Never mind that widespread, enthusiastic hostility toward policing as an institution, together with official Democratic tolerance of violent rioting in inner cities loosely directed at police, has resulted in a 33% rise in murder.
Never mind that in Chicago alone, from 2020 to 2021, that will mean a rise in murders from approximately 769 to 1023, i.e., in that city alone, these righteous causes resulted in the deaths of ~254 more people. Most of them, of course, were (will be) black.
Black Lives Matter!
Source: the CNN article says there was a 33% homicide rise in Q1 2021. If this rate continues throughout 2021, then since that Chicago had 769 homicides in 2020, they'll see ~254 more murders this year.
This just continues a massive upward trend, @JackPosobiec: "Meanwhile, Homicide rates jumped by 30% from 2019 to 2020, while gun assault and aggravated assault rates climbed 8% and 6%, respectively, experts found."
This is, of course, a horrifying measure of just how badly the "defund the police" movement failed.
People who *actually* care about preventing needless loss of lives, black and otherwise, would never advocate for such a heartless and cruel policy. And now we see why, surely.
I suppose I need to point out *why* murder is horrifying and is justly punished as among the very worst crimes.
Evil acts are not merely acts that deny life to the living; they evince contempt for the humanity of others. First-degree murder does that; that is why it is evil.
Now I want you to think about people who *say* that black lives matter, and yet, when confronted with hard, cold facts about the results of defunding the police—i.e., clearly, evil flourishes and as a result, black lives are lost—they shrug.
What are we to make of this? Are *they* evil? I mean...maybe. That seems like a reasonable explanation. Ironically, and if we set their mere words aside, their policy recommendations do evince total contempt for the humanity of others.
But you know the sort of person who earnestly advocates for defunding the police. They're merely foolish, not evil. They aren't thinking. They think about a few shocking cases of police brutality and merely *ignore* the consequences of a weakened, demoralized police force.
Well, what about the people who know better? What about the researchers and journalists sympathetic to "defund the police" who *must* at least occasionally be forced to consider the consequences of their anti-police mentality?
They, of course, merely live with cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is an old friend. They rationalize things like a rise in murder rates, "cleverly" explaining that rising murder rates are another reflection of systemic or structural racism.
They still maintain, with a conscience barely bothered cognitive dissonance, that it's caused by covid and "social unrest" (which is OK!): it's "related in complex ways to both the coronavirus pandemic and social unrest over police violence."
So...so...gee! Maybe defunding the police and the hostility toward police has nothing to do with the rise in murder! The distinguished researcher writing in WaPo says so, so it must be true!
But notice: he said it's caused in part by "social unrest over police violence."
And how is that suppose to work, anyway? Did the increase in murders happen during riots? Obviously not.
Does this criminally idiotic researcher really expect readers to ignore the obvious and profound effect that rising hostility toward police has on their policing practices?
I never get the sense that the oh-so-enlightened left cares even a fraction as much about the death of an American murdered on the streets as they do about any killing by the police, regardless of how justified they are.
As if 1000 murders are outweighed by 1 police shooting.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Rolling Stone comes out as a lockdown skeptic, joining Van Morrison, Eric Clapton, and other people you used to think were cool before they...became...counter-cultural?
I mean...we're talking about Mick Jagger and other rock icons, not exactly conservatives, coming out against lockdowns?
What can it mean? Maybe that being forced to stay locked up, muzzled, jabbed, and increasingly surveilled is...inconsistent with the freedom they represent.
That generation is now old, but some of them sure don't want to participate in this fearful, stodgy, controlling old attitude.
Not the Rolling Stones, but certainly from the same generation:
That was just before he released this video, in which he is portrayed first as being corrupted by the serpent in the Garden, then as an angel falling all the way to Hell where he has sex with Satan (in the video). YOU'VE BEEN WARNED:
Twitter's refusal to stop this horrible crime taking place on its own website looks delibate, considering—well, just look: thenextweb.com/socialmedia/20…
This is not just the opinion of a few people. Russia has threatened to block Twitter if they don't "take steps to remove banned content," including ch!ld po4n: msn.com/en-us/news/tec…
I mean, it's a fair question. If companies are pressured to cancel/block content for racially insensitive depictions of people, for criticizing trans ideology, for being by Clarence Thomas during Black History Month, for being a conservative forum, etc., then why *not* cancel...
...the Bible? The Bible advocates against gender equality, says slavery is OK (well, it does, sort of), recommends brutal treatment of adherents of pagan religions, threatens nonbelievers generally with hellfire, and even has God commanding genocide.
Federalizes elections
Can sue only in DC District Court
Mandates motor voter in all states
No witness/notary needed for absentee ballots
Prevents removing ineligible voters or confirming voter eligibility(!)
Bans voter ID laws
Lets illegal immigrants vote
Same-day registration
Censors “misleading” election info(!)
Allows felons to vote
Mandates early voting
Mandates vote by-mail w/o ID or witness
Lets 3rd parties turn in bundles of ballots
Requires states to accept ballots 10 days after
Makes unis hire campus vote coordinators