so

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on May 26 2022 12:37pm

They have a professional obligation to protect you. Nobody in the world has a criminal liability for crimes being perpetrated against you other than the perpetrator. You cannot demand criminal prosecution of the other 6 billion people in the world who didn't stab you. Why in the world should there be? Person A stabs you. Person B doesn't. You want to prosecute person B for the act of you being stabbed by person A.

Liberalism is a mental disorder at this point

If an ER doctor does nothing but sit in the room while you die they would get charged with malpractice. If they don't render appropriate aid, diagnosis, or otherwise breach the standard of care they can be sued as well. This isn't you charging the doctor for giving you a heart attack. It's their legal obligation as professionals.

This isn't a hard concept if you're honest, but I get it, you have to hack as hard as you can to make cops look good. You've decided that's your mission on this forum.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on May 26 2022 12:41pm

from flawed statistics and bad logic to lazy whataboutisms without hesitation... you're really committed to dying on this hill for your masters, huh? "elites rule everywhere" is a meaningless phrase, because it does NOT mean that elites elsewhere rule as comprehensively and exclusively as in the US. how does that boot taste?

also, it's an even worse argument to suggest you have to tolerate children being gunned down regularly because at some point you'd totally use your guns to stop your tyrannical government - especially when history suggests the opposite, and common sense tells you that the gun issue is actually a benefit to the ruling class, deepening division and lowering the chance of their power being challenged by a united population.

today's gun nuts are the last people who'd ever revolt. they are the first to lick authority's boot, the first to get instrumentalised to attack their fellow americans over some made up culture war issue, and the last ones to push for any kind of meaningful change. you really need to stop lying to yourself, it's embarrassing...