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 -
I see all your points. I also see the counterarguments.
In principle, I agree, police and prosecutors should not have absolute immunity. And in theory, there is a remedy for bad actors: both can be disciplined and even removed from their jobs (and prosecuted in extreme cases) by internal review boards. In practice, a cop has to do something really bad to actually lose his badge, and I have no idea how many DAs have actually been subject to legal sanctions in the last 10 years, but I suspect that number is a much, much lower than it should be.
On the other hand, I do not think it's a small thing to fear the consequences of everyone unhappy with a cop or a DA (which would be... a very high percentage of the people they deal with) being able to sue them.
One of my more disreputable wastes of time lately is watching YouTube videos of, basically, people in trouble for being dirtbags like your clients. DUI arrests, tenant evictions, parole hearings, etc.
It quickly becomes very evident that there is a huge seamy underbelly of society made up of stupid, irresponsible, entitled, terrible people. And while the demographics may often look like what our HBD enthusiasts would assume, a lot of these people are white college students, soccer moms, grandpas... ordinary people, not just meth heads and welfare queens.
The majority of cops are reasonable and go out of their way to deescalate situations, and a lot of the people they end up arresting are... not even remotely reasonable or rational. These narcissists and sociopaths will commit obvious, blatant crimes and then scream at the cops for violating their rights when they're arrested. Putting handcuffs on them is abuse. I have seen so many videos of people turning what should have been a routine traffic stop into a felony arrest with them eating pavement because they decided to fight a cop over a traffic ticket. Sometimes they even do this while sober!
I have zero doubt that every one of those people would file lawsuits against everyone involved with their arrest and prosecution if that option were available to them. I don't think the system could handle giving all those suits any kind of fair consideration.
What's the solution? I think ideally, we'd put actual teeth into review boards and make cops and prosecutors actually fear being credibly (emphasis on credibly) accused of malfeasance. But no, I don't know how to accomplish that when you have professions policing their own with an obvious incentive not to police too hard.
At least based on my caseload, I can more-or-less confirm the impression you have about dipshits versus reasonable cops (although obviously the YouTube crowd is going to select for outrageousness).
Why not? I already mentioned that judges are primed to toss lawsuits in the garbage. If you get rid of absolute immunity, you'll get rid of a major legal hurdle, but there's no reason to think that the practical bias will change materially. Judges will have one less easy excuse to use the shredder, but they won't have none. If the video footage you cite is as clear as you describe it, why wouldn't a judge (who is already primed to favor police testimony) agree?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link