Mayor Zohran Mamdani stood beside NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch at their first joint press conference this week and was silent as she defended the department’s gang database.
Before becoming mayor, Mamdani was clear in his opposition to the database, calling it a “vast dragnet” that punished young New Yorkers of color with only loose connections to gang activity.
But on Tuesday, Mamdani didn’t say a word.
The moment underscored a growing question for the city’s new progressive mayor: Will he follow through on his campaign promise to dismantle the database or quietly let it stand?
Civil rights groups and their allies in the City Council are pressuring him to act. Critics have equated the database with racial profiling. But with a federal civil rights lawsuit underway over the database, and top police officials calling the tracker essential to public safety, Mamdani faces a high-stakes choice that could define his relationship with the NYPD and the city’s broader approach to crime and surveillance.
When asked about the tracker on Tuesday, Tisch defended it as critical.
“I have been very clear that the gang database is a tool that has helped us in terms of fighting gun violence,” Tisch said.
While campaigning for mayor, Mamdani supported City Council legislation to abolish the database as a counterproductive measure that ensnares young people who may not be involved in criminal activity.
“Whether they go out late, photos they put on social media — so much of the facts of life of being a young New Yorker, and yet it then becomes a mark of suspicion,” he said in September.
What is the gang database?
The NYPD’s “Criminal Groups Database” contains information on thousands of people police believe are either gang members or associates.
According to the city’s Department of Investigation, an estimated 10,000 officers have in-depth access to their profiles that include names, alleged gang affiliations, criminal justice histories and the criteria that led to their inclusion, such as locations associated with groups.
Ninety-eight percent of those listed are Black or Hispanic, and most are men between 18 and 34, according to a 2023 watchdog report, the last available review of the database. The audit said the database included 1,689 minors.
After programming errors were discovered during a DOI audit, the tracker shrank by nearly 40%, dropping from 13,989 people in June 2024 to 8,563 in October 2025.
Why is it controversial?
Critics say the database unfairly targets people of color based on factors unrelated to criminal activity, like the music they listen to or their social acquaintances. Civil rights advocates have argued that it’s used to surveil non-white New Yorkers without transparency or due process.
The NYPD says the database helps prevent shootings. But to Dana Rachlin — founder of We Build The Block, a community group focused on public safety through violence reduction and youth support — it’s a list of kids who need help.
Rachlin said police aren’t equipped to address the root causes of gang violence.
“They did not go to school to be social workers,” she said. “They cannot create an apartment or a detox bed. They cannot make a resumé or give a grief circle to a group of boys that just lost a friend. That’s not their skillset. It’s not their job.”
No see, he’s just uuh hiding his power level
Just think, if all those wrecker accounts that showed up out of nowhere and were obsessed with starting fights about Mamdani about 6 months ago were just a little more chill, they could all be the smuggest “I told you so” assholes they want right now and feel vindicated in that. (Not that I think anyone here is surprised the socdem is in fact acting like a socdem, but they acted like people believed Mamdani would be a second Lenin or something) (Edited for clarity)
It feels kind of weird that you’re implying people you disagreed with about Mamdani were wreckers. They might have said things in ways you didn’t like, but I don’t think that made them wreckers.
Not that I think anyone here is surprised the socdem is in fact acting like a socdem
Many people (not just here) definitely believed he was a socialist. He’s not, and that’s very obvious now, but it was definitely the subject of debate before.
No, I’m not saying that everyone who didn’t like him was a wrecker, I’m talking about very specific accounts that all showed up within about a month of each other, and were always extremely hostile to any discussion and just really vitriolic and starting fights everywhere, even with people who agreed with them, and have since been banned for being wreckers. I edited my original comment for clarity.
I think your original comment was vague, TBH. I don’t personally remember those accounts, it’s likely I missed them (I missed the first few months of Mamdani debates), but reading your comment it seemed to imply they were the only detractors of Mamdani on here at the time (which I know wasn’t the case, and if I understand your clarification correctly you agree). There have been so many arguments about Mamdani already, we don’t need to continue these into meta-arguments.
Edit: thanks for editing your original comment, that’s a bit clearer now and with the additional context of your reply.
Yeah, I wasn’t meaning for it to be vagueposting, but I absolutely wasn’t clear enough for what I was talking about, I was trying to complain about wrecker accounts turning discussions into slap fights, not about people on one side or the other on Mamdani (or even the idea that people need to “pick a side” rather than being willing to change their mind as new information becomes available). The accounts I’m talking about were anti-Mamdani, but they obviously weren’t the only ones, and it wasn’t just Mamdani that they were starting fights about, these accounts made the site very unpleasant for a while because whenever they were around everything had to turn into an argument, even when people agreed with them, it often wasn’t enough and they would still start fights. I was probably more annoyed by them than most people here I think, and didn’t realise that people literally don’t remember what I’m talking about at all.
I’m just glad my poorly worded comment didn’t end up starting another pointless fight.
Yeah, I wasn’t meaning for it to be vagueposting, but I absolutely wasn’t clear enough for what I was talking about, I was trying to complain about wrecker accounts turning discussions into slap fights, not about people on one side or the other on Mamdani (or even the idea that people need to “pick a side” rather than being willing to change their mind as new information becomes available).
That makes sense, thanks for explaining!
these accounts made the site very unpleasant for a while because whenever they were around everything had to turn into an argument, even when people agreed with them, it often wasn’t enough and they would still start fights.
God, that sounds really exhausting.
I was probably more annoyed by them than most people here I think, and didn’t realise that people literally don’t remember what I’m talking about at all.
I also mostly took a break from the site for a while that might have overlapped with these accounts being active, so that might be why I don’t remember them. I often find that it’s easier than people think to miss some struggle-sessions here, though. Things fall off the front page fairly quickly because of the adjusted algorithm the site uses (the normal Lemmy algorithm can keep them there for days), I’ll mention something to another user here and they’ll reply “what?” because they didn’t see the thread I was talking about.
I’m just glad my poorly worded comment didn’t end up starting another pointless fight.
Sorry if I came off kind of aggressively in my replies. I always feel like the Mamdani argument is about to restart and it has me on edge every time the subject is mentioned.No, you were fine, I agree, the Mamdani “fight” is just exhausting, instead of discussing how we can use the material conditions of the situation to educate and agitate, some people are more concerned with “dunking” on incorrect opinions, as if it is unacceptable for someone to be hopeful or optimistic. And so much of it is just people arguing against a position I don’t think anyone here actually holds, just strawmanning.
And that sort of attitude attracts like-minded combative assholes who join the community to get involved in pointless slap fights and just make everything more unpleasant and difficult to actually discuss.
I believed the Mamdani hype train for a bit, then he condemned Venezuela and Cuba and I accepted that I was wrong.
He recently condemned Hamas (as a “terrorist” group), and now I condemn Zohran Mamdani. I never need to know anything else about him. If you get thr most obvious and visible genocide wrong you’re a fascist.
Hey I was here saying that months ago!
And now all I feel is anger and frustration at being correct!
Yeah, it would be nice if a socdem didn’t behave like every other socdem, but I think this is still a useful opportunity for our comrades in New York. The guy promised a bunch of popular things and is now in the process of backing out of all of them, people will be angry and frustrated, people will want to know why. Teaching people you can’t change the system from within is much easier when they have a fresh example of that in their minds.
The act of pointing out when past analysis was correct, and other comrades were incorrect, is part of the dialectic. If you can’t reflect and review what was wrong and what was right, then you can’t adjust accordingly and progress.
The western left being stuck in eternal soc dem mode is frustrating to people further along the dialectic who have already moved past this juvenile stage, and to see those dynamics reproduced even in communist spaces is annoying. I don’t blame any communist for dunking on soc dems (or “socialists” who are just effectively soc dems) nor for pointing out later that they were correct to maybe advance some readers a bit.
The point of public discussion generally isn’t to convince the other party, as they have to save face and that’s better done in private. The point of public discussion is to convince the readers and improve the general understanding. If posting Lenin memes of “where did that bring you, back to me” or “fell for it again award” opens the eyes of a couple people then I don’t care if it offends the one on the butt end of the joke.
I feel like on a leftist forum there’s a certain level of trust between users (the “assume good faith” rule I suppose) and while it is important to correct misunderstandings, there is a difference between “This strategy hasn’t worked historically and we should be aware of that.” vs “Fuck you, you stupid fucking idiot, what kind of moron believes that?” Building each other up is good, tearing each other down is not. Especially since, as you say, we’re all at different levels of socialist understanding, the person hurling insults at people who just don’t know about something aren’t helping, and are only making things worse. People, even socialists, will tend to double down when dealing with someone who is being unnecessarily abrasive and won’t want to listen and learn. I think the dunks are better saved for liberals who refuse to question their deeply held beliefs, not socialists who are just misinformed or not well read.
What do you do after repeated discussions with the same users who have lived through years and years, many cycles of this repeating soc dem betrayal, who keep promoting it and discussing it? Even after multiple discussions where there was in depth education and analysis and theory and kind compassionate good faith explanations and examples. When you have users start to profane marxism and distort it and play with it to fit their DSA DNC projects? At a certain point you have to resort to mockery or you just let them run amok bastardizing socialism and promoting dead-ends. You get vaushites and 196 and the like distorting and confusing everyone if you really let this tendency fester.
Yes, we are all at different stages of understanding. How most of us progressed along it involved quite a bit of mockery and animosity. I’m not sure it’s correct to say that the best way to convince people is only be nice forever, there is a certain point where people need a rude awakening sometimes.
I kinda ran out of good faith after the Israel struggle sessions and the Platner ones
and the Platner ones
I don’t remember much of a struggle session over Platner, but if you told me there was one I would believe you and assume I purged it from my mind in a sort of psychological immune reaction, lol.
I’m not sure if it’s even worth doing the “told you so” thing. At least I’ve been trying to distance myself from it, because it never seemed to accomplish anything, besides airing out my own frustrations. My new approach I’ve been trying to do, is to fill people’s hearts with hope and encourage them to be the best versions of themselves, to do good, the establishment is capable of crushing that all on it’s own.
I may also be wrong, but dunking on Zohran also seems to encourage the idea of the whole “Great Man Theory”, like can he really wave a magic wand and turn New Yorkers into maoist 3rd wordlists? I’m sure there’s someone out there who has already touched upon this issue in a way that is way more eloquent and actually makes sense, unlike my incoherent ramblings. Would be cool if someone shared where people can find it.
Yeah, it won’t encourage people to change their minds, because it turns out no one wants to join the “everything sucks and you’re an idiot for caring” crowd. We can both make accurate predictions and still be hopeful, recognising that it is the great masses of people who make history, not individuals, and the great masses will fix things through hope and optimism, not doomerism.
Folks, hear me out:
One more elected. This time it’ll work. Sure, Mamdani is a socdem (read fasc.) but if we just run one more elected without a party, labor/tenant unions, soviets to reign them in, if we run one more person that has no checks against them and put all our hope in them. It’ll work.
/s
I wasn’t even fully against the idea of supporting Mamdani in a manner similar to Lenin’s proposal for orienting around Labour in Left Wing Comm. However seeing people actually act like this time they were going to see socdem Lenin manifest the full power of a Bonapartist had me start losing it towards the end of the campaign. I saw DSA members online that were more critical of him than the tankie forum, like c’mon.
At present, British Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois “democracy”), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man—that the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/leninPR70.html
Man, definitely not concerning that we basically have a list of at risk youth that is available to a bunch of people who essentially have impunity before the law.
Also, mark one for the Mamdani haters lol
dunno what y’all expected out of a press conference
What happens now?
Mamdani could direct the NYPD to stop using the database, modify its use, or settle the lawsuit.
Rachlin said she hopes he’s working behind the scenes, even if he stayed quiet Tuesday.
“In front of the world is not how we’re supposed to create and draft policies and make big decisions,” she said. “I don’t think it’s fair to expect him to have jumped in in that moment.”
A spokesperson for Mamdani did not return a request for comment.
It gives me pause he got along well with the president, but maybe he’s just picking his battles, I would give him a chance.
Because he says the right things, it’s great we have someone being a real populist. Now where are the rest? Where are the white populists? Why has there been no challenge for house or senate democratic leadership practically ever?
Why is there no ambition in the democratic party, to where a presidency granted to the most unpopular choice, a woman with 30% maximum approval rating all term for a 40% approval for 3 years president running as status quo did not pull a single challenge? If Newsom was presidential material he would have stood up and taken it, Pritzker too. Throwing our weight, our energy, our faith, behind them will squander it all like fighting for Biden did.Something is fundamentally wrong with the democratic party, as the mayor of New York is about the only true populist in the party. Only real populist in the country nearly, as republicans are fake populists, scapegoating not populizing real issues. We need all new leadership.
