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 don't think how complicated it is matters as much as you're thinking here. I think the difference is subjectivity. The right way to police a community, fundamentally depends on the community. The point of policing is to have safe, happy communities. And if you don't, it doesn't matter how much objective criteria you've ticked off a list, you've failed. It's a very soft-skill heavy, squishy job. Or, as I've heard it said: "The most important thing for a police officer to know, is which laws not to enforce."
Medicine, on the other-hand, has a very obvious objective pass/fail standard. Did the patient live or die? This lends itself more readily toward standardization and academic knowledge. Biology works pretty similar within most bodies, and if it's not working that way, it's often the thing you're supposed to diagnose.
Only if the entire outcome is due to policing, which seems absurd. But I think it's capturing the instinct: the same assumption is what leads to teachers being hammered for bad childhood outcomes (or treated as besieged miracle-workers - as if, if they merely had everything they wanted, all of the outcome would then be in their hands)
The reality is that policing is one tool to help improve community safety. It might succeed and not be recognized because other things are going on and drowning it out. It might succeed in relative terms (if it reduces more harm than it causes it's a net positive) and still not make the community feel safe. But that doesn't actually mean that their problem is cops.
The root of ACAB/police racism is a motte-and-bailey on just how much power this one side of government policy and this one set of employees has.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I think to do policing properly, you need to have the trust of the local populace*, and failure to earn that represents a very real failure.
That's before we get into the optimal level of safety, which is probably not maximum safety. I did mention "as safe as possible" in a separate post, but I probably should have said "as safe as is practical". That level of safety, and which kinds of safety (e.g. the difference between unsafe worksites and muggings in the street) to prioritize aren't decisions that I, or the police, can make for a community. That's a decision that the community has to make for itself.
*Note: Does not apply if the police in question are controlled by a far away power center. That's better modeled as an occupation force, rather than a self-governing community.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think any of that disagrees with my point.
Soft skills are academic to an extent. It’s one reason we teach the humanities so people can understand social situation almost in the third person to see how others are thinking. Some of this is sure just socialization. Training helps a cop understand which situations matter and which situations don’t. When a person is a threat and when a person is not a threat.
A lot of the underclass problem is that they don’t understand why people are doing things and that behave poorly when they are feeling cheated.
My point was that you can't objectively say that policing failed without consulting the local community, unlike with healthcare. Which makes the comparison you were trying to make really squishy and not very useful.
I don’t know what squishy means sounds like inconvenient fact to me.
Most of the how to fix policing recommend things like more people from the community or atleast same race but also recommend things like more education. But it’s very tough to hire both qualities in the communities with the most policing issues.
If the requirements are mutually incompatible, it’s worth looking at if they’re both necessary, and at least ‘more education’ is probably a dumb recommendation.
More options
Context Copy link
My meaning was that the comparison breaks down when any pressure is applied. My apologies for the shorthand, I was in a rush. I probably should have just held off. That one's my bad.
How about devolving autonomy down to these local communities? It inherently deals with the first half. Worst case is that these areas end up being horribly dangerous and known as the place you don't go after dark, and the communities around them place extra police presence just across the boarder. That is to say, roughly the same situation as it is today. The best case is that the new cops that were raised in the community can actually make some sort of difference. Seems like mostly upside to me.
I don't buy the education side of this being a problem though. The average IQ in the areas we're talking about is what? 70-75? Because of the Flynn effect, that's roughly what the US as a whole was working with around 1900 or so, and the US, and each of its cities, managed to recruit plenty of competent police officers. Might have to back down from really abstract crimes and focus on the basics like property crime and violent crime, but my guess is that's what these communities need.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What if the community is not safe or happy, and no known system of policing can make it so? Do we accept that the point is to make it as safe and happy as possible, understanding that it may not be very safe and happy in an absolute sense? Do we simply abandon the concept of policing, regardless of how much worse this makes things?
This is a fair distinction, as there is no absolute safety or happiness. Utopia isn't coming, regardless of what the police do.
Yes, the point would be to make the community as safe and as happy as possible. And if the community as a whole doesn't feel that the police are doing that, then they've failed regardless of how many regulations they followed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link