She's clearly writing from a position where she doesn't have to deal with the consequences of her ideas and I certainly her position is moronic, but how often do you think people with slightly more experience and perspective could have said the same about your positions?
Ana Kasparian is like all the other losers at the young turks, led by that used car salesman of a boss of theirs, all gaming the attention economy like a bunch of frothing, craven lunatics. She's such a loser that part of her job is to go into the comments of a substack to talk shit to defend the "brand". I'd rather do customer service for multiple eternities than have to inhabit that ridiculous persona for a living.
Do you think if we provide housing and therapy to everyone there will be no more violent acts?
Because that is utopian thinking. Some do not have capacity for empathy (or very low) and will do sick things. Some will be abused and need many years of treatment before not abusing others. In the meantime, do we not incarcerate? You lose credibility when you cannot address these realities.
Actually yes, and loads of scientific data exist to back this thesis. Go to any country where housing, healthcare, and steady income are provided as inalienable rights, and you’ll find that these sorts of antisocial acts are nearly unheard of. Yet, some Americans can’t wrap their minds around the fact that something like abolishing poverty, homelessness, unemployment, etc is not only possible, but wildly successful yet simple to achieve, as is proven in places like China, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, and others, not to mention the pre-1991 Eastern bloc.
Even post-1991 Eastern Europe. I go to Bulgaria yearly. Pretty much the only crime is mafia stuff. If you're not in the mafia, you don't have to worry. Being scared to go out alone at night doesn't exist. Whenever I make this point racists flood the comments and say it's because it's mostly white people resulting in a "high-trust" society. No. It's because a) family commitment is strong; the crazy drunk uncle, for better or worse, lives in the family basement, not on the street and b) more importantly, just the social memory/expectation of social services, abutted by new expectations of services due to EU membership, results in stability. People are mostly poor, they're perpetually pissed about the corrupt politicians that cycle in and out, but virtually no one has to worry that they'll end up on the street. And so yes. There's virtually no stranger on stranger violent crime and not a smidgeon of opioid crisis.
Have you read "Covered by Night", by Nicole Eustice? It's about American justice in the early 18th century. The "savages" believed in restorative justice. And the "civilized' Europeans believed in ... well, you know.
While there are definitely good critiques of this article to be made, there not a single decent one to be found in this entire comment thread. Great job guys, I’m sure any skeptical person who’s on the fence about this issue will be convinced of your position after reading you call the author a moron or an evil democrat and yell about all the terrible things you think she deserves to have happen to her, or in the best cases you basically just say that reforms are impossible because these criminals are somehow inherently deficient in some way. Cool, so the author is dumb and bad because, uh… you said so and the policies she’s defending are also bad, but you have no evidence to show that and you don’t bring up any potential alternative policies to help with these issues because reasons.
"Plus, do you know why people with psychiatric problems who live on the street do K-2? Because they don’t have access to weed, which mellows you out, or benzos, which also mellow you out."
No, they do these drugs because they are hedonists. In most cases the drug use itself made them crazy. Maybe that's a bit of the problem you suffer from? Maybe it's what permitted you to write this drivel? Regardless, you ought to consider the possibility that the "someone who has access to therapy, Xanax or Ativan" may not be there for long, or may be committing other crimes and misdemeanors, or may simply indicate you got it all wrong from the start. Homelessness and drug use may not be the root problem. You're merely chasing your tail. The root problem may be the character of the individual. That lack of character leads to the failure and violence. Put that low-life in a suit and tie and an air conditioned apartment and he'll still be a menace to society.
Yes, I’m sure it’s just an innate “lack of character” that caused the massive rates of violent crime in the 80s and 90s and the reason rates have plummeted ever sense is because everyone all of a sudden just pulled their “character” up by their own bootstraps, couldn’t have anything to do with the economy or public policy
"Might I suggest a third option? How about providing homeless people suffering from clear psychiatric problems the drugs and therapy they need to get their lives under control as well as stable, permanent housing?"
That's the utopian thinking which has been tried many many times and doesn't work. What you end up with is trashed housing, and the homeless revert to their previous ways of drugs, back on the streets. What these people need is hard jail. Period.
Ana frequently grates on my nerves, usually the manner of her prima donna presentation, but often as a disagreement over policy. Nonetheless I consider her far more of an ally than I do a detriment to the "left". Like them or not, TYT reach a lot of people and present a reasonable left-leaning bias to the corporate nonsense pushed by most of mainstream media.
It isn't necessary to tow the line 100% on every issue of policy. I lean pretty far to the left on nearly every issue except gun control and I catch a lot of crap for it. I like guns, and my constitution guarantees me the right to keep them, so I do. I wouldn't be caught dead with the right wing gun enthusiast crowd, but I do figure it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it, and I don't want the proud boys/oath keeper morons to be the only ones armed to the teeth. Beyond that, they're just fun to shoot (the guns, not right-wing militants lol). I'm waiting for someone to be able to present a rational argument to show how banning certain guns, or enacting just a little bit more gun control than the 3000+ Federal and state laws already on the books is going to keep guns out of the hands of people intent on committing murder, or otherwise breaking the law anyway. My point is that it never ceases to amaze me how often I'm accused of not being a true progressive or of not supporting leftist causes because of a difference of opinion on a single issue.
We have truly repulsive people in positions of power, and these people are responsible for actually making law. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The entirety of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates- or, on the other side the aisle, our octogenarian incumbent commander-in-chief, who is intent on allowing Israel to commit genocide (or at least ethnic cleansing) without any pushback at all- these people make any disagreement I may have with Ana Kasparian trivial by comparison.
The author of this blog post is a Democrat who has no understanding of reality, lives completely disconnected from the world. it's racist as hell to think allowing black people to be free from consequence will somehow make things better for black people (when the #1 victim of violence in the country, is black people at the hands of other black people. When you stop putting people in jail, the people that suffer the most, are innocent black people. Not to mention the corporate exodus that is beginning to happen from low income areas, because they are finding it impossible to run when you have the same people stealing all day long from your store, because the police will not arrest them, or they just let them out in an hour, so if the writer thinks there's a lack of employment in black neighborhoods now, just wait, progressive policies are doing damage to black neighborhoods that will take decades to fix, as well as those who can are fleeing to safer areas, so she's just guaranteeing many, many, many more decades of the same shit we've spent decades trying to fix. The sad part is, in most places, things were better than they used to be, when crime goes down, poor neighborhoods benefit the most, when crime goes up, poor neighborhoods suffer the most, by FAR. Crime had been going down for many years, but it's going up now, rapidly, and when a culture of lawlessness begins spreading, it's hard, and takes a long time to stop it.
Get out of the fantasy world in your head, get out of the cult poisoning your mind, and let go of the narrative that guides your every thought because it's not fucking reality, your narrative is why this mans victims are watching in horror as people like you diminish their trauma, and speak of rewarding him for his violent crimes against them.
This was always an obvious place to arrive as a society when we celebrated narcissism, told people that what matters is the narrative, it matters more than the victims of horrific violence like the one here, where we border on victim blaming "maybe she shouldn't have had a job, because the man who nearly killed her didn't have one, and then she wouldn't have been walking by him that day". This is a horrible thing to say, and somehow this writers actual conclusion is multiple steps past just victim blaming, she wants to reward this violent sociopath, at your expense!
"the gov't needs to give this man a house after such a long and storied career of brutalizing innocent women for no reason!"
Pure delusional woke psychobabble, completely disconnected from reality, shaped entirely by the narrative that this defies, leading her to completely insane, and irrational conclusions, because she must maintain the narrative, no matter what, and the narrative says "homeless black man=always the victim". It is a cult, they chant, they worship, they have public ritualistic behavior (virtue signaling), they don't allow dissent or deviation from the dogma, they viciously attack all who stray the path even slightly, as she is doing to Anna here. Anna said something obvious about reality, and this is not allowed, she must be ruthlessly punished so the next person who thinks something obvious about reality will think twice before saying it out loud. Controlling people through fear is powerful, and that's all the left is today. No principles, once they saw the FBI as corrupt, they thought the federal gov't was a threat to civil liberties, and they opposed war. Now they are doxxing people for putting out the names of agents involved in the mar a lago raid, cause the FBI are the greatest, and it's progressive to be their defenders! It's progressive to support the gov't stripping civil liberties from people who disagree with us, spying on them, arresting political opposition, etc. It's progressive to support war, and to oppose any peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, because endless war is good, and the left will sacrifice as many ukrainians as it takes to defeat Putin! #IStandWithUkraine!
Progressive today means siding with bankers, and billionaires, funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to big pharma, the military industrial complex, and all the things the neocons did that the left were against. Progressive=neocons who virtue signal.
You're right about the psychobabble and the unrealistic expectations but you're no better. Rather than suggest a solution (doesn't need to be perfect) you're more fixated on attacking her..
You're a giant piece of shit. It must be nice to live somewhere that you never have to deal with the consequences of this violence. This is typical white woman nonsense, thanks for making the world a shittier place one little opinion at a time.
you are an absolute and total fucking moron.
She's clearly writing from a position where she doesn't have to deal with the consequences of her ideas and I certainly her position is moronic, but how often do you think people with slightly more experience and perspective could have said the same about your positions?
Ana clearly is on the side of safety of the working class ... and we appreciate it !
you're white.
I'm actually not lol
Ok racist
I'm not white either and I agree with Ana Kasparian for once.
Ana is not exactly known for her accurate and fair reporting
Ana Kasparian is like all the other losers at the young turks, led by that used car salesman of a boss of theirs, all gaming the attention economy like a bunch of frothing, craven lunatics. She's such a loser that part of her job is to go into the comments of a substack to talk shit to defend the "brand". I'd rather do customer service for multiple eternities than have to inhabit that ridiculous persona for a living.
Absolutely!
As a wise man from Tblisi once observed, “Social democracy is merely the left wing of fascism.”
Do you think if we provide housing and therapy to everyone there will be no more violent acts?
Because that is utopian thinking. Some do not have capacity for empathy (or very low) and will do sick things. Some will be abused and need many years of treatment before not abusing others. In the meantime, do we not incarcerate? You lose credibility when you cannot address these realities.
Actually yes, and loads of scientific data exist to back this thesis. Go to any country where housing, healthcare, and steady income are provided as inalienable rights, and you’ll find that these sorts of antisocial acts are nearly unheard of. Yet, some Americans can’t wrap their minds around the fact that something like abolishing poverty, homelessness, unemployment, etc is not only possible, but wildly successful yet simple to achieve, as is proven in places like China, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, and others, not to mention the pre-1991 Eastern bloc.
Even post-1991 Eastern Europe. I go to Bulgaria yearly. Pretty much the only crime is mafia stuff. If you're not in the mafia, you don't have to worry. Being scared to go out alone at night doesn't exist. Whenever I make this point racists flood the comments and say it's because it's mostly white people resulting in a "high-trust" society. No. It's because a) family commitment is strong; the crazy drunk uncle, for better or worse, lives in the family basement, not on the street and b) more importantly, just the social memory/expectation of social services, abutted by new expectations of services due to EU membership, results in stability. People are mostly poor, they're perpetually pissed about the corrupt politicians that cycle in and out, but virtually no one has to worry that they'll end up on the street. And so yes. There's virtually no stranger on stranger violent crime and not a smidgeon of opioid crisis.
What, don't you think this man deserves a house and job after the work he has put in ruthlessly beating innocent women for walking down the street?
Have you read "Covered by Night", by Nicole Eustice? It's about American justice in the early 18th century. The "savages" believed in restorative justice. And the "civilized' Europeans believed in ... well, you know.
Oh interesting. I haven't
While there are definitely good critiques of this article to be made, there not a single decent one to be found in this entire comment thread. Great job guys, I’m sure any skeptical person who’s on the fence about this issue will be convinced of your position after reading you call the author a moron or an evil democrat and yell about all the terrible things you think she deserves to have happen to her, or in the best cases you basically just say that reforms are impossible because these criminals are somehow inherently deficient in some way. Cool, so the author is dumb and bad because, uh… you said so and the policies she’s defending are also bad, but you have no evidence to show that and you don’t bring up any potential alternative policies to help with these issues because reasons.
"Plus, do you know why people with psychiatric problems who live on the street do K-2? Because they don’t have access to weed, which mellows you out, or benzos, which also mellow you out."
No, they do these drugs because they are hedonists. In most cases the drug use itself made them crazy. Maybe that's a bit of the problem you suffer from? Maybe it's what permitted you to write this drivel? Regardless, you ought to consider the possibility that the "someone who has access to therapy, Xanax or Ativan" may not be there for long, or may be committing other crimes and misdemeanors, or may simply indicate you got it all wrong from the start. Homelessness and drug use may not be the root problem. You're merely chasing your tail. The root problem may be the character of the individual. That lack of character leads to the failure and violence. Put that low-life in a suit and tie and an air conditioned apartment and he'll still be a menace to society.
Dude, you think like a cop.
Thanks. But I'm not a cop.
Yes, I’m sure it’s just an innate “lack of character” that caused the massive rates of violent crime in the 80s and 90s and the reason rates have plummeted ever sense is because everyone all of a sudden just pulled their “character” up by their own bootstraps, couldn’t have anything to do with the economy or public policy
Drop in crime is mostly due to an aging population.
"Might I suggest a third option? How about providing homeless people suffering from clear psychiatric problems the drugs and therapy they need to get their lives under control as well as stable, permanent housing?"
That's the utopian thinking which has been tried many many times and doesn't work. What you end up with is trashed housing, and the homeless revert to their previous ways of drugs, back on the streets. What these people need is hard jail. Period.
Ana frequently grates on my nerves, usually the manner of her prima donna presentation, but often as a disagreement over policy. Nonetheless I consider her far more of an ally than I do a detriment to the "left". Like them or not, TYT reach a lot of people and present a reasonable left-leaning bias to the corporate nonsense pushed by most of mainstream media.
It isn't necessary to tow the line 100% on every issue of policy. I lean pretty far to the left on nearly every issue except gun control and I catch a lot of crap for it. I like guns, and my constitution guarantees me the right to keep them, so I do. I wouldn't be caught dead with the right wing gun enthusiast crowd, but I do figure it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it, and I don't want the proud boys/oath keeper morons to be the only ones armed to the teeth. Beyond that, they're just fun to shoot (the guns, not right-wing militants lol). I'm waiting for someone to be able to present a rational argument to show how banning certain guns, or enacting just a little bit more gun control than the 3000+ Federal and state laws already on the books is going to keep guns out of the hands of people intent on committing murder, or otherwise breaking the law anyway. My point is that it never ceases to amaze me how often I'm accused of not being a true progressive or of not supporting leftist causes because of a difference of opinion on a single issue.
We have truly repulsive people in positions of power, and these people are responsible for actually making law. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The entirety of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates- or, on the other side the aisle, our octogenarian incumbent commander-in-chief, who is intent on allowing Israel to commit genocide (or at least ethnic cleansing) without any pushback at all- these people make any disagreement I may have with Ana Kasparian trivial by comparison.
Nuances aside, though, "catch and release" does NOT work. Period.
She's always been like this, I don't know why more people didn't notice sooner.
The author of this blog post is a Democrat who has no understanding of reality, lives completely disconnected from the world. it's racist as hell to think allowing black people to be free from consequence will somehow make things better for black people (when the #1 victim of violence in the country, is black people at the hands of other black people. When you stop putting people in jail, the people that suffer the most, are innocent black people. Not to mention the corporate exodus that is beginning to happen from low income areas, because they are finding it impossible to run when you have the same people stealing all day long from your store, because the police will not arrest them, or they just let them out in an hour, so if the writer thinks there's a lack of employment in black neighborhoods now, just wait, progressive policies are doing damage to black neighborhoods that will take decades to fix, as well as those who can are fleeing to safer areas, so she's just guaranteeing many, many, many more decades of the same shit we've spent decades trying to fix. The sad part is, in most places, things were better than they used to be, when crime goes down, poor neighborhoods benefit the most, when crime goes up, poor neighborhoods suffer the most, by FAR. Crime had been going down for many years, but it's going up now, rapidly, and when a culture of lawlessness begins spreading, it's hard, and takes a long time to stop it.
Get out of the fantasy world in your head, get out of the cult poisoning your mind, and let go of the narrative that guides your every thought because it's not fucking reality, your narrative is why this mans victims are watching in horror as people like you diminish their trauma, and speak of rewarding him for his violent crimes against them.
This was always an obvious place to arrive as a society when we celebrated narcissism, told people that what matters is the narrative, it matters more than the victims of horrific violence like the one here, where we border on victim blaming "maybe she shouldn't have had a job, because the man who nearly killed her didn't have one, and then she wouldn't have been walking by him that day". This is a horrible thing to say, and somehow this writers actual conclusion is multiple steps past just victim blaming, she wants to reward this violent sociopath, at your expense!
"the gov't needs to give this man a house after such a long and storied career of brutalizing innocent women for no reason!"
Pure delusional woke psychobabble, completely disconnected from reality, shaped entirely by the narrative that this defies, leading her to completely insane, and irrational conclusions, because she must maintain the narrative, no matter what, and the narrative says "homeless black man=always the victim". It is a cult, they chant, they worship, they have public ritualistic behavior (virtue signaling), they don't allow dissent or deviation from the dogma, they viciously attack all who stray the path even slightly, as she is doing to Anna here. Anna said something obvious about reality, and this is not allowed, she must be ruthlessly punished so the next person who thinks something obvious about reality will think twice before saying it out loud. Controlling people through fear is powerful, and that's all the left is today. No principles, once they saw the FBI as corrupt, they thought the federal gov't was a threat to civil liberties, and they opposed war. Now they are doxxing people for putting out the names of agents involved in the mar a lago raid, cause the FBI are the greatest, and it's progressive to be their defenders! It's progressive to support the gov't stripping civil liberties from people who disagree with us, spying on them, arresting political opposition, etc. It's progressive to support war, and to oppose any peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, because endless war is good, and the left will sacrifice as many ukrainians as it takes to defeat Putin! #IStandWithUkraine!
Progressive today means siding with bankers, and billionaires, funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to big pharma, the military industrial complex, and all the things the neocons did that the left were against. Progressive=neocons who virtue signal.
You're right about the psychobabble and the unrealistic expectations but you're no better. Rather than suggest a solution (doesn't need to be perfect) you're more fixated on attacking her..
You're a giant piece of shit. It must be nice to live somewhere that you never have to deal with the consequences of this violence. This is typical white woman nonsense, thanks for making the world a shittier place one little opinion at a time.
Uh, and how did you come up with this intriguing postulation? Is there any evidence or are you just reimagining what may have happened?