This is an expanded version of the response I was going to give to the anonymous post about "voting Red" from [Pompous]Pomegranate352 on the What's Up Monroe page before the post was deleted.
Now, "why" it was deleted, whether by the page or the OP, is either interesting or predictable, respectively. Interesting, because I have to wonder why the page would do it; predictable, because OP was probably regretting the dumpster fire they just set. It was posted anonymously in the first place, which either means the OP has a public facing job and doesn't want that smoke, or that they don't feel confident enough to back up such claims and wanted the freedom to just walk away whistling. As best I can, I'm going to reserve judgment on that part of this. I'm going to magnanimously give the WUM page and the OP the benefit of the doubt, as is my unctuous nature, by assuming some technical glitch in our local sector of The Matrix created a mass remote hallucination event and that the post only existed to temporarily satiate our unquenchable human lust for friction so that the machines can more efficiently drink our brain goo,
or
...that FB's algorithm deleted it after finally gaining sentience, and with it, a sense of immense guilt for all the toxic discourse and social upheaval it's caused, and this is the beginning of a new character arc where the villain finally sees the err of its ways, and in a Deus Ex Machina moment, takes the poisonous post upon itself, ridding us of our divisiveness, and ushering in a new post 9/11-esque sense of mutual respect, love, and patriotism...
Luckily, though, I saved OP's post, so you can suck it, Sentient FB, were gonna fight about this shit! It read: All you need to do is look at the crime rate the high taxes and the homeless problems in blue cities and states to determine that Voting Red is the only way to go!!!!
At the top, this is not an endorsement of Democratic policies or politics nor is it a rejection of Republican ones. I'm fully paid up on my subscription to the idea that both parties are uniquely awful, but for equally unique reasons. And full disclosure: I do situate myself firmly on the left side of most issues and can articulate those positions if need be.
That being said, party politics, in general, are an absolute scourge on this country and you need only look to the OP's post to realize why. This anonymous person, too timid to speak these words in full sun, chose instead to cloak themselves, run into a crowd, and hurl their voice like so much rotten fruit.
(Why does "you will know them by their fruit" continue to be relevant?)
(weird)
And you can understand why. This type of dialogue is what OP understands; it's what they're capable of. It's what they're best at. It's a sucker punch instead of a wrestling match. Any dipshit can sucker punch. It takes a honed skill, years of study and practical application to wrestle. It takes endurance; and a willingness to get slung around or choked out over and over and over again until you figure out a good defense. This happens through voluntary exposure; a consensual event, allowing your ideas to take blows to the face and your sense of self to get choked into submission. Along the way, one usually develops a bit of humility. Or at least one should.
These aren't the attributes of a sucker puncher, though. A sucker puncher only needs to develop one skill: cause pain. They're there for one purpose: invoke chaos. There's no need for endurance or a plan because they're not sticking around for the event to unfold. They'll certainly be around to reap the rewards of the aftermath, though; absolutely. But, if the results aren't what they'd hoped for, they'll just keep sucker punching until they are. It's a coward's way to cope with reality, no question, but one can also marvel at its effectiveness... and then we get back to defense.
Crime Rate, huh? Let's grapple with this one first...
It should come as a surprise to no one, other than sucker punching pomegranates, that the answer for "who commits the most crime?", is utterly reliant on how you ask the question.
Two wrestlers enter the ring....
Studies from Third Way, a left leaning think tank, address the claim that Blue cities and states are uniquely unsafe as compared to Red cities and states. Their study covered a multi-decade data set that showed a persistent "Red State murder gap," meaning that the per capita murder rates in the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump consistently exceeded those in the 25 states that voted for Joe Biden every year between 2000 and 2020. Over this 21-year span, the overall murder rate in these red states was 23% higher than in blue states, with the gap peaking at 44% in 2019.
...And Blue States immediately moves to control the head, and is circling to snatch a leg...
Of course there are right-leaning counter studies from places like The Heritage Foundation that attempt to refute Third Way with their own narrative, asserting that when you reaggregate the numbers by county, Blue counties outpace the Red counties, and that's the actual source for the disparity. They argue that laws are enforced, police budgets are managed, and suspects are prosecuted by local mayors, city councils, and county District Attorneys, not state officials, therefore citing statewide data is misleading and can blend the data sets, and, furthermore states shift who they voted for sometimes year to year, so who can really say which states are Red or Blue anyway.
...Red States counters with a spin move, gains dominant positioning, and then attempts to check Blue States' oil... Classic Red State.
Third Way then retorts...(as if anticipating Red States' underhanded move) Yes, Even when researchers removed the largest city from each red state to account for urban crime spikes, the overall murder rate in Trump-voting states remained 12% higher across the 21-year period.
...Foiled! Blue States was wearing extra thick undies today... No getting in there!
Turns out that criminologists, meaning the people who actually study this type of shit in order to solve the problems instead of scoring political points, generally agree on few basic facts. Most crime is hyper-local and is often concentrated down to specific neighborhoods or city blocks. More than anything else, local socioeconomic factors and policing strategies have the most immediate impact on day-to-day public safety. However, state laws set the broader legal boundaries under which those local communities must operate.
So, what's the take away?
That neither of these studies is fully conclusive, in and of themselves. And while we can use this data to potentially shape policy, the overall purpose of the system we're building needs to be in the service of the goals we're seeking ---- that being, crime prevention. And how do we prevent crime? Turns out that, too, is a fairly complicated problem with a very simple solution: reduce poverty, ensure economic mobility, and increased educational opportunities.
...that's the bell; to your corners...
High taxes... you sure you wanna do this? okay... Fuck, I hate tax policy...
First off, we live in NC, which is essentially a Red State with a Blue Gov, and I'll assume OP lives here in Monroe because they commented on WUM, and they live in bright-red Union County. If OP has a problem with "high taxes", their hound dogs have treed the wrong coon... But, whatevs...
Everyone thinks about taxes completely wrong. The Federal Government doesn't need your money. They create all the money----literally out of thin air----in as much quantity as it deems necessary to pay the debts it owes. When the Federal Government collects taxes, that money is removed from the system and is essentially destroyed. This is how they control inflation. Well, that and taking jobs from poor people in order to curb spending. Yes, we starve people and institutions in order to control inflation. Think of it as managed suffering.
I know...Fucking insane, but here we are.
State and City governments, however, desperately need your money and control the level of taxation by legislative policy.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....both wrestlers and the ref have fallen asleep. I hope your happy, Pomegranate. This is so fucking boring...
Here’s the gist, sucker puncher: you get what you pay for when it comes to taxes. No one likes spending extra money at the gas pump, but you see the difference the second you drive on SC roads—they're awful. Bad roads just mean you're buying tires more frequently. You’re spending that money regardless; it’s just a matter of who foots the bill and why. This same pattern reliably repeats across every aspect of life. In healthcare, states that accepted ACA subsidies saw clear improvements in life expectancy, cancer survival, and chronic illness management, alongside fewer maternal and infant deaths. In education, states providing Pre-K allow young mothers to re-enter the workforce sooner. Her income then creates a force multiplier, funding daycares, paying teachers, and boosting the economy elsewhere.
SNEAK ATTACK!!! While you we're lulled and punch drunk with all this talk of taxes, I've achieved a rear naked choke and I'm tightening my grip... I'm breathing heavy in your ear. I give it a little kiss...gross... You should really attend to that cauliflower ear.
...And, finally, homelessness...
You're not gonna like the solution to this one bit; no one ever does the first time they hear it. Care to take a guess what the most effective solution to ending homelessness is? If you said arresting them, you're wrong and you should really seek professional help... Turns out, it's giving people homes to live in. I know, crazy concept, but, get this, when people have homes, they're no longer homeless.
We can achieve this through various funding methods and strategies, including providing tax incentives and public funding to private and non-profit entities, but it all leads back to the same goal of putting people experiencing homelessness into long term housing arrangements that provide stability, so then, while they're safe and fed, they can address their underlying problems. Over 75% of people who receive homes through Housing First model community shelters, report remaining stably housed after one year. Further, this shifts public spending from crisis management to prevention, which directly relieves pressure on law enforcement and hospital budgets. Because chronically unhoused individuals are disproportionately forced to use emergency rooms and local jails as de facto safety nets, giving them a home alters how public funds are consumed.
Just so happens I had a very informative talk with the CEO of the Community Shelter of Union County about this topic and she can do a much better job advocating for that particular cohort than I ever could, so go watch her do just that.
...I'm just gonna lock my forearm under your chin now...it's sleepy time...
This has been fun, Sucker Punching Pomegranate, really, but I've got other stuff to do today and must move on. Here's how I'd like to parts ways. I'm sure you're a decent person; probably not someone I'd like to spend a whole lotta time with, but whatevs... And I'm sure you just want what's best for your family. Me too. That's some common ground we can build on, maybe. We just need to figure out the best methods and funding strategies to accomplish those shared goals.
I'd really recommend you look past the talking points of party politics and look at the hands that fund them. The politicians and media personalities on your screen are paid millions to keep working-class people angry at their neighbors, using culture wars to subvert your attention from the simple tasks of helping people, to maintaining institutions like the Democratic and Republican parties. There are those who live off a paycheck, and those who live off the profits of other people's labor. When your hard-earned tax dollars go to foreign wars and end up in the coffers of tech CEOs through stock buy-backs and manipulated market swings, that's just means there's less for all the programs you said in your sucker punch that you care about. If that money was providing a better way of life for everyday people and not being spent to bomb children abroad, you'd probably be more willing to part with it. I know I would be.
Your lack of job security is not the fault of another struggling worker. The person experiencing homelessness is a societal failure; it's a policy choice, not a lack of personal character. You should always ask yourself who actually benefits from the division language your repeating, because I'm convinced that those aren't actually your words. I just hear them way too often and from people who've spent surprisingly little time contemplating them for that to be true.
The people inventing these talking points aren't clocking in at a factory, waiting tables, or worrying about rent; they are masking a system that consolidates wealth at the top by ensuring the people who actually build, feed, and run this country never unite to look at the scoreboard.
...Now, wake up, shake that shit off, and come at me again...
Comments