wraelk
23d ago
This seems hard to square with his clarification that he's not doing it in a gay way: you wouldn't expect him to need to clarify if he's using the term "rape" to refer to "beating them soundly in a fight". I'm sure there is a way to fight in a homosexual manner, but it's unclear why he'd expect someone to assume that's what he'd be doing.
And having to explain that you'd beat up a home invader to show that you're dominant doesn't make a lot of sense either: you'd beat them up to get them to stop invading your house!
From the way it's phrased it really seems like he's referring to a separate action besides just "get in a physical fight and win".
wraelk
24d ago
I want to target "suspect doesn't know what to do" specifically here: my goal is for the default behavior when interacting with cops to be things that don't worry said cops.
It seems like asking about weapons first before asking them to do anything else makes a lot of sense: Castile can respond before having to get anything, the cop now knows he's got a weapon to worry about but Castile's hands are still clearly visible, and the officer can temporarily disarm him as you mention. But maybe we should have it on the citizen side (or both): if you as a citizen are asked to do something that puts your hand near your own weapon, maybe there should be a standard of not doing that and explaining the problem. That could be an issue right now because from the cop's side you're not complying, but if we make that the norm it'll be less of an issue.
I do wonder if this starts cutting into rights though: obviously from the police side they'd rather you just incriminate yourself of whatever they might get you for, and it's possible the eventual script gets a little too "volunteer information that the police don't necessarily have rights to, or you're considered a threat". But I'd at least like it to be something we're working on, and it seems far more realistic than "defund the police" or "just shoot the gun out of his hands".
wraelk
25d ago
I can imagine some friction around teaching kids not to talk to police, but I like this a lot because it would make the effort pretty politically neutral.
Here's what you should do to make an officer feel as safe as possible in terms of you getting violent... and now here's what an officer is and isn't allowed to do, and here's a detailed description of your rights. Look like you're going for a lawyer, not a gun.
wraelk
25d ago
Huh, that's interesting to me, I must have missed them growing up.
I have some vague heuristics (no sudden movements, don't reach for things at your waist) but I was never actually taught them, I just kind of picked them up, often from watching people do very badly by not following them. Details like "would the officer prefer I already have my license and registration ready, or should I just wait until he comes up" I still don't know, and I wouldn't be surprised if different police have different answers.
The degradation aspect in particular is interesting to me, because my interactions with police (even while being in the wrong, albeit for minor things) have generally been as pleasant and respectful as they could be, and I genuinely would like to make their job easier in the future if I can. I'd much rather interact with an officer who's not worried about what I might do, and I respect the job he's doing even if I'd rather not be part of it in the moment. Can you give examples of the kind of thing that people wouldn't do?
I guess a reminder to me that police officers differ: I know you've talked before about the frustrations with NJ cops, and I am in a different state and level of urbanization than that, so it's probably not surprising that I have different experiences.
wraelk
25d ago
The thing I want the most from police reform is a script for people interacting with police. Figure out the motions/actions a police officer is the most concerned about, figure out how a citizen can make it clear they're NOT doing that, broadly publish it as a best practices and teach it in school, then train the police to be expecting the script at least as a "this person seems to be cooperating".
For example, it seems like traffic stops can get scary because it's hard to tell if someone's reaching for a gun. Maybe the script should be "person being pulled over keeps their hands on the wheel until the officer comes over and can see what they're doing". And now if I'm pulled over, I can do that, the officer knows what to do with it, and my action isn't something he's worried about.
Standardize behavior on both sides as much as we can, and it decreases tension in most situations and makes it easier to see when things might heat up.
wraelk
27d ago
I randomly stumbled across Light up the Night on a Spotify shuffle, absolutely loved it, and eagerly dove into the band's other work only to find out that nothing else they've produced sounds remotely like that, everything else is a totally different style that's way slower and not what I was looking for at all from Light up the Night.
Even the Iron Maiden Trooper cover, which I usually love to see in a band, is just kind of uninspired with some weird vocal effects that only take away from the core melody. And actually Iron Maiden is a great example: it's like hearing Run to the Hills, getting excited, and then finding out that everything else they've produced is oriented around Wasting Love.
I can definitely enjoy story albums (Kamelot's Epica/The Black Halo is probably my favorite album taken as a whole), and the story seems interesting, but I can't survive on story alone.
This doesn't mean patronize them anyway though, it means choose somewhere else while not spreading the culture war reason you're doing it.
Don't go there, find a competing place that's better (possibly along a different axis) and if anyone asks why you don't go there, take the opportunity to advertise the better place.
This makes their choice decrease their customer base without a corresponding increase from people on the other side of the culture war.
More options
Context Copy link