Do you believe that the author supports the restraining order against the 28 people?

If no:
Why are they posting?

If yes:
Do you believe that the author supports the restraining order but does not expect or want it to cause any of these people to go to jail in the case that they need to access healthcare, treatment, employment or otherwise fully lawful resources within the Tenderloin?

What do you think* is the outcome that the author seems to want, out of your careful reading of these posts?

If your answer is “I refuse to believe the author has any desired outcome because it would be indecorous of me to take them seriously at face value“ then… okay. A strategic conversation killer doesn’t erase what people advocate for and explain away. It’s not some high brow checkmate.

> * Even if he did say that,

Lol. I just wanted to say that to how you began this thought. Seems like you might agree with me about what he’s saying! Anyway, back to the rest of the quote:

> it doesn't invalidate the rest of what he said. It's worth looking at rates of admission to prison vs. prison terms to better compare US jurisprudence to the rest of the world.

Why? Because the author brought it up in support of some ridiculous expansion of police power to jail people that haven’t committed a crime?

I am intellectually responsible for chasing down every patently silly interpretation of data because… why? This person is using every trick possible to try to justify giving the police power above elected officials and I’m fully aware that they have decided that a narrow definition of “extreme” coupled with a very narrow focus is a useful tool. I’m not clear why anybody should be expected to chart out this quixotic version of “reason” that’s so obviously flawed.

“Prison isn’t so extreme based on this 20 minutes of research I did after stating my predisposed opinion, therefore cops should be given a whole new type of power to jail people that the city doesn’t want to jail.” is something worth entertaining… why?

> BTW, prosecutorial discretion makes me super uncomfortable for other reasons. Often it means the good-ole-boys club being immune to prosecution for offenses.

What is the difference between prosecutorial discretion and the direction that would be afforded to police officers? As far as I can tell, in this situation the difference is the social and political ideology espoused by one group (the DA’s office which was elected by the city) and another (1,500 officers with a $600,000,000 annual budget with very little accountability).

This entire conversation is simply about power and who wants to allocate it to. The author of the previous posts is advocating for power to be allocated to the police rather than the electorate (the DA), on ideological grounds of “that’s what I want.”

> Parodying someone else's point and extending it to hyperbole is not conducive to productive discussion, but it's great as a tool to mock people.

Hiding behind politeness in order to strip others of their basic human rights is considerably uglier than making a joke that actually maps 1:1 to what the author supports.

“I reject your appeal about basic human rights like due cause, a right to a trial, and protection against illegal search on the grounds that you said a mean thing!” is another hilariously American thing that some intellectually uncurious people say (in whatever words they can summon, of course)