Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

lucasbelite t1_j9timbt wrote

Calls to defund the police were mainly popular among activists, not society at large or political rhetoric in campaigns. Even looking at polling it doesn't get majority support, not even in Baltimore. Politicians dropped being captured by that issue pretty early on when it wasn't really getting support at least Statewide and in general.

The goal seems to be to have an adequately funded police force that reflects the community they serve. Banning no knock raids, implementing police cameras, encouraging police to report others when they abuse, and changing the culture in general among other reforms. While also increasing funds in education and programs.

Wes Moore has announced a First in the Nation service year option and historic spending in Education. And he just announced the first black Maryland State Police superintendent. At least Statewide, it has been exactly what I expected. Right now the area is struggling to even retain police when you look at recruitment and officers leaving. And this is at the backdrop of Baltimore having the second highest homicide rate in the nation. They aren't going to start experimenting with alt safety programs and putting more pressure on police leaving positions in that dynamic. And so far Moore hasn't drifted from his rhetoric in that respect. He got endorsed by the largest police union for a reason.

Because at the end of the day they are already struggling finding cops, crime and murders are somewhat high, and it doesn't have public support. Their focus is going to be retentention to not shake the beehive. And reassuring safety.

51

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9tk61b wrote

More spending on education? Baltimore city students already get more funding in the state per student, by far. I'm fine with even more but if it's going to waste what's the point? The school system in Baltimore City has been disgustingly mismanaged fiscally and administratively.

Our youth need direction, purpose, and hope. They don't have that. The police don't bring that. Our society needs to be corrected at the core. The parents need the ability to support their children and families need to be put back together. We've been torn apart by drugs and corporations.

−6

Le_Feesh t1_j9tkjix wrote

Without trying to be inflammatory, what do you propose is a core correction to society that would bring hope and prosperity to these poor communities?

22

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9u1dee wrote

  1. Invest in secondary education and financial literacy for youth and adults.
  2. Protect workers with benefits and wages. You have to be careful with this because the democrats screwed that up and capitalism took advantage.
  3. Make teachers a highly regarded commodity. The administration treats them like shit. Parents treat them like shit.
  4. Youth sports, clubs, recreation facilities, and more. Homework Youth centers that provide tutoring and meals. A safe space to spend time.

There's more...

But you need to allow Parents to be Parents. Stop having government sponsored programs from profiting off not doing their job.

Eliminate the corruption in Baltimore and complete financial mismanagement in the city in schools.

Reform government assistance to help people get to move away from it instead of taking advantage of it. Some programs mothers are making more money being single mothers and discourages families. We need strong families. Strong communities.

Attack systematic racism. We need to help our society and stop locking them up. Keeps dads from being fathers and continues the circle. So prisons need to stop profiting from butts in beds and passing funds to the judges and other areas of the legal system. Biden and Harris and Clintons have done that in a big way and republicans haven't done much to slow it down.

−12

Willothwisp2303 t1_j9upp06 wrote

"Financial literacy" sounds like a fancy way to blame poor people for not being able to stretch a dollar to cover $100 of expenses. Magically have people respect teachers- I'd love to hear your plan to undo 70 years of making education a political battlefield. Give kids a second home and be their parents, but let parents be parents? Reform government systems to further punish single parents instead of eliminating the benefits cliff?

You have a lot of buzzwords but not a lot of substance.

23

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9uriy8 wrote

Financial Literacy doesn't have anything to do with stretching a buck. Look up Maryland HB0985 Del. Walker has been trying for years to put it through. Hopefully, he gets it through this year.

70 years of disrespect of teachers? Right now the teachers are underappreciated, under paid, and over worked. Not only that the school system doesn't provide them with adequate supplies. 30 years ago when a student messed up in class it was the students fault. Now it's the teachers being blamed by the parents and the administration backing up the parents. We have a couple of generations of entitled kids with a lack of accountability. Administrations need to back up the teacher and when the student is in the wrong it needs to acknowledged.

Government assistance is designed to keep people enslaved/dependent on the program and to keep supporting whoever is feeding the individual. They know people aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Sorry I use "buzzwords". I don't have time to type up full detailed plans. I'm hoping folks can get a general idea. How the dots are connected I'll leave to you.

−9

DeliMcPickles t1_j9tvbw0 wrote

And this is the point. You're talking about billions if not trillions of dollars of investment to improve the social fabric, and I'm not even sure how we measure the efficacy of that money. And I agree that this is more along the lines of what's needed, but it will take decades if not longer and politicians think in 2-8 year chunks and so there's no appetite for this. Much easier to just give 1 million bucks for more cops, which doesn't help the cops or the city.

11

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9u2err wrote

You aren't wrong! But we didn't get fat overnight and we aren't gonna get skinny one morning in the gym. Funds can reprogrammed and we can get a control of the other spending. Congress passes around a trillion dollar like it's nothing and it scares me. We've gotten so used to it.

A million seconds is 12 days A billion seconds is 32 years A trillion seconds is 31,688 years

8

brewtonone t1_j9tyt8a wrote

Not to mention that the governor is slowly stripping the Boost program that helps low income kids go to better performing schools.

4

cologne_peddler t1_j9wv0a3 wrote

>Baltimore city students already get more funding in the state per student, by far. I'm fine with even more but if it's going to waste what's the point?

First of all it's not "by far." It's about the same as Montgomery Co. Second, the system was underfunded for several decades. Maryland had to be sued into properly funding Baltimore Schools in the 90s; and it's fallen short of the mandated terms quite a bit in the interim. You can't glean anything from state rankings alone.

>The school system in Baltimore City has been disgustingly mismanaged fiscally and administratively.

How much of it is fiscal mismanagement and how much of it is pushing a deteriorated system uphill?

As for the rest, I agree. Making it rain on cops is useless and destructive.

3

lucasbelite t1_j9w3gz3 wrote

> Our youth need direction, purpose, and hope.

To be fair that is kinda the point of the service year option. A lot of kids tend to burn out and give up as they get older when they come to the realization of their circumstances and start to question their pathway after high school. And a service year option provides direction, mentorship, paid stipends, purpose, and value for the community. That is usually the point of partnerships, where multiple stakeholders are invested in a program, and everybody wins.

And by having a program after you complete high school, it could right the ship before it veers off course for a lot of students. As opposed to them finding alternatives to their situation, coping with the fact all that work was for nothing, and blaming society, which often, of course, is influenced by peer groups that promote bad behavior leading to negative outcomes.

1

SeaworthinessFit2151 t1_j9uorqs wrote

  1. calls to defund the police were also called for by social workers and those in the state social services too. Who are bleeding and desperate for funds

  2. education costs WAY more in impoverished places. Now I’m not saying we don’t have a skimming problem. But poor areas need more funds per kid it’s just reality. They need more meals. The schools need more repairs. There needs to be staffing incentives. There needs to be bonus and after hours programs etc etc.

32

maiios t1_j9thgbz wrote

Politicians like to make us think that our choices are between the Republicans and Democratsb so we keep giving them our attention and money. But once you realize that the real divide is between the ultra wealthy and everyone else, and that both parties are in the pocket of the ultra wealthy, then you start to realize why there isn't as much meaningful change between elections.

And what do the ultra wealthy want? They want police that will use violence to keep the rest of us in check, and put people in cages.

Why do you think that Biden has basically kept Trump's immigration policies, even after that was such a travesty that he campaigned on? Why did Mr Blue Collar Scranton Union guy basically union bust the railroad workers?

Don't be fooled. Both sides are using culture wars so we don't realize what's actually going on.

13

lucasbelite t1_j9tn0pv wrote

While I don't disagree with the notion that both parties pander about certain issues and don't live up to the talk, your comment is oversimplifying. The idea that the ultrawealthy behind gated communities with their own bodyguards and private polices forces care about the homicide rate in cities or Baltimore is just laughable.

More than 70% of Baltimore residents don't want to defund the police. Because drum roll, violence and homicides affect the non-wealthy the most. However, a lot of the wealthy do benefit from private prisons. But again, it's mainly pushed by one Party which goes against your idea both parties are the same, not to mention the industry is small (and Maryland has none). The vast amount of the rich make money from rent and us buying products being outside cages. They don't need cages to make money. As if the margins are that great when in instead you can make them work 7/hr in most States and increase their rent while they pay for everything they need and get public subsidy.

Also, in this political climate the last decade or so it's equally laughable to say there is no difference in the parties. You can sit here all day and talk about RoevWade, an insurrection, infrastructure spending, regulation, education spending and healthcare, and the score of other issues that show drastic difference in their agenda and priorities. But yes, historically speaking the past few decades, there has been little movement on labor rights as the rich pour money into campaigns.

And the example you gave about no difference in immigration? You might not see a difference, but it's definitely an issue the right sees as they constantly attack him on it and drag the Republican Party further right. As if anybody was under the illusion that Biden, who performed a record amount of deportations under Obama was going to open the borders or something? Not to mention as soon as he got into office he signed a flurry of executive orders about it as if he did 'nothing'.

I'm not even a fan of Biden, but it's just silly. Because the Republican party is literally blocking any legislation on immigration reform as democrats constantly try to bring it to the floor. The President doesn't have unlimited power. And that goes for a lot of legislation and issues, because if you look at the actual bills, you'll see what the priorities are and how they drastically differ.

18

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9v8r2g wrote

>But yes, historically speaking the past few decades, there has been little movement on labor rights as the rich pour money into campaigns.

I'd actually argue that following labor taking blow after blow from the 90s-2000s, there's been a massive labor push back.

Unionization efforts and popular support for unions are the highest we've seen in decades.

5

JupiterBass t1_j9uom27 wrote

It might be a hot take but a lot of the problems in Baltimore, minority communities, and many cities across the country would be solved by a bottom up solution rather than top-down one

The city can pour millions of dollars in any program or such for policing, education, parks and recs, and such but that still doesn't address the culture that a lot of the people from these high crime areas come from. Does Baltimore have a robust outreach program that can address the dysfunction and trauma that some of these people come from? I'm gonna look into it myself...

Addressing these issues with policy, and funding, and whatever else more so feel like band aides and covering up larger issues that are very complex...

If its a bottom-up solution, then that would be people getting into the neighborhoods, locally organized groups and such, but it seems like a cyclical problem when a lot of people who are either from the areas or the city/state in general might not even wanna try going there and doing work. Like wasn't a dude who was working close in the area shot a few years back?

I suppose either/or wont work...I feel like a mix of these band aide government solutions and local organization would do the trick...but thats over years. Baltimore didn't become this way over night and we can't expect change over night either...not without displacing a bunch of people at least

6

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9tln3h wrote

Completely, the East Palestine train derailment is a perfect example and could absolutely happen in Baltimore. Government officials let corporations escape necessary protections to prevent an incident like that from happening. In addition, Government officials stepped in to get rail workers back to work without getting the basic benefits. So the rail company raked in record profits while not equipping the cars with proper brakes and understaffed and overworked train crews.

Corporations, Big Pharma, and others are manipulating us and our government on both sides while we argue over trans rights, race relations, and abortion rights. Oh and UFOs...

Let's not talk about our military supplies and funds being sent over to Ukrane to pay for everything in their country. Or the trillions of dollars missing from the pentagon. Or the millions our government officials get from insider trading. Or the backdoor deals Biden and his family has put forth. Or the backdoor deals Trump has benefited the Saudi prince. There's more going on if you just pay attention.

−9

lucasbelite t1_j9u7ysn wrote

But it's not a perfect example. It's very easy to say both parties are the same. Because both parties are captured by the rich. But they are captured by different billionaires in different industries, so it's more nuanced. And have very different priorities and issue capture because they have very different voting blocks. And even though a common denominator is labor rights that they hesitate on, one Party still leans on the side of supporting workers.

So in this particular example when it comes to regulating safety in manufacturing or transporting hazards, there is a clear difference. Because deregulation did occur in rail when Republicans had control.

Or even in the case of labor in rail, look no further than Biden immediately telling congress to pass legislation to adopt a labor agreement with a 24% pay raise and healthcare benefits. After a stern warning, 137 Republicans voted against it, only 8 Democrats. 96% of democrats supported. 37% Republicans. That's a huge difference.

And when democrats pushed for a provision to increase increase sickpay days from one to seven, it passed along party lines, with only 3 Republicans supporting it. That would never pass today now that the house has switched control. How is that not a difference?

I'm all for admitting similarities where they exist, but it drives me crazy when people pretend there is no difference when their are so many.

There's a reason why the right rails against tech billionaires and the left rails against oil billionaires. Because despite the rich supporting both parties, they also fight their own battles along party lines and voting blocks. And the mere nature of having to depend on voters to win elections creates pressure to support certain issues.

So there is a clear difference in regulating manufacturing, transporting hazards, and labor benefits. A quite obvious difference when you consider who benefits and the voting block that supports them.

7

maiios t1_j9uu27o wrote

If the democrats supported unions, then they would have let the collective bargaining process work out instead of basically forcing the workers to accept the owner's proposal. The pay bump was agreed on, but the workers wanted more time off, and they really didn't get that. But the politicians and news media played it as a win win.

3

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9uak8l wrote

There are differences in that regard but still the same. They cater to the corporations that gets them reelected.

The dems just hide it better saying that they can relate to working class. But keep in mind who is always taking the beating. It's never the rich. The ones making the laws are the rich.

They aren't going to pass a law they can't loophole through or around.

−2

lucasbelite t1_j9ujula wrote

You responded to the only point I capitulated on. That there's a lot of money in our politics and it obviously influences decision making. But it influences in different ways, and I explicitly said labor is an issue that has less difference, because of that reason, however, voting blocks still create a small one.

Otherwise, feel free to explain this. I work in Montgomery County. Sick leave is mandated and minimum wage is $15.65/hr. State minimum wage will rise to $15.00/hr by 2025 Statewide.

A short drive to PA right over the border where democrats don't have a trifecta of control in Goverment and haven't in quite sometime, the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I'm soooo sure it's just a coincidence. Drive 30 minutes North of Baltimore and cross state lines and the minimum wage drops in half, for one simple reason. The difference in Party.

You can pretend all you want that there's no difference. But it's pretty obvious, especially when you look at who is obstructing what, when things don't get passed. Because it only takes one chamber or an executive to block progress. But when you actually look at proportions of roll call votes and the stark difference on how different areas that have a trifecta of control by either party and where they focus their priorities and it's pretty damn obvious.

4

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9v9a2o wrote

>Let's not talk about our military supplies and funds being sent over to Ukrane to pay for everything in their country.

You mean all that old equipment from 40-30 years ago that we just kept in warehouses collecting dust?

2

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9vbclv wrote

Please let me know your source.

−1

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9via5i wrote

The source is the equipment they're being given.

The Abrams they're getting? They're not the modern variant, they're the OG variant that is still being tooled down before its sent overseas.

HIMARS? Cold War tech.

M117 APCs? 90s.

Javilens and Stingers? Cold War.

RAAM systems? Cold War.

Switchblade Drones? They're modern tech, but they're single use, and they only got 700.

TOW missiles? Cold War.

Bradley's? Cold War.

HARM missiles? Cold War.

HMMWVs? Cold War.

M113 APCs? EARLY Cold War.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/

I could go on, but it's pretty clear the vast majority of the weapons systems we've sent to Ukraine are very outdated to anyone with even a passing knowledge of them.

What source do you have that they've been getting primarily cutting-edge edge tech? Cause if we're dragging our feet to give them F-16s I find the idea that they're getting the best of our newer equipment a tad silly.

2

6flightsup t1_j9vjmts wrote

FiM 92 Stinger: entered service in 1981 HIMARS: entered service 20+ years ago BGM71 TOW: entered service in the 1970s Just three bigger ticket examples. Old.

2

addctd2badideas t1_j9tzdm2 wrote

I'm not interested in defunding the police, but rather reforming them to where they're virtually unrecognizable from who they are now. Even if you're ideologically lazy with all the "ACAB" nonsense, we still need the police. Even if you have fully funded social programs to address generational poverty and violence, you still need to stabilize public safety so folks have a chance to heal and improve their community. Not to mention the right of citizens to be able to walk out of their houses without encountering open-air opioid markets and dodging crossfire.

Now, the optimal thing would be that we have enough police to actually do the job. It'd also be nice if the current ones would do their job at all (and do so while not violating the most basic of civil rights). I lost the point where this all had to be ideological. The police, particularly the union, are such a bunch of snowflakes, making out their job to be part of their political identity.

If Wes Moore can somehow thread the needle that reassures the police, giving them a proverbial pat on the head with a "good job" while addressing inequality, civil rights and public safety at the same time, I would be ecstatic.

7

todareistobmore t1_j9uwf39 wrote

> but rather reforming them to where they're virtually unrecognizable from who they are now. Even if you're ideologically lazy with all the "ACAB" nonsense,

It would be far less work just to internally read ACAB as 'all cops are badly in need of reform' than to try to parse a meaningful ideological difference between your stated position and the one you're trying to dunk on.

4

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9v89ge wrote

OR, the people who actually want police reform can just call themselves police reformers instead of ACAB.

Because ACAB has the pretty strong connotation that policing = Cops bad.

3

addctd2badideas t1_j9uz2ah wrote

If people actually mean they'd prefer police reform when they say "defund" or "ACAB," then they can say that. Christ, that is such a cop-out (excuse the pun).

Because if I read between the lines, I personally look at the meaning behind them as, at best, wholly impractical, and at worst, an ideological purity test. This is why so little movement has been had in police reform... most people take this idea at face value. We don't need extremes to solve this problem. What's more is that these supposed slogans aren't really addressed to the people who need convincing. Just like conservatives, liberals and progressives do a whole shit-ton of ideological pandering.

1

todareistobmore t1_j9vjwdu wrote

> We don't need extremes to solve this problem.

What you called for is "reforming them to where they're virtually unrecognizable from who they are now." Who's the loudest 'reform' voice that you think embraces anything resembling this view?

3

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9u3ohr wrote

Enough police will be hard to manage. Who wants that job? Low pay. People hate you and are not respected. Oh by the way, get shot at from time to time.

There are so many things wrapped up in this. It's hard to unwrap.

3

addctd2badideas t1_j9u4lu4 wrote

>There are so many things wrapped up in this. It's hard to unwrap.

That's an understatement. It's made more challenging by the fact that the upper command is full of people who are either flat-out lying about their purview and abilities or are just dumb.

I had an exchange with a former district commander that's now a major at headquarters and when she explained how her officers operate according to the consent decree, it was like she had read an entirely different document.

7

SeaworthinessFit2151 t1_j9up6xg wrote

Not low pay. Three times what a city social worker gets after 10 years of schooling and clinical. I consider $125k a pretty Penny.

3

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9vldou wrote

That's not a teacher's salary at all. I see an Assistant Principal that makes that much. I'm seeing on average $54k to $77k

Social workers are another that is way underpaid and overworked. For what they do and the education they must get to be that is crazy. The ROI to become that doesn't make any sense.

2

Willothwisp2303 t1_j9uq8xi wrote

They have an uphill battle with the police. They have the manpower to pull me over for a taillight out, but tell me they aren't going to do shit about someone stealing my identity and trying to open a bank account down the street from a police station with a bank fully willing to cooperate with them? Fuck these dicks.

2

addctd2badideas t1_j9ut7m4 wrote

Not that I disagree with your sentiment but local police don't deal with identity theft. If your identity is stolen, contact the Federal Trade Commission.

5

jashxn t1_j9ut8w2 wrote

Identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!

5

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9v816a wrote

I get the feeling identity theft is the purview of states and the feds, and not munciple police.

1

BKNORTH t1_j9w1bb7 wrote

Saying we need reform is great, but that’s a vague and meaningless statement unless you can come up with specific changes that are actually going to improve public safety in practice. The reforms that went into place after Freddie Gray sounded good in theory, but have been a complete and total failure, and pushing for more reforms in the same direction is not going to improve peoples lives. Just look at the murder rate in the city before and after the reforms, it’s fucking absurd that people just ignore this.

2008- 234 murders 2009 - 240 murders 2010- 224 murders 2011 - 197 murders 2012 - 217 murders 2013 - 235 murders 2014 - 211 murders

2015, the year the Freddie Gray reforms were impromented - 342 murders

2016 - 318 murders 2017 - 342 murders 2018 - 309 murders 2019 - 348 murders 2020 - 335 murders 2021 - 338 murders 2022 - 335 murders

Obviously the real challenge is to address the factors that lead to people wanting to murder each other at such an absurd rate in the first place, but that is almost definitely something that is goin to take generations of work to accomplish if it is possible at all, and in the mean time whatever we’ve been trying to accomplish with the police reforms we have passed have backfired enormously.

2

cologne_peddler t1_j9vjy9m wrote

This line of thinking is actually pretty lazy. It's straight out of the 90s. We've been "reforming" since Rodney King got the shit beat out of him on TV.

We don't have anything resembling the sort of constabulary we need. We have impulsive children running around with broad authority and no oversight, slaughtering and brutalizing people in the streets (and with dubious impact on public safety at that). That's urgent. That's grounds for pulling the plug. If a broken pipe is flooding your basement, you don't give the waters the "proverbial pat on the head." You don't go "well I need water, I can't just turn it off!" You stop the fucking flooding, and then you figure out how you're going to take a shower.

"Let's tweak this shit for another century until we get it right" is just lazy as hell. It really diminishes the severity of what we're facing: the state is routinely killing, brutalizing and violating citizens' rights. That's fucked.

−2

Optimus_RE t1_j9vw1wj wrote

An elected official with an extensive amount of military background. It really shouldn't be a shock

3

S-Kunst t1_j9y445z wrote

Where we have a main problem is that our city school system has this magical idea that all students will transition to college, where they will not only gain salvation into heaven, but be erudite sophisticated and have many career opportunities. In reality a large percentage of our student population flounders aimlessly in school and leave with no job skills. It seems obvious that the reason they city keeps the self selecting high schools, like Poly & City, is to provide places for the elite to send their kids so they do not have to be in schools with the general population. If our schools were to start the career planning and exploration & skills programs, in middle school, so when the kids enter high school ready to follow a career path (like they do in Germany) AND if the high school had a strong job placement department, all this would provide students with a focus and clear cause & effect example that being successful in school leads to a living wage job. Of course this means our high schools need to be set up for jobs skills and not a generic college prep curriculum. Yes, the sacred college programs should be offered, but not as a default for all. Just because one secures job focused training does not eliminate college possibility later. Community colleges have been set up, for decades, to provide this transition.

Additionally our middle school kids need more focus on being citizens and socialized as their are changing mentally and physically. This was to be the main goal of the middle school philosophy, not to be a mini high school, not to be and extension of elementary school, which is how the city structures its current schools for the middle aged students. Peer influence become dominate in these middle years. Parent influences lessens. This has all be realized decades ago, but the desire by the middle & upper class parents for their child to be ready for the elite college has kept the middle school ideas and curriculum from being adopted.

2

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9y6zmz wrote

Love it! For generations, as a society, we've pushed college or you'll be nothing. That is absolutely not true. But these kids absolutely need something in high school. Teach the basics of a trade or something. 20+ years ago we had wood shop and mechanics. That's at least something. I see parents, like myself, teaching my kids ROI. Go do you and learn what you're passionate about. Quite frankly, industry moves so fast that by the time todays high school seniors graduate college they are going to get a job outside their major. Today, 80% of people work outside their major.

These kids don't need to go to college and get into an insane amount of debt just to get a low paying job. I have 4 kids. I only have 1 that really wants to go to college because of what he wants to do for a career.

1

gaytee t1_j9wnyu6 wrote

Winning an election is completely different from running the office. Even when you’re in office, the only thing they can do is elect someone else, but all you’ve gotta do is spew the right bullshit come election season and incumbents almost always win.

1

SeaworthinessFit2151 t1_j9vxtt5 wrote

Wes Moore is kind of the md Obama example. Nice dudes. Black history makers. But still very rich. And that’s always the actual club that matters.

0

TitsMageesVacation t1_j9w4heq wrote

Neither were born into any privelege and entered public service long before they had any money. But because they succeeded they somehow play for the other team now? Would you rather have more leaders who have succeeded at nothing, besides getting elected, like Brandon Scott?

4

S-Kunst t1_j9w5g1q wrote

Its easy to follow the well worn path.

0

skullduggery38 t1_j9toele wrote

But think of all the unprotected money capital! Can't have the poors running amok

−3

cologne_peddler t1_j9vi7tu wrote

What happened, essentially, is that influential society doesn't give a shit about Black people getting slaughtered by the state. We're not going to hold cops accountable until white kids on the right of the tracks start getting beaten and killed en masse. It's a tale as old as America.

−4