This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Who said anything about “they can’t”? What I asked is why should they? You’re assuming that the default state is police being calm and gentle, and that a deviation from this represents a failure by police. But why shouldn’t the default expectation be that uncooperative assholes get treated roughly by police?
When Officer Alice interacts with ordinary citizen Bob, Alice could have opted out of the situation by pursuing a different career. Unless there is a similar way for Bob to opt out of the interaction, imposing on Alice a requirement, which not everyone is capable of fulfilling, is fairer than imposing the same requirement on Bob, as the former case allows those who cannot fulfil said requirement to exist in some other societal role, while the latter does not allow them to exist at all.
Admittedly this argument is dependent on the proposition that There Is No Such Thing As A Human Being Who Is Unworthy Of Life; however, societies which reject this axiom tend to feature piles of skulls.
???????
The way is for Bob not to commit an infraction which necessitates the involvement of the police in the first place. Bob is not part of a randomized undifferentiated mass; he is part of a much smaller subset of the population - people who have been pulled over under suspicion of a crime. Obviously I am not saying that nobody ever gets pulled over despite not actually being guilty of the suspected offense. However, generally speaking the person getting pulled over has done something wrong to merit the interaction in the first place.
"Generally speaking" isn't good enough. In this example, Bob didn't do anything wrong.
Denying that individual human beings matter, rather than the 'general' state of the community, is another path lined with skulls.
At no point in your post did you specify that Bob had not done anything wrong. Why is Officer Alice interacting with him in the first place? If it’s not to detain him for questioning and/or citation related to a criminal matter, then there won’t be any lawful commands for her to give him, and thus nothing for him to disobey/fail to comply with. Your hypothetical inherently implies that Bob has at the very least been suspected of doing something wrong.
Alice suspects Bob has done something wrong. Bob hasn't. If the onus is placed on Alice, she can avoid it by pursuing a different career. If it is placed on Bob, and Bob is not capable of stifling his indignation, is there some way for Bob to avoid being attacked in your proposed system?
Bob is welcome to be indignant, he just still has to do what the officer tells him to do. If the officer tells him to produce his license and registration, he can grumble about how “this is bullshit”; what he cannot do is refuse. (Stalling is a form of refusal as well.)
If Bob does refuse to comply with lawful orders (and again, the officers commands are lawful even if you’re certain you’re innocent) then the next step is that the officer will tell him to get out of the vehicle. This is done for two reasons: 1. To make sure Bob doesn’t flee the traffic stop, and 2. To separate him physically from whatever weapon(s) may be in the car. (Some officers will wait to order the person out of the car until backup arrives, because this step is where the probability of a violent altercation increases substantially.)
Again, at every point of this process it’s okay for Bob to object that he’s innocent. He just has to do what’s being asked of him anyway. If he’s confident of his innocence, he can fight it in court. Traffic citations get dismissed all the time, due to lack of evidence, or due to the police or the prosecutor just not showing up to court. Just because you got a ticket doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to end up having to pay it. All you have ti do is pass the basic civilizational test of complying with the commands of police.
And I expect your next question will be, “Okay, and what if Bob is just too angry, too agitated, too defensive, too full of pride and ego to bite the bullet and comply?” Then he gets yanked out of the car, tackled to the ground or pressed up against the car, placed in handcuffs, and placed in the back of a squad car. As long as he doesn’t do anything spectacularly stupid and irresponsible during that process, the odds of him sustaining significant injury is low. It will be very bruising for his pride and quite humiliating if others are watching, but that’s the price you pay for letting your ego and emotions get the best of you in the presence of an agent of the state.
So you consider it fair for Bob, if he cannot swallow his pride, to be publicly humiliated, without any way of avoiding the situation beforehand, but not right for Alice, if she is incapable of swallowing her pride, to be expected to pursue a different career?
And, in your view, is it a violation of his rights for him to suffer any consequences for grumbling and complaining while complying?
I think both parties should endeavor within the best of their ability to restrain their impulses, and police officers generally do an extremely commendable job of doing so, despite every day at work consisting of dealing with the angriest, most agitated, most disagreeable people around. However, when Bob acts like an asshole toward that officer, he’s acting like an asshole toward an avatar of society at large, and in order for the basic administration of justice to not turn into a massively inefficient series of individuals holding court on the side of the road, police must be empowered to take decisive punitive action to discourage people from offering significant, time-consuming resistance.
Yes, I’ve already said I don’t think there should be significant consequences for just complaining; however, I’m fine with consequences for complaining that takes the form of personal insults and especially threats to the officer. “You a bitch, I’d fuckin’ beat yo ass if you ain’t have that badge on” is a pretty common one I see. Cool, dumbass, how’s pavement taste?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link