<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rpjt</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not sure this distinction matters much to most people, though. People hear &amp;quot;defund the police&amp;quot; and draw their own conclusions as to what that means, and it&amp;#x27;s not a far leap to go from &amp;quot;defund the police&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;welp, guess they want to tie the hands of cops and take away all of their funding so they can&amp;#x27;t do their jobs&amp;quot;</text><parent_chain><item><author>ScoobleDoodle</author><text>&amp;quot;Defund the police&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#x27;t mean what you think it means here.&lt;p&gt;It doesn&amp;#x27;t mean removing all funds from the police as the name implies.  It actually means reallocating funds from the police to trained professionals for appropriate situations.  Like having a government division that hires psychologist &amp;#x2F; mental health workers to respond to mental wellness checks.  Having mental health &amp;#x2F; homelessness services workers respond to calls about vagrants.  So instead of getting a boot to the teeth or death as seen in the news, those at risk groups and people get the directed help and support they need.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Defund_the_police&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Defund_the_police&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>xanderlewis</author><text>The notion of luxury beliefs isn’t just about plain old hypocrisy (though of course there’s plenty of that) — I think it’s more about beliefs one can &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; hold because of one’s position of privilege.&lt;p&gt;The usual example given is ‘defund the police’. If you’re rich enough to hire your own security or otherwise live safely in a world without police, you can advocate for this and win social points for doing so. Meanwhile, the actual consequences of such an idea, were it to be implemented, would be catastrophic. Unlimited immigration&amp;#x2F;open borders is another one: if you’re relatively poor, your ability to make a living (among other things) is potentially threatened by this. If you’re rich, you needn’t worry. You can live in your fancy neighbourhood far detached from the consequences of such policies, so you can freely hold such positions and even frown upon those who don’t.&lt;p&gt;Luxury beliefs are just like tangible luxuries [*] — you have them not because you want them or really believe in them, but because they signal to others that you’re of a certain class. Poor people can’t have them, so they’re desirable as status indicators.&lt;p&gt;[*] OK — some ‘luxuries’ are worth it and aren’t just for showing off. But I’m talking about the ones that are.</text></item><item><author>cxr</author><text>The writer Rob K. Henderson has covered the hypocrisy of the upper and upper-middle classes in several of his pieces on what he calls &amp;quot;luxury beliefs&amp;quot;.  The case of Amazon def. fits into a similar theme.&lt;p&gt;You can broach the topic with uppercrust folks (without even really trying) of whether supporting Walmart by shopping there is conscionable or not, and you&amp;#x27;ll get one set of responses&amp;#x2F;reactions.  Meanwhile, it&amp;#x27;s nowhere near socially unacceptable to talk about all the stuff you order from Amazon, despite Amazon appearing to be by and large worse in its compensation&amp;#x2F;treatment of its employees and its effect on the economy and the environment—all things that aspiring bougie types ostensibly profess to rank highly in their meditations when it comes to Walmart.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The brutal business practices of Amazon</title><url>https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/inside-amazon-business-practices</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>xanderlewis</author><text>Fair enough. I&amp;#x27;ve heard &amp;#x27;abolish the police&amp;#x27; and &amp;#x27;all cops are bastards&amp;#x27; (whatever that means) too, so such a sentiment definitely exists. Either way, those usually espousing such things don&amp;#x27;t seem to have much of a concrete plan in mind (and don&amp;#x27;t have to, because offering concrete solutions isn&amp;#x27;t the purpose of such rhetoric).&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; According to the New York Times, the slogan and movement failed to result in any meaningful policy change. This was attributed to the slogan having no clear definition of its goals.&lt;p&gt;(from the Wikipedia page you linked to)</text><parent_chain><item><author>ScoobleDoodle</author><text>&amp;quot;Defund the police&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#x27;t mean what you think it means here.&lt;p&gt;It doesn&amp;#x27;t mean removing all funds from the police as the name implies.  It actually means reallocating funds from the police to trained professionals for appropriate situations.  Like having a government division that hires psychologist &amp;#x2F; mental health workers to respond to mental wellness checks.  Having mental health &amp;#x2F; homelessness services workers respond to calls about vagrants.  So instead of getting a boot to the teeth or death as seen in the news, those at risk groups and people get the directed help and support they need.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Defund_the_police&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Defund_the_police&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>xanderlewis</author><text>The notion of luxury beliefs isn’t just about plain old hypocrisy (though of course there’s plenty of that) — I think it’s more about beliefs one can &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; hold because of one’s position of privilege.&lt;p&gt;The usual example given is ‘defund the police’. If you’re rich enough to hire your own security or otherwise live safely in a world without police, you can advocate for this and win social points for doing so. Meanwhile, the actual consequences of such an idea, were it to be implemented, would be catastrophic. Unlimited immigration&amp;#x2F;open borders is another one: if you’re relatively poor, your ability to make a living (among other things) is potentially threatened by this. If you’re rich, you needn’t worry. You can live in your fancy neighbourhood far detached from the consequences of such policies, so you can freely hold such positions and even frown upon those who don’t.&lt;p&gt;Luxury beliefs are just like tangible luxuries [*] — you have them not because you want them or really believe in them, but because they signal to others that you’re of a certain class. Poor people can’t have them, so they’re desirable as status indicators.&lt;p&gt;[*] OK — some ‘luxuries’ are worth it and aren’t just for showing off. But I’m talking about the ones that are.</text></item><item><author>cxr</author><text>The writer Rob K. Henderson has covered the hypocrisy of the upper and upper-middle classes in several of his pieces on what he calls &amp;quot;luxury beliefs&amp;quot;.  The case of Amazon def. fits into a similar theme.&lt;p&gt;You can broach the topic with uppercrust folks (without even really trying) of whether supporting Walmart by shopping there is conscionable or not, and you&amp;#x27;ll get one set of responses&amp;#x2F;reactions.  Meanwhile, it&amp;#x27;s nowhere near socially unacceptable to talk about all the stuff you order from Amazon, despite Amazon appearing to be by and large worse in its compensation&amp;#x2F;treatment of its employees and its effect on the economy and the environment—all things that aspiring bougie types ostensibly profess to rank highly in their meditations when it comes to Walmart.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The brutal business practices of Amazon</title><url>https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/inside-amazon-business-practices</url></story>