He was telling me about that, right after Luigi left your place he came over to my house and helped me re-thatch my roof during a thunderstorm! Truly the best boy~!
If a barista only makes 30-40% of their orders are they a bad barista. If a teacher only teaches 16% of their students are they a bad teacher. If garbage men only collect 70% of the trash on their route are they bad garbage men. But if cops only solve 40% are they good cops😵💫😵💫
I’m white and you’re right. The difference between me and this guy is that this guy has probably never been arrested. One bad encounter with the cops is all it takes to burst that “police are here to protect you” bubble.
Sadly I hear it in some of my own friends and acquaintances. People have to recognize and start deconstructing the internalized issues or we won’t ever get anywhere soon.
He keeps saying "forfeited their rights" because 'commiting any offense at all, even minor, means your not a person and warrents your death' sounds too close to what he believes
It's honestly kinda hilarious how those guys genuinely believe that they are sooooo slick when using dogwhistles and that nobody but them understands the real meaning behind them.
I love the concept of free childhood therapy so much, can you imagine? Happier healthier loved kids who are safe. Gods, I wish we could have that right now.
@@wolfgirlshea2190 that's very true. The best defense against that I can think of would be greater oversite and regular free therapy sessions for the therapists too, but it'd be a better idea to have a group of qualified people in that field get together and think of ways to help mitigate or hopefully prevent that.
The police in Worcester, Massachusetts were just investigated by the DOJ and were found to have a record of racist practices and also forcing women to allow the officer to SA them under threat of arrest.
Nah the fact he admitted he would eat the shit for that analogy is crazyyyy 🤣 @6:10-6:20 these people don’t even think NOT eating shit isn’t an option on the table and that’s disturbing
I think the metaphor works better if you say "deadly poison" instead of "shit". Cause in the end, some people will not realize what they are saying in order to support their point. If you say "deadly poison", they cannot mistake the fact that saying yes will just end their opportunity to argue.
The duality of his position being "if a cop commits murder, he must be given leniency" and "if a regular person commits a crime and ends up in prison, he forfeits his right to life" really says it all
The American prison system is a mess. Look at us here in Norway. Our prison system revolves around rehabilitation. Help people develop new skills etc to be a more productive part of society after their time is served. Even the biggest terrorist Norway has faced in modern days lives in luxury in the max security prison compared to US prisoners! And our system of rehabilitation works. We have the lowest recidivism rate in the world at around 20% or less
i hate when people say “ well ur moralizing u cant do that “ WE ARE DISCUSSING HUMAN LIFE , i will use my morality n my ethics over literally anything else
Prime example of someone not understanding the ramifications of their beliefs and ends up not walking any of it back because to do so would make him look weak.
He literally keeps saying that it's more preferable if prisoners get murdered because they've forfeited all their rights, while denying that he's saying that. Over and over and over. The cognitive dissonance blows my mind. Jesus Christ.
For someone who keeps blaming Jovan for moralizing. He keeps saying “forfeiting their rights” like that’s not the exact thing being argued about. Caller is burying the lead. Why is it okay for the state to take their rights away? The goal is to prevent people from taking someone’s rights away, and caller is saying yeah but this group already had their right taken away. Yeah that’s kind of the problem right? No one should have their rights taken away. Prisons normalize rights violations. Why would a prisoner grow anymore sympathetic after doing a bid? They thought they lived in a cruel unforgiving world, and they were proven right. When they get out, they know they are capable of surviving prison. Now you’ve got a person who thinks this is just the way the world works but knows they are capable of navigating it better than most.
“Forfeit their rights” REALLY makes it sound like everyone who has committed a crime of any kind signed a contract saying “I agree to not have human rights anymore”
You don’t give leniency to powerful people, if anything people with more power should be held to a higher standard! This is literally the lesson of spider man “with great power comes great responsibility”
I'll never understand how people can say stuff like, "Well, at least 30% less 💩 is better." Like, why are you willing to settle for that? And how were you convinced that that was okay? 🤦♀️
W. L. Or. Whatever. Long ago, theakkiqueen4655 lived in the comment section in harmony. Then, everything changed when the algorithm attacked. Only theakkiqueen4655, master of all four words, could stop them, but when the world needed them most, they vanished...
It's funny they all do this but when they know they say something stupid and wrong they try to talk over it over it and we'll try to talk over the host so he doesn't catch what they said
This person clearly cares more about being apart of the conversation than the actual impact of it. Hes skating around very in depth subjects, saying the most wild shit and then going "wait can I restate that" tf this isn't a quiz? Talk like a normal human and use some damn respect
“When you commit a crime you forfeit your rights” Jesus that’s part of the problem! We don’t treat prisoners like human beings, considering crime comes from poor material conditions making the material conditions worse is obviously gonna make crime worse
I'm just going to call it: this guy is either already a SAer or on the way to being one. "Women going outside their house means they forfeit their right to not get assaulted" is all I'm hearing from his logic.
“You think we shouldn’t give police leniancy?” YES! 100%!! THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN NORMAL CIVILIANS! this guy has shoe polish with every meal for sure
6:41 I feel like morally the debate is lost at this point. Like the dude is defending the 40% in statistic with no gesture towards how that could even get close to 100%. People like this will use crimes that they see as inevitable as an excuse for an ever-expanding police state that they don't even think can be effective.
I'm sorry, I know the points Jovan makes here and I agree with them, but saying laws exist and mean something without their enforcement is plain wrong. Even in the most utopic of societies there MUST exist some We Bring You To Court agency. Yes, let's use them as a last resort, sure, don't give them lethal weapons (or any weapons even), train them in negotiation, all that nonviolent jazz. Let's also have a Crime Prevention agency that analyzes the sociological causes of crime and deals with them. Let's have a rehabilitative justice system, all of that I agree! But the law literally doesn't exist without enforcement, let's say from the courts. You need a system in which when a law is broken, there's a consequence. If there's no enforcement, and I don't mean just the police, I mean even the courts, then what's stopping people from breaking the law? I'm mostly arguing here about how badly Jovan presents his argument. Enforcement of laws in general is necessary, otherwise the laws don't mean anything. Yes, the police do a bad job at it. There needs to be a reform and all that jazz. But plainly saying you don't need to enforce a law is wrong.
Miscegenation laws. Miscegenation laws that aren't enforced still mean something. Loitering. This could be said for many sundown laws. And sodomy laws. And as the lack of enforcement, despite the laws LITTERAL EXISTENCE, mean plenty. What stops the laws from being broken when the laws aren't enforced is the threat of their enforcement. Terrorism.
The way I look at it we do need the police but they should not have all the one sided rights such as near total immunity for any wrongdoing, keep them around (maybe downsize some) but hold them accountable
I guess I might not understand the goal of these videos. Getting hung up for the majority of the conversation in a misunderstanding is not really interesting : his position was not that crimes should be transported from outside to inside prisons. His position was that reducing the total amount of crimes happening is good, and he just got cornered in the "well people in prison could get murdered I don't care" corner. But if he would just clarify "The best outcome would be no crime at all" I think it would have allowed for a more interesting conversation, and maybe a realization on his part that a lot of things are missing from his opinion. I am probably just nitpicking. In the end this conversation and this video helps put the anti-carceral stance out there and it's good. I'm glad this video exist.
To offer a Canadian perspective, my city has had a major uptick in property crime/theft as a result of a safe injection site for drug addicts. It's gotten so rampant that police simply tell you they wont respond to property theft cases even if you have camera footage. So I can confirm that up here they also aren't here to enforce the law, they'd rather spend their resources ticketing people for rolling stops.
Ah man, these are some weak arguments from you, it's hard to listen to. Like when you say police don't enforce any laws whatsoever, you can't use them solving %14 of a certain type of case as evidence against that. Either they are enforcing laws albeit poorly, or solving cases has nothing to do with enforcing laws, in which case don't bring up that statistic. And then your next argument is "what does enforcing the law mean? I think PART of enforcing the law is a and b, police don't do that, therefore police don't enforce the law. But there could easily be a c and a d that is part of enforcing the law that they do partake in. For instance, one law could be don't steal. Maybe we have a charity that runs a food bank, and by doing that rates of theft go down because people are stealing less. We could say that organization is enforcing the law. But that doesn't mean arresting someone in the act of stealing isn't enforcing the law. Your moral principles might be good, but your logic is really weak.
If i was a TSA agent and i only stopped 14% of the bombs i found in peoples luggage would you really feel like im enforcing the “no bombs on the plane rule”?
The immediate fear in the voice when he realized he said the quiet part out loud
I can’t stop laughing. He started screeching 😭
This is all conservatives when press them hard enough and don’t allow them to weasel out of their point, lol.
@@stevonwhite8933
Gives strong "How am i racist? I just believe some people are inferior based on their skin colour" vibes lmao
There’s no way Luigi did it. He was helping me spread my grandmas ashes that day.
He was telling me about that, right after Luigi left your place he came over to my house and helped me re-thatch my roof during a thunderstorm! Truly the best boy~!
If a barista only makes 30-40% of their orders are they a bad barista. If a teacher only teaches 16% of their students are they a bad teacher. If garbage men only collect 70% of the trash on their route are they bad garbage men.
But if cops only solve 40% are they good cops😵💫😵💫
is it just me or is the white privilege going crazy with dis one
Not just you
I’m white and you’re right. The difference between me and this guy is that this guy has probably never been arrested.
One bad encounter with the cops is all it takes to burst that “police are here to protect you” bubble.
No such thing.
Sadly I hear it in some of my own friends and acquaintances. People have to recognize and start deconstructing the internalized issues or we won’t ever get anywhere soon.
He keeps saying "forfeited their rights" because 'commiting any offense at all, even minor, means your not a person and warrents your death' sounds too close to what he believes
It's honestly kinda hilarious how those guys genuinely believe that they are sooooo slick when using dogwhistles and that nobody but them understands the real meaning behind them.
@ngotemna8875their dogwhistles are quite literally air horns.
I love the concept of free childhood therapy so much, can you imagine? Happier healthier loved kids who are safe. Gods, I wish we could have that right now.
We would also be able to pin point issues before they become tragic.
There are some unfortunately that use the practice to abuse. A family member was a victim.
@@wolfgirlshea2190 that's very true. The best defense against that I can think of would be greater oversite and regular free therapy sessions for the therapists too, but it'd be a better idea to have a group of qualified people in that field get together and think of ways to help mitigate or hopefully prevent that.
Caller can't tell the difference between a prison and a hospital
The police in Worcester, Massachusetts were just investigated by the DOJ and were found to have a record of racist practices and also forcing women to allow the officer to SA them under threat of arrest.
Broooooo what? The SA part is insane!!
Of course it’s Worcester…
@@SleepyMatt-zzz Not just women, but teens also
@@SleepyMatt-zzzThey are doing it to sex workers and the homeless as well.
They are doing the SA to sex workers. Let's see if RUclips removes my comment again because I used the term "sex worker".
That Freudian slip tho
Pure fucking fear lol
Police do not get to be judge, jury, and executioner !!
I'm not judge Judy and executioner
If bro is going to slurp up police this much, he could've at least wiped his mouth before calling.
Nah the fact he admitted he would eat the shit for that analogy is crazyyyy 🤣 @6:10-6:20 these people don’t even think NOT eating shit isn’t an option on the table and that’s disturbing
I think the metaphor works better if you say "deadly poison" instead of "shit". Cause in the end, some people will not realize what they are saying in order to support their point. If you say "deadly poison", they cannot mistake the fact that saying yes will just end their opportunity to argue.
@ shit IS deadly… You’re not supposed to eat waste of any kind whether it comes from a human or animal 🤣
@ I get what you’re saying but no… these ppl need to elevate their thinking, we’re not stooping down to them any more.
Caller licked the boot so hard, he doesn't realize he's been wearing the boot the entire time...
The fact that he thinks just BEING FIRED is a suitable punishment for committing murder is all you need to know.
The duality of his position being "if a cop commits murder, he must be given leniency" and "if a regular person commits a crime and ends up in prison, he forfeits his right to life" really says it all
The American prison system is a mess.
Look at us here in Norway. Our prison system revolves around rehabilitation. Help people develop new skills etc to be a more productive part of society after their time is served. Even the biggest terrorist Norway has faced in modern days lives in luxury in the max security prison compared to US prisoners!
And our system of rehabilitation works. We have the lowest recidivism rate in the world at around 20% or less
Okay, but how does this satiate my bloodlust and revenge fantasies?
100% I was a teen knowing that our systems sucked the worst.
"You're reframing my argument by addressing the parts I'm leaving out or never thought through. "
24:13 he feels bad hearing his words n makes it "moralizing" ...cuz his knee-jerk answers are horrendously bad moraled
He just learned that word lol
i hate when people say “ well ur moralizing u cant do that “ WE ARE DISCUSSING HUMAN LIFE , i will use my morality n my ethics over literally anything else
"But we exist in a society that needs to eat shit" - this guy
Prime example of someone not understanding the ramifications of their beliefs and ends up not walking any of it back because to do so would make him look weak.
His whole argument was basically just "out of sight, out of mind."
He literally keeps saying that it's more preferable if prisoners get murdered because they've forfeited all their rights, while denying that he's saying that. Over and over and over. The cognitive dissonance blows my mind. Jesus Christ.
Since when does going to prison mean you forfeited your right to life? Wish Jovan pushed back on that stupidity.
For someone who keeps blaming Jovan for moralizing. He keeps saying “forfeiting their rights” like that’s not the exact thing being argued about. Caller is burying the lead. Why is it okay for the state to take their rights away?
The goal is to prevent people from taking someone’s rights away, and caller is saying yeah but this group already had their right taken away. Yeah that’s kind of the problem right? No one should have their rights taken away.
Prisons normalize rights violations. Why would a prisoner grow anymore sympathetic after doing a bid? They thought they lived in a cruel unforgiving world, and they were proven right. When they get out, they know they are capable of surviving prison.
Now you’ve got a person who thinks this is just the way the world works but knows they are capable of navigating it better than most.
9:09 “ people in society can kill people for non violent offenses “ ABSOLUTELY INSANE
Luigi and I were on a Bahamas cruise together at the time of the incident. Don't understand how they could suspect him.
“Forfeit their rights” REALLY makes it sound like everyone who has committed a crime of any kind signed a contract saying “I agree to not have human rights anymore”
You don’t give leniency to powerful people, if anything people with more power should be held to a higher standard! This is literally the lesson of spider man “with great power comes great responsibility”
I'll never understand how people can say stuff like, "Well, at least 30% less 💩 is better." Like, why are you willing to settle for that? And how were you convinced that that was okay? 🤦♀️
W. L. Or. Whatever. Long ago, theakkiqueen4655 lived in the comment section in harmony. Then, everything changed when the algorithm attacked. Only theakkiqueen4655, master of all four words, could stop them, but when the world needed them most, they vanished...
It's funny they all do this but when they know they say something stupid and wrong they try to talk over it over it and we'll try to talk over the host so he doesn't catch what they said
This person clearly cares more about being apart of the conversation than the actual impact of it.
Hes skating around very in depth subjects, saying the most wild shit and then going "wait can I restate that" tf this isn't a quiz? Talk like a normal human and use some damn respect
Wonder what he think of Fred Hampton's assassination..
@@Hkgiu You know the answer to that
People in prison haven't forfeited their rights. Their rights have been confiscated (illliberally).
Every time it is confidently ignorant "Did they go into the house?" he literally doesn't know anything about it beyond her name.
“It was an accident!” If you shoot someone and they die that’s murder what???
“When you commit a crime you forfeit your rights” Jesus that’s part of the problem! We don’t treat prisoners like human beings, considering crime comes from poor material conditions making the material conditions worse is obviously gonna make crime worse
If these dudes just shut their mouths for 2 minutes they could come to an understanding SO much quicker. Jesus.
I'm just going to call it: this guy is either already a SAer or on the way to being one. "Women going outside their house means they forfeit their right to not get assaulted" is all I'm hearing from his logic.
“You think we shouldn’t give police leniancy?” YES! 100%!! THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN NORMAL CIVILIANS!
this guy has shoe polish with every meal for sure
Living in a society means you forfeit some rights.
Rip Robert Brooks
27:41 He really thought he got Jovan. 🤭🤭🤭
Can't take it back... WE LIVE BAYBY!!
"I've been forced into a corner" bud you ran facefirst into that corner on your own volition
“I back tracked that” that doesn’t mean you didn’t say it. Also just because you are in prison doesn’t mean they forfeit their right to life
6:41 I feel like morally the debate is lost at this point. Like the dude is defending the 40% in statistic with no gesture towards how that could even get close to 100%. People like this will use crimes that they see as inevitable as an excuse for an ever-expanding police state that they don't even think can be effective.
I'm sorry, I know the points Jovan makes here and I agree with them, but saying laws exist and mean something without their enforcement is plain wrong. Even in the most utopic of societies there MUST exist some We Bring You To Court agency. Yes, let's use them as a last resort, sure, don't give them lethal weapons (or any weapons even), train them in negotiation, all that nonviolent jazz. Let's also have a Crime Prevention agency that analyzes the sociological causes of crime and deals with them. Let's have a rehabilitative justice system, all of that I agree! But the law literally doesn't exist without enforcement, let's say from the courts. You need a system in which when a law is broken, there's a consequence. If there's no enforcement, and I don't mean just the police, I mean even the courts, then what's stopping people from breaking the law? I'm mostly arguing here about how badly Jovan presents his argument. Enforcement of laws in general is necessary, otherwise the laws don't mean anything. Yes, the police do a bad job at it. There needs to be a reform and all that jazz. But plainly saying you don't need to enforce a law is wrong.
Miscegenation laws. Miscegenation laws that aren't enforced still mean something. Loitering. This could be said for many sundown laws. And sodomy laws. And as the lack of enforcement, despite the laws LITTERAL EXISTENCE, mean plenty. What stops the laws from being broken when the laws aren't enforced is the threat of their enforcement. Terrorism.
The way I look at it we do need the police but they should not have all the one sided rights such as near total immunity for any wrongdoing, keep them around (maybe downsize some) but hold them accountable
30 to 40 percent is an F dude, so why would you ok with F level service.
I guess I might not understand the goal of these videos. Getting hung up for the majority of the conversation in a misunderstanding is not really interesting : his position was not that crimes should be transported from outside to inside prisons. His position was that reducing the total amount of crimes happening is good, and he just got cornered in the "well people in prison could get murdered I don't care" corner.
But if he would just clarify "The best outcome would be no crime at all" I think it would have allowed for a more interesting conversation, and maybe a realization on his part that a lot of things are missing from his opinion.
I am probably just nitpicking. In the end this conversation and this video helps put the anti-carceral stance out there and it's good. I'm glad this video exist.
First sentence. Second to last sentence.
Caller is dumb.
To offer a Canadian perspective, my city has had a major uptick in property crime/theft as a result of a safe injection site for drug addicts. It's gotten so rampant that police simply tell you they wont respond to property theft cases even if you have camera footage. So I can confirm that up here they also aren't here to enforce the law, they'd rather spend their resources ticketing people for rolling stops.
Terrible debate
Ah man, these are some weak arguments from you, it's hard to listen to. Like when you say police don't enforce any laws whatsoever, you can't use them solving %14 of a certain type of case as evidence against that. Either they are enforcing laws albeit poorly, or solving cases has nothing to do with enforcing laws, in which case don't bring up that statistic. And then your next argument is "what does enforcing the law mean? I think PART of enforcing the law is a and b, police don't do that, therefore police don't enforce the law. But there could easily be a c and a d that is part of enforcing the law that they do partake in. For instance, one law could be don't steal. Maybe we have a charity that runs a food bank, and by doing that rates of theft go down because people are stealing less. We could say that organization is enforcing the law. But that doesn't mean arresting someone in the act of stealing isn't enforcing the law. Your moral principles might be good, but your logic is really weak.
He has no real life experience so I wouldn’t expect his logic to be sound. Using Breonna Taylor as an example is a straw man in and of itself.
Imagine doing your job correctly 14% of the time and still getting paid.
Imagine a surgeon getting only 14% of surgeries right.
If i was a TSA agent and i only stopped 14% of the bombs i found in peoples luggage would you really feel like im enforcing the “no bombs on the plane rule”?
Would you be totally fine with your tax $$$ being used to pay for a waste management company to collect only 14% of your curbside trash?
I agree with Jovan almost all the time. But he's doing A LOT of bsd faith debating here. It's an increasing trend in his approach.
can you point out what exactly about this conversation was bad faith? quickly.
@@sh4rkb4it No, no they will not.
@sh4rkb4it sorry I thought you were talking about the Caller not Jovan