• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Have you been to an American school recently? The elementary next to my house could be confused for a prison at first glance. It hasn’t gotten bad, if anything it’s actually safer than when we went to school. They have promoted a society of individuals ruled by fear.

    • Zenith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Our most recent school levy addressed basically nothing but turning the schools into jails by wanting to hire a bunch of cops, install metal detectors and a bunch of other “security measures” and this is a rural small district, we have zero need for that stuff, why not propose paying teachers better, buying updated textbooks or funding after school care, something but I’m not and never will vote to turn our schools into prisons

      • Crankenstein@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        There is a pervasive ideal in this country that has been a core part of it since the Pilgrims landed: Puritanical Ethics of “punishment is Divine, to suffer is to be Holy”

        Something is wrong? Punish the wrongness until it becomes righteous. If it doesn’t work then punish harder.

        It’s how this country has always solved its problems. Label the other as wicked then beat them into submission.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        In the home, mostly, yep. Outside the home is statistically safer now than almost any other time. Overall crime is down to historic lows.

        Ironically, at this point, and for the last 30 years in the US, owning a gun makes you more susceptible to gun violence. That may be changing, but I seriously doubt it since the cops are now public enemy #1, and have been since the mid '90s.

        Oh and before you try to defend the thugs with badges, they were declaring war on the public all throughout the '80s and '90s, by using yellow journalism and Hollywood to manufacture a “war on cops,” because people were rightfully questioning qualified immunity. It didn’t exist until Harlow V Fitzgerald in 1982. It shouldn’t exist at all according to the law as written and recorded in The Congressional Record.

        US cops have always been nothing more than glorified slave hunters. It seems that nothing changes in that criminal organization. The DOJ is still reporting that cops commit far more crime than all of the arraigned, but not convicted, potential criminals in the US.

      • ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        … it conditions people for 15 minute cities and other forms of tyranny

        Are you saying you think the idea of having all important services within 15 minutes is tyranny?

          • ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 days ago

            I was confused because it’s such a bad take… That’s not what 15 minute cities are about. That’s just the dumb conspiracy theories.

          • aeischeid@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            your intent is NOT clear.

            restricted in your ability to travel is totally normal and not tyranny. Drivers licences are smart, Pilot license make sense, dang are speed limits tyranny?

            15 minutes cities is just a concept that all or most of the typically important services citizens need to survive and thrive should be within a 15 minutes of where they live without REQUIRING a car. Modern car dependent culture is the tyranny if anything, and 15 minute cities idea is a response to that

              • ebolapie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                I have literally never seen the idea of a 15 minute city being restrictive anywhere other than the ravings of Alex Jones tier wingnuts. Everybody who actually pushes the concept just thinks you should have a grocery store, a doctor’s office, a library etc. near your house.

                Edit: and don’t get it twisted, nobody is saying you should be forced to relocate either, it’s a guideline for urban planning.

              • sthetic@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Has anyone ever actually said, “I think we should have all services within a zone of 15-minute travel, and we should restrict people from leaving their zone, and this is called 15 Minute Cities and I support that idea”?

                “Having services readily available” is the entire idea. “You’re not allowed to go to another area” is nonsense that someone else tacked on to the concept to make people hate it.

                  • sthetic@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    I looked this up and found this information about it:

                    In its Local Plan 2040, Oxford City Council proposed installing elements from the 15-minute city urban concept in neighborhoods throughout the city over the next 20 years. These plans included proposals to improve accessibility to local shops and other amenities for residents so they didn’t have to always drive. Separately, Oxfordshire County Council announced traffic-reducing measures throughout the city, with infrastructure to encourage car travel around the city by using the ring road rather than already congested roads. Initial opposition to the plans led to proposals to introduce permit schemes to facilitate car travel at certain times, allowing car access to areas that the council planned to restrict to motorists.

                    First, the article says it was separate. Nobody said, “We are blocking everybody’s access to this road because the goal of 15-Minute City is to restrict people and forbid them from leaving their zone.”

                    Second, it was just traffic-calming. They put up some planters blocking roads to vehicles to encourage access by bike, pedestrians, etc. That’s not restricting access, that is INCREASING access. By bikes.

                    They decided that a different, busier road was more appropriate for cars. How on earth does that equate to restricting access? So your car had to drive further, using a big busy road instead of a local quiet street - boo-hoo! This, to you, was a sign that the government wants to confine you to a 15 minute area and never let you leave?

                    Are the following measures, to you, a sign of nefarious “restricting access”?

                    • An ambulance can drive the wrong way down the street, but you cannot
                    • A bus can travel in a bus lane, but you cannot
                    • A commercial vehicle can park in a loading zone, but you cannot
                    • A vehicle with several people can travel in a special HOV lane, but you cannot if you are driving alone
                    • A toll bridge reads your license plate to check if you paid a fee to access that route, and charges you a fine if you did not
                    • The city takes out a vehicle lane to build a dedicated bike lane and plant some nice shrubs
                    • The city closes a street temporarily for a neighbourhood block party
                    • The city installs speed bumps on a quiet street
                    • The city builds a traffic circle at a quiet intersection
                    • The city puts up a sign limiting the speed you can travel
                    • A highway cuts through an existing quiet suburb, meaning your car cannot cross it on a quiet street; you have to use an onramp and get on the busy highway

                    All of those technically “restrict access” by your seeming definition. Well, at least by vehicle. Is it your assertion that private vehicles reign supreme, and if the government does anything to slow down, discourage, or increase the cost of vehicle travel, it means their future goal is to create walled mini-cities that folks can’t leave?

                    Edit: also, you say that people threatened to hang the city council to get them to renege - are you proud of this? Your “side” is threatening to murder people if they don’t govern the way they want, and that’s just “being vigilant”? To prevent planters from being placed on a street? What the hell?

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Same. I vaguely remember some shooting happening my Jr. Year of HS. I wanna say Bowling Green or Paducah, KY. This was before Columbine. Columbine was my Freshman year at Transylvania University.