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 -
Stealing this from @ToaKraka in the FF thread:
Our own BJ Campbell wrote that this is one of the important differences between the US and Western Europe. A German or British police officer would have the power to detain all juvenile males wearing a single article of black clothing within a one-mile radius of the robbery and physical evidence wouldn't be suppressed even if obtained without following the proper trail of investigation.
Is the USA shooting itself in the foot there? What will it lose if it changes its legal norms to lower the bar on probable cause and evidence suppression?
The US is more interested in 'freedom theater' than actually running the country.
The US has 5x the violent crime rate of Europe. Bipartisan policy on crime should be priority #1. But, narrow fixations on founding myths and the its original sin leads to weird stances on racist-optics of policing, the 2nd amendment, the jury system and more.
I call it theater because the high crime rate is a leading contributor to violence faced by black people. Reducing it, even by racist means, will reduce the suffering of black people. Hobbyist gun-owners face gun-abolition threats from Dems precisely because 2nd amendment nuts oppose sensible limitations on mentally ill and untrained gun-owners. The judicial system of life-time justice appointments and social-media-blinded juries is held up as sacred, all while it was clearly designed for a bygone era.
With that I wade in the main question-
That's because of the precedent set by European police officers. They don't have a reputation for suicide-by-cop. They don't have a reputation for turning off body-cams at suspicious times. They don't have a reputation for shady protection schemes for rotten-apple police-officers. If American police want the right to stop random strangers, they must establish accountability and through it, build public trust.
It's funny. My favorite quote of the last 10 years comes from Kamala Harris of all people. "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you".
That's all it is. The legal norms were established in a different era with different assumptions. You cannot ask a question about the suitable legal norms for today without discussing why we got here in the first place.
It is unfashionably 'woke' to weigh history & context over material facts. But the pendulum has swung too far. Legal norms don't exist in isolation. A discussion on the powers owed to law enforcement must start with the local relationship of the people with their local law-enforcement. To change the norms, one must change their hostile relationship with the populace first. Law enforcement must make the first people offering because 1. they have monopoly over violence and 2. they are an organized entity unlike the populace which isn't a single entity.
So, I am going to do the annoying thing and counter a question with a question.
What concessions can law enforcement offer to civilians that would convince them to give up valuable protections. Protections that maintain the current balance of power in court ?
This doesn't make any sense. Sometimes, rarely, crazy people in the US attack the police and force the police to shoot them, therefore the police need to build enough trust with the public to do basic policing work?
American police already have the right to stop random strangers. What they can and cannot do is defined by the law. It has nothing to do with public trust or accountability or context. This is also the reason why those people could be stopped in Germany or the UK - because the laws are different. Not because the public trusts the police more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link