Just like the now popular fallacy, that cities across America have "defunded the police" which is why there's this "crime wave." Pointing out that police funding has actually increased is like forcing cats to look in a mirror. They don't want to hear it and change the subject as soon as you start pulling out statistics. Also, when you point out that "defunding" actually means transferring the money back to social services which are better positioned to solve issues like public mental health, homelessness, or inequality (I tell clients not to call 911 in case of emergency because all you will get is cops), they completely tune out. It appears elites hate two things: good news and solutions to problems.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION... Protocol No. 18 – Arrest of Opponents
“Criminals with us will be arrested at the first, more or less, well-grounded suspicion: it cannot be allowed that out of fear of a possible mistake an opportunity should be given of escape to persons suspected of a political lapse of crime, for in these matters we shall be literally merciless.”
You're not wrong but the murder rate in mid 80s to early 90s New York was a lot higher than it is now. It was a kind of 'wave' statistically. It's doubtful anyone in the media grappled with actual causes. There can always be a sharp increase or decrease in crime which will clearly follow events like deindustrialization, etc. We will only get bullshit to explain or deal with it but should we doubt the metaphor of a wave even if we doubt it's propagandistic uses?
I have read it. And taught it. It’s actually not about this issue. There were periods where crime was notably higher. Specifically, murder which is not that significant to Alexander’s thesis. It’s not the point of her book to address that. Thus far, we are not currently in such a period. When statisticians speak of a ‘wave’ they were are speaking of a notable change in data. This, in fact, is not contrary to Alex’s point that crime is affected by social factors. In fact, it could reinforce his point that crime is affected by social factors. It helps an argument to think about how to convince people, and one of the absurdities is that everyone knows how crime is affected by social factors (not all of which are immediately visible) yet there is a reliance on police mainly to make people feel ‘safer’ and there’s no clear or convincing causal story about why this even affects crime rates or how it will help. I am certainly convinced of his claims but in terms of not preaching to the choir, reaching those who become alarmed by manipulative narratives, I don’t know if one can completely ignore statistical phenomenon or how people talk about it. Statistics are on his side, overall. But we are going to see shifts in phenomenon that convince people, people who need other interventions besides the police but who see a lot of violence where they live. E.g., a problem now is that we are being inundated with guns. Guns are practically being handed out to people by the right wing in this country, laws are being destroyed that would put any controls on guns. That is ALSO manufacturing a wave, an actual statistical wave of gun violence and death. In the late 80s and 90s in Oakland you saw a lot of scared people because you could be coming home from work and bullets would just be flying. You get people scared and you can really manipulate them, which is a major problem we always face--getting people to see the real causes of their problems rather than a simplistic narrative of the causes of their problems. But it won’t convince them to say ‘this is not a problem for you.’ I don’t expect Alex to do all the history of policing as a problem, only to say that social factors can cause crime to go up. If it does, people will say it is a wave just like they say coronavirus cases are in a wave. The issue isn’t that it is a wave. In statistics it will look like a wave. So what? People are still lying about the cause of the wave.
Just like the now popular fallacy, that cities across America have "defunded the police" which is why there's this "crime wave." Pointing out that police funding has actually increased is like forcing cats to look in a mirror. They don't want to hear it and change the subject as soon as you start pulling out statistics. Also, when you point out that "defunding" actually means transferring the money back to social services which are better positioned to solve issues like public mental health, homelessness, or inequality (I tell clients not to call 911 in case of emergency because all you will get is cops), they completely tune out. It appears elites hate two things: good news and solutions to problems.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION... Protocol No. 18 – Arrest of Opponents
“Criminals with us will be arrested at the first, more or less, well-grounded suspicion: it cannot be allowed that out of fear of a possible mistake an opportunity should be given of escape to persons suspected of a political lapse of crime, for in these matters we shall be literally merciless.”
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-xviii-arrest-of-opponents
Thank you for your work, and for continuing to document the widening dichotomy between reality and perception.
Thanks for another great article, Alec. I am now reading Propaganda the formation of men’s attitudes by Jacques Ellul :)
You're not wrong but the murder rate in mid 80s to early 90s New York was a lot higher than it is now. It was a kind of 'wave' statistically. It's doubtful anyone in the media grappled with actual causes. There can always be a sharp increase or decrease in crime which will clearly follow events like deindustrialization, etc. We will only get bullshit to explain or deal with it but should we doubt the metaphor of a wave even if we doubt it's propagandistic uses?
Nope. Those were manufactured crime waves, just like what Alec writes about here. Please read Michelle Alexander’s book New Jim Crow.
I have read it. And taught it. It’s actually not about this issue. There were periods where crime was notably higher. Specifically, murder which is not that significant to Alexander’s thesis. It’s not the point of her book to address that. Thus far, we are not currently in such a period. When statisticians speak of a ‘wave’ they were are speaking of a notable change in data. This, in fact, is not contrary to Alex’s point that crime is affected by social factors. In fact, it could reinforce his point that crime is affected by social factors. It helps an argument to think about how to convince people, and one of the absurdities is that everyone knows how crime is affected by social factors (not all of which are immediately visible) yet there is a reliance on police mainly to make people feel ‘safer’ and there’s no clear or convincing causal story about why this even affects crime rates or how it will help. I am certainly convinced of his claims but in terms of not preaching to the choir, reaching those who become alarmed by manipulative narratives, I don’t know if one can completely ignore statistical phenomenon or how people talk about it. Statistics are on his side, overall. But we are going to see shifts in phenomenon that convince people, people who need other interventions besides the police but who see a lot of violence where they live. E.g., a problem now is that we are being inundated with guns. Guns are practically being handed out to people by the right wing in this country, laws are being destroyed that would put any controls on guns. That is ALSO manufacturing a wave, an actual statistical wave of gun violence and death. In the late 80s and 90s in Oakland you saw a lot of scared people because you could be coming home from work and bullets would just be flying. You get people scared and you can really manipulate them, which is a major problem we always face--getting people to see the real causes of their problems rather than a simplistic narrative of the causes of their problems. But it won’t convince them to say ‘this is not a problem for you.’ I don’t expect Alex to do all the history of policing as a problem, only to say that social factors can cause crime to go up. If it does, people will say it is a wave just like they say coronavirus cases are in a wave. The issue isn’t that it is a wave. In statistics it will look like a wave. So what? People are still lying about the cause of the wave.