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 -
Civili asset forfeitures are hard enough to contest, and have few enough checks and balances, that they provide huge incentives for the police to become bandits, even though there can be legitimate civil forfeitures. Don't mistake "isn't written to be X" for "isn't in practice X", especially when incentives rear their heads.
Prosecuting the police depends on prosecuting them by a system that is sympathetic to the police, leaving civil suits as the only way to get justice. If you can find prominent examples of qualified immunity abuse where the police actually received serious criminal punishment, I'd like to see them.
* Qualified immunity abuse: examples where most people would say "it's blatantly obvious that police aren't supposed to do that".
A lot of what you describe might reduce the danger to the police from guilty suspects, while increasing the danger to innocent suspects. It's not as if innocent people are trained in the proper ways to make themselves look non-dangerous to police.
The cops and their apologists give out such advice all the time. Most of it is humiliating, because what makes you look non-dangerous to police is an abject display of submission. Some of it is actively dangerous legally because it involves answering their questions.
Can you elaborate on this? Generally, police just want you to:
Is standing/sitting there with your hands casually at your sides (or on your steering wheel) until the conclusion of the interaction so humiliating?
For the very small proportion of encounters with police that involve the officers' guns drawn, they may ask you to walk backwards and get down on your knees or get flat on the ground with your hands out to the sides. Do you consider that humiliating? This is done to minimize the subjects' ability to put up effective resistance. It's to decrease the likelihood that they have to fucking shoot you! I'm terribly sorry if you feel like you're playing the hokey-pokey for that brief moment that the vast majority of the population will never even encounter in their entire lifetime.
I never have been in such a situation, but I imagine that I would in fact find it quite humiliating to be forced to kneel or prostrate myself in front of my assailants. The fact that they are (presumably) insisting on it to assuage their own fears wouldn't really factor into my emotional reaction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I described in my comment one facet of American police training which is specifically designed to reduce the danger to innocent bystanders at the cost of increasing the danger to the person the police officer is targeting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link