Unironically that is not a substitute for giving people immediate access to the assistance that will put food on their tables.

?

You don’t think homeless people aren’t the most aware of that?

I too would be happy to see this sub retire NY Post articles.

They help prevent escalating already precarious conditions for other driver and needless accidents, yes.

You’re right. Why aren’t Queer people more grateful to the NYPD for kicking off the modern gay rights movement? /s

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/nyregion/stonewall-riots-nypd.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/03/963513022/new-york-repeals-walking-while-trans-law

^^^ this user is also making transphobic comments in /r/AskConservatives if you want to know what they’re up to when they’re not here

Yeah. That’s what the article would indicate.

A fair reading would pretty much indicate the entire families are getting fucked in these situations.

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say here, but is there really any evidence that victims are being protected equally now? Here is what the ACS workers themselves indicated per the article:

> But according to the survey, A.C.S. workers and other participants said that rather than starting from a presumption of innocence, “Black and brown parents are treated at every juncture as if they are not competent parents capable of providing acceptable care to their children.”

> Caseworkers said they felt pressured to push their way into people’s homes and not tell parents their rights. They “feel complicit in the harm that A.C.S. can cause Black and brown families” and powerless to change the system, the report stated. Most A.C.S. caseworkers are Black, as is most leadership in the agency’s Division of Child Protection, the agency said.

Imagine this: the composition of ACS can be totally removed from the actual results the agency creates. Especially considering the NYT article poses problems with the agency's standards and not its composition.

Not exactly sure what any of that has to do with the unrestricted right to totally spam this subreddit, but alright.

The gay bar owners are posting in this thread? I haven’t seen them here.

> You do, and many like you on this sub. You'll never say it out loud, you won't admit it to yourselves, you don't think you do, but you do. You're interested in letting any number of incidents of crime and abuse slide a bit, loosening standards of reporting, etc to try to help abusers and criminals that you see as victims.

No. More crime and more child abuse is not my goal. What is wrong with you? How do you expect people to rationally engage with your philosophy on addressing crime when this is how you address anybody who doesn’t agree with you?

> What if the goals are diametrically opposed?

Unraveling systematic biases would make stopping child abuse impossible? Really? I would like to imagine there is a world where policing and child welfare could go the slightest bit further to not disproportionately punish Black folk.

> What if abuse is more common in some groups than others, and you simultaneously want to protect children and have equal outcomes?

Even the numbers in the article you gave for homicides don't begin to track the outcomes we're talking about here.

> but it is nonetheless the policy that many people would like

Who would like that? Who's saying it? Please be specific. None of these people you're talking about are quoted in the article.

You've created a boogeyman here and we see you use it repeatedly. You're not going to find a single person in this sub that would actually claim crime and child abuse don't exist. Nonetheless, an incredibly large contingent of people in this sub do much prefer the entire sub not to be flooded with crime spam. You seem to mistake those two things for being the same, perhaps intentionally because it's useful to portray them as "pro-crime" (your own words).

I know it’s hard to fathom, but you can certainly reform something to treat people more equally while still protecting victims. And without “ignor[ing] crime and child abuse” (nobody in this article offers ignoring them as a solution).

If Black parents are 13x more likely to have their children removed from their homes then white children, are the benefits for children here really outweighing the disparities this program is perpetuating? Do we believe that Black parents are actually 13x less fit to parent?

Congratulations, I guess.

Surprise, surprise. Who could’ve predicted that?

> American progressives deserve to suffer.

Take a deep breath. I can read you seething through your teeth as you type.

They claim to care about POC but compared the BLM protests to January 6th. Oh brother.

Glad you totally ignored the entire point of our conversation and pivoted upon realization that your stats didn’t say what you purported them to say at all.

> Alright, now that we established that there's a valid concern about crimes in NYC

I think now would be an appropriate time to apologize for lying about what your statistics said.

Okay, /u/NetQuarterLatte. Now do the inverse for a holistic understanding here. What is the murder rate of Black people in Jacksonville relative to the overall murder rate in New York. You are going to find what we already know, that Black Americans have it worse off everywhere.

You’re making the arguments of progressives for them, that intense efforts should be made to reduce racial inequities. Now it’s time for you to do the heavy lifting and actually advocate for the policies that are demonstrated to do this.

> There's obviously a historical disparity in victimizations based on the skin color.

Yes, but there is absolutely no historical discrepancy I'm aware of when it comes to rollercoaster safety based on race. You're being ridiculous.

> Do you think such historical disparity is a good (ethical/moral) argument to continue using two separate measuring sticks?

...you're the one who broke the measuring sticks in the first place! You are the one who cherry-picked exclusively Black people in New York and compared them to a group including Black and non-Black people in Florida. Why weren't you using the same measuring stick in both instances?

I cannot believe I'm going to engage with this stupid and bad-faith analogy, but alas.

We know that Black people face worse conditions when it comes to being victims of crime everywhere. But you're using evidence of Black people in New York facing more crime than a group including non-Black people in Jacksonville as evidence that New York is less safe. That's just not true. Because you should either be comparing solely Black people in the two cities or all people in both. Comparing one metric to the other just makes no sense.

In your analogy, what you're doing is comparing the rate of accidents involving just children in New York to the rate of accidents involving both children and adults in Jacksonville. That simply makes no sense.

You know everyone else can peep into your comments and realize you’re full of shit, right? Like, when you lie, people can see everything you post and realize that you’re being dishonest? This website is anonymous, but when you comment incessantly, people can discern pretty clearly what you stand for.

> I'm only using one: the murder rate of any person in Jacksonville.

That’s literally not what you’re doing. You compared the rate of crime against exclusively Black people in New York to all people, Black or white, in Jacksonville:

> When taking into account that blacks/African-Americans accounts for 67.00% of the murder victims in NYC, but only 23.80% of the NYC population, it implies that a significant fraction of NYC is less safe than the typical person in Jacksonville

That is not an apples to apples comparison at all, no matter how many times you attempt to make it out to be and no matter how many times you will surely copy and paste the same paragraph over and over in the next week. You will be called out for the bullshit every time.