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 am down with magic words. A reasonable human being is able to make conversation. That is what makes us human.
The alternative ends up being a cop looked at me wrong therefore evidence suppressed.
And I disagree with the characterization of “am I being detained” or “get out of my way I’m walking home” as some kind of magic versus normal human conversation. It’s not some priestly class words that only a few people from a special caste know how to do.
I don’t think you should need a law degree - magical words - to interact with police. That’s not the standard I’m arguing for.
And there isn’t any downside in this specific case. The officer still can’t search the subject without establishing probably cause for detention. You can still suppress for an illegal search. In this case a subject ran because an officer talked to him.
Police like to make it unclear whether they are detaining someone, so that someone can be intimidated into responding as if he was detained, yet the officer gets the benefits of a court treating him as not detained.
That's why magic words are necessary in the first place.
People using normal human conversation can get some idea about whether they're detained. But without magic words, the result depends on 1) how badly the officer obfuscates whether they're being detained and 2) the court's hindsight about whether that conversation was good enough. That's a bad position to be in, even though it might work anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
A reasonable human should not be obliged to make conversation with a cop. That's what the "no self incrimination" amendment is for. The government should not be able to compel ANY kind of speech.
(Yes, I know subpoenas exist. I'm not happy about them as applied to private individuals.)
"I am not detaining you. This is not a search." aren't magic words either. I don't see why we should put the burden on citizens, instead of the cops, to clarify the law.
“ A reasonable human should not be obliged to make conversation with a cop. That's what the "no self incrimination" amendment is for.”
“ I am not detaining you. This is not a search." aren't magic words either. I don't see why we should put the burden on citizens, instead of the cops, to clarify the law.”
Our form of government is for citizens. And yes that means being able to competently interact with different parts of government.
At no point in the interaction described to me in this case have any of my rights been violated. A cop looking at me weird doesn’t mean I get a get out of jail free card if I run.
I think if you look at this case different and not as a criminal then you would not think “detention” happened and it’s very clear. If I am strolling thru a park doing nothing illegal and a cop walks up to me to talk I don’t think I am being detained. What makes people just to detention here is that the person actually was a bad guy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Cops on duty who approach a pedestrian are not normal human conversation. And by my estimate a regular reasonable 100 iq person who hasn't been schooled on cop interactions doesn't know the first thing about rights and laws around detainment.
I was once very aggressively stopped by the police while on foot. Three of them ran up and surrounded me while yelling into radios. My reaction was sheer confusion, and by the time I understood what was happening, they decided I wasn't the guy they were looking for and started to move on. One lingered a moment to say "I knew it wasn't you. You were way too calm".
The whole experience lasted 30s.
More options
Context Copy link
Cops are normal people until they detain you. You can just talk to them.
And most 100 IQ people are perfectly fine at making small talk. That is not some giga brain ability. Actually average IQ people are better at that.
What happened here is some dumb urban youth saw a cop after he fired some bullets and was still in possession of the gun. He figured the cop probably is going to arrest me because I’m guilty so he ran. But at that point in the encounter he had not yet been detained and wanted the head start on the running.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link