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 -
We WERE getting some reform. Body cameras were the main thing driving it; either cops were behaving better with the cameras or the cameras exposed that there was a less of a problem than expected; either way, they were having an effect. BLM opposes body cameras.
I wouldn't really be happy about body cameras in their current incarnation, either. Police officers are free to turn them off, departments cheerily hoard footage they don't want out in the public, conveniently lose footage that gets clamored for, and only release theirs when they think it's helpful. There are good arguments in favor of body cameras, and I'd be glad to see their use expanded, but as-is they're more for reasons of CYA than because the police suddenly realises transparency is important.
If police turn their cameras off and then get accused of misconduct, I assume they are guilty unless there's some other strong evidence to the contrary. I expect most other people do as well. Ditto for footage that otherwise mysteriously goes missing. I'm not up for searching up examples at the moment, but I do believe I've seen cases where cops being prosecuted for misconduct had the fact that they'd turned off their body-cams used against them in court.
I think it is reasonable for departments to withhold bodycam footage from the public unless it is called upon to prove a specific incident, for the same general reason why I would not accept a desk job that required an active webcam piped to my boss every minute of the day. No one wants to live or work in a true panopticon. If someone accuses a cop of misconduct, they should get video to prove the question one way or another, but they should have to register the accusation first.
My understanding is that body cam footage can be requested by defense attorneys, who can peruse it for anything relevant to their client's defense. That does not strike me as CYA for the police. It seems entirely plausible to me that cameras mainly serve CYA for the police, because the police generally play by the rules and now they have cameras to prove it, rather than because they regularly break the rules and can sufficiently work around the cameras to not get caught.
Sure, but if you're going to be a registered agent of the state able to kill and commit violence, then yes, the citizenry should be able to see absolutely everything you do while you're acting in their name. You don't get to have all the rights that come up with being a violent agent of the state, if you don't want the responsibilities as well.
I don't think operating in a literal panopticon is actually one of the responsibilities of a police officer. If you disagree, assuming you don't live anywhere near me, I encourage you to pursue such policies with your own police, and see how that works out for you.
And to be clear, I have no problem with police having their actions recorded, so they can be verified after the fact. That doesn't require their actions to be broadcast to everyone live.
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