zlacker

>>itcrow+(OP)
Stop messing with people, and this won't happen. I don't feel bad for the police.

>>blueda+5i
I too dislike hyper aggressive militarized police who act above the law. But anyone who makes facile generalizations about entire groups of people is merely mirroring the problem, not helping it.

Edit: "populations" -> "groups of people"

>>banads+xA
Normally I agree, but this is one of those situations where the problem goes far beyond "a few bad apples". The entire police culture in the United States is built on the "good" cops not reporting, fiercely defending, or even lying to provide cover for the bad ones. And at that point, every person who tolerates the bad behaviors ends up enabling them, and therefore become complicit in them.

>>enrage+PE
>not reporting, fiercely defending, or even lying to provide cover for the bad ones. And at that point, every person who tolerates the bad behaviors ends up enabling them, and therefore become complicit in them.

Precisely the same mentality is present in many of the most crime ridden neighborhoods in the US.[1]

Are you able to think objectively for a moment, and see how your reaction to police doing that, is similar the police's reaction to criminals doing that?

[1]https://youtu.be/nFhWpTKvD8E

>>banads+zM
Classic whataboutism.

EDIT: The commented post was edited after I wrote my original above comment. Now it’s more like victim-blaming.

>>teddyh+zN
When two things are directly interrelated (attitudes among police and attitudes among criminals), are we not allowed to discuss them both? Why not? Seems like you're trying to purposefully shun context, which isn't a practical way of understanding reality.

>>banads+hO
You might be trying to explain the behavior of police, but it sounds like you’re excusing it. Discussing causal relationships can sometimes be useful for finding a solution, and sometimes not, but must be done carefully if at all in tense situations.

>>teddyh+B11
What precisely did I say that makes you think I'm trying to excuse, rather than explain? Is it merely the fact that I am not completely overwhelmed with rage against everyone who has the same job as the people who killed George Floyd and others?

Often times in intense situations, maintaining objective emotional detachment rather than being overwhelmed by emotional knee jerk reactions can mean the difference between life and death, or a positive outcome and a negative one.

>>banads+lX7
> What precisely did I say that makes you think I'm trying to excuse, rather than explain?

By only pointing a finger to the other side, you strongly hinted that the behavior of citizens was not only the cause of the behavior of police, you implied that it was also the solution to the problem of the behavior of police. This causal link may or may not be partially true, but nobody really cares about the cause, unless it helps with providing a solution to the problem. By only pointing to the cause, you imply that the solution to the problem lies there too, which, in this case, is both very questionable, and classic victim-blaming.

>>teddyh+y1a
>By only pointing a finger to the other side

You must have missed the very first thing I said in this comment chain: "I too dislike hyper aggressive militarized police who act above the law"

>nobody really cares about the cause, unless it helps with providing a solution to the problem. By only pointing to the cause, you imply that the solution to the problem lies there too, which, in this case, is both very questionable, and classic victim-blaming.

I'm startled to see so many people on a technical forum such as HN speaking as if they have no technical problem solving experience.

Imagine there was a critical bug in some software you are responsible for, causing massive distress for millions of users, even killing some. The first step in debugging an issue is to identify the cause(s), right? Imagine if your non technical boss had the gall to scold you for trying to identify the cause(s), saying "nobody really cares about the cause..by only pointing to the cause, you imply that the solution to the problem lies there too".

>>banads+kfe
The causes in this case are myriad and complex. I should have said “By only pointing to the external cause…”. By ignoring the non-external causal factors, you appear to be trying to shift blame from failure of police themselves to some external factor. Which is victim-blaming.

And, yes, nobody cares about any cause of a problem unless it helps coming up with a solution. If a system is complex enough, it is not logical to insist on analyzing it exhaustively to find all the root causes; it is more expedient to fix the problem some other way. And this is not even what you were doing; you pointed out one external factor and highlighted it, implying that the blame and the problem must be fixed there.

>>teddyh+DOf
Nope, analyzing various social dynamics between two interrelated parties is not "victim blaming", its basic social science. Anyone trying to use a univariate analysis to explain human social relationships is an anti-scientific ideologue, or just an idiot.

>>banads+O0l
The original post, which is what we are discussing, did not do any “analyzing [of] various social dynamics”. On the contrary, it pointed the finger squarely at one external factor – the behavior of victims of police – and left it at that. If that’s not victim-blaming, I don’t know what is.

> anti-scientific ideologue, or just an idiot

Since you have now proceeded to name-calling, I think I will refrain from engaging further.