zlacker

[parent] [thread] 42 comments
1. banads+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-22 15:34:50
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"

replies(5): >>marric+z3 >>enrage+i4 >>anigbr+F7 >>tehweb+r9 >>stjohn+cr1
2. marric+z3[view] [source] 2020-06-22 15:51:02
>>banads+(OP)
When I read their comment I first thought it was ever present defense of police "if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear!" Pretty sure their glibness is just poking fun at that.
3. enrage+i4[view] [source] 2020-06-22 15:54:41
>>banads+(OP)
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.
replies(1): >>banads+2c
4. anigbr+F7[view] [source] 2020-06-22 16:09:44
>>banads+(OP)
'The police' is an institution, not a population.
replies(1): >>banads+Ie
5. tehweb+r9[view] [source] 2020-06-22 16:17:52
>>banads+(OP)
Actually it is helping it, this is not about some US police. This is about all US police.
replies(1): >>banads+Qh
◧◩
6. banads+2c[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 16:28:40
>>enrage+i4
>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

replies(2): >>teddyh+2d >>stjohn+Fr1
◧◩◪
7. teddyh+2d[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 16:32:58
>>banads+2c
Classic whataboutism.

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

replies(2): >>banads+Kd >>banads+xy7
◧◩◪◨
8. banads+Kd[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 16:36:07
>>teddyh+2d
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.
replies(2): >>Apocry+Se >>teddyh+4r
◧◩
9. banads+Ie[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 16:39:43
>>anigbr+F7
So what? Institutions are made of people.
replies(4): >>guerri+8n >>coffee+uz >>bobdol+dm1 >>TomSwi+Us1
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. Apocry+Se[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 16:40:22
>>banads+Kd
For one thing, LEOs receive governmental and societal sanction, are armed with lethal force, and receive legal immunity, and so clearly should be held to a higher standard.
replies(1): >>banads+pg
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
11. banads+pg[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 16:45:46
>>Apocry+Se
Agreed! That still doesn't mean Collective Punishment is ethical

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

replies(2): >>enrage+sm >>guerri+Mn
◧◩
12. banads+Qh[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 16:51:26
>>tehweb+r9
This is the same pathos parroted by bigots.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
13. enrage+sm[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 17:11:27
>>banads+pg
Defunding police departments (many of which everyone is realizing are grossly overfunded) and taking away qualified immunity (which is a protection entirely made up by the judicial branch, which the police have close relationships with) are not “collective punishment”.
replies(1): >>banads+9p7
◧◩◪
14. guerri+8n[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 17:14:29
>>banads+Ie
And the KKK and al Qaeda are unacceptable institutions and there's no problem with generalzing there. Every single member there is a problem simply by being a member. If people uphold an atrocious institution then there's no problem saying they're doing something atrocious.
replies(1): >>banads+yq7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
15. guerri+Mn[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 17:17:33
>>banads+pg
Stopping all of agroup from doing something terrible is a far cry frol collective punishment. In fact there's no need to punish at all here, simple eliminate the problem.
replies(1): >>banads+ek7
◧◩◪◨⬒
16. teddyh+4r[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 17:31:14
>>banads+Kd
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.
replies(1): >>banads+Om7
◧◩◪
17. coffee+uz[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 18:08:28
>>banads+Ie
So you have the option to leave an institution, which distinguishes it from a population.

When you generalize about a population of people, you're unfairly attributing characteristics to them which weren't decided upon by them (and likely doesn't apply to all of them).

When you generalize about police, you're fairly generalizing about a group of people who have decided to be a part of that institution, have decided to behave in such a way that would not get them kicked out of the institution (ie. they haven't agitated for any significant change in almost every case), and have decided not to leave it with full knowledge and in spite of its abuses.

◧◩◪
18. bobdol+dm1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 20:59:25
>>banads+Ie
But institutions have the ability to enforce behavior in that group.

If these people were really "just bad apples", this wouldn't be a problem anymore, as there have been literal decades to solve this.

See how that's different from a group defined by things you cannot control, like skin color?

I can't blame one person of a certain hue for the actions of a person of that same hue, because they don't share anything in common other than the hue.

Whereas police departments are 100% accountable for the actions of their members.

Today you learned, huh?

replies(1): >>banads+ql7
19. stjohn+cr1[view] [source] 2020-06-22 21:22:36
>>banads+(OP)
Show me a major urban area with cops that don't look like military infantry when they're out and doing their job, particularly during crowd control
replies(1): >>banads+Js7
◧◩◪
20. stjohn+Fr1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 21:24:39
>>banads+2c
Sorry dude I live in a small town, our cops look like they're headed to do combat in Afghanistan most of the time, rather than to patrol sleepy suburban neighborhoods.
replies(1): >>banads+do7
◧◩◪
21. TomSwi+Us1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-22 21:31:32
>>banads+Ie
Humans are made of cells but it's not a useful description of us for most purposes.
replies(1): >>banads+Gp7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
22. banads+ek7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 15:59:22
>>guerri+Mn
That's not what were talking about here. Were talking about indiscriminate hacking/doxing of police, and the people who are cheering that on. How is that going to effectively address the root causes of police militarization?
◧◩◪◨
23. banads+ql7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:03:31
>>bobdol+dm1
>But institutions have the ability to enforce behavior in that group.

You dont think communities of people have the ability to enforce or influence behavior of the people in their community? If you watched the video I posted, or knew anything about psychology, you'd know that to be plainly false.

replies(1): >>bobdol+2T7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
24. banads+Om7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:08:10
>>teddyh+4r
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.

replies(1): >>teddyh+1r9
◧◩◪◨
25. banads+do7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:13:49
>>stjohn+Fr1
Yeah dude, police militarization is a huge problem in the US, I agree.

Cheering on indiscriminate hacking/doxxing of any/all police as an attempt to solve the problem is infantile, though, and demonstrates a naive ignorance of the root causes.

replies(1): >>teddyh+tr9
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
26. banads+9p7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:17:30
>>enrage+sm
Never said it was. Note the context of this conversation, and the article it is in reference to
◧◩◪◨
27. banads+Gp7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:19:01
>>TomSwi+Us1
It is if you actually care to understand human nature and how it is interrelated with the environment; rather than relying solely on surface level observations, like skin color, for example.
◧◩◪◨
28. banads+yq7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:22:33
>>guerri+8n
Do you honestly think all police are like Al Qaeda? Have you ever known anyone in law enforcement on a personal level? I find similar reactions from people who have never known a gay person before.
◧◩
29. banads+Js7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:29:07
>>stjohn+cr1
Why do I need to show you that?
◧◩◪◨
30. banads+xy7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 16:45:50
>>teddyh+2d
The comment was not edited. Perhaps you realized how silly your first attempt at shutting down discussion was, and then tried another baseless and ineffectual dismissal.
replies(1): >>teddyh+CGA
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. bobdol+2T7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-24 18:10:50
>>banads+ql7
Yes, that's EXACTLY the same as controlling an officers paycheck. Thank you for pointing out how right you are.
replies(1): >>banads+5Cd
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
32. teddyh+1r9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-25 06:51:20
>>banads+Om7
> 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.

replies(1): >>banads+NEd
◧◩◪◨⬒
33. teddyh+tr9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-25 06:57:27
>>banads+do7
How does understanding the root causes help with providing a solution in this case?
replies(1): >>banads+qBd
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
34. banads+qBd[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-26 16:14:42
>>teddyh+tr9
When does understanding a problem not help with solving that problem?

"A problem adequately stated is a problem solved theoretically and immediately, and therefore subsequently to be solved, realistically." -Buckminster Fuller

Anyone with any programming experience knows this.

replies(1): >>teddyh+4df
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
35. banads+5Cd[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-26 16:17:49
>>bobdol+2T7
Uhh, what? Nowhere in this conversation did we say anything about controlling an officers paycheck you. Please stay on topic.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
36. banads+NEd[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-26 16:32:12
>>teddyh+1r9
>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".

replies(1): >>teddyh+6ef
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
37. teddyh+4df[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-27 05:58:52
>>banads+qBd
Many times, understanding the cause of the problem reveals that the cause of the problem is inherent and cannot, or should not, be changed. Take, for instance, the problem of unwanted pregnancies. The cause is sex. This naturally leads to thinking that the solution can only be abstinence. This kind of thinking limits you to solutions which sometimes are of the type which can never work.

In this specific case, the problem of police behavior can partially be said to be caused by people behaving inappropriately towards police. Should therefore the solution be that people behave better towards police? How would you go about making that happen? This “solution” is impractical.

The solution to a problem is sometimes unrelated to its cause.

replies(1): >>banads+onk
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
38. teddyh+6ef[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-27 06:15:39
>>banads+NEd
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.

replies(1): >>banads+hqk
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
39. banads+onk[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-29 17:20:07
>>teddyh+4df
>Take, for instance, the problem of unwanted pregnancies. The cause is sex. This naturally leads to thinking that the solution can only be abstinence. This kind of thinking limits you to solutions which sometimes are of the type which can never work.

If this is the best example you can come up with to support your point, it's now safe to say your argument does not hold up to even basic scrutiny.

It seems like your argument boils down to this: dumb ideologues aren't good at analyzing the nuances of causes and effects because they are blinded by their doctrines, so we shouldn't bother doing it ourselves.

Only religious fundamentalists believe that the solution to unwanted pregnancies is abstinence. Intelligent scientists realized the world is nuanced, and complex, and thus created birth control pills, which has helped prevent untold amounts of human suffering.

>In this specific case, the problem of police behavior can partially be said to be caused by people behaving inappropriately towards police. Should therefore the solution be that people behave better towards police? How would you go about making that happen? This “solution” is impractical.

Learning how to get arrested peacefully and without struggle can obviously help decrease your chances of being harmed while be arrested. As you said, it's only at best a minor partial cause, so you're jumping to silly conclusions by suggesting that anyone is asserting that should be the singular solution to police brutality and militarization.

>The solution to a problem is sometimes unrelated to its cause.

Still waiting on a good example from you to support this seemingly facile hypothesis.

replies(1): >>teddyh+zGA
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
40. banads+hqk[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-29 17:30:42
>>teddyh+6ef
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.
replies(1): >>teddyh+XNA
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
41. teddyh+zGA[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-05 21:48:52
>>banads+onk
> >The solution to a problem is sometimes unrelated to its cause.

> Still waiting on a good example from you to support this seemingly facile hypothesis.

If your home is burglarized, the source of the problem is the burglar, but the solution might be better social policy. If you break a bone, the cause might be you being careless, but the solution is to see a doctor, who will fix the bone regardless of the cause. If there is a wide-spread narcotics addict problem, the problem is ultimately caused by addicts not having willpower to abstain, but the solution cannot be fixed by making them have more willpower, since we don’t know how to do that; the solution must be sought elsewhere.

Likewise, the problem of police behavior might or might not be entirely caused by citizens, but we can’t affect the behavior of citizens, and therefore we must fix the problem some other way.

There’s an expression which summarizes it: “Fix the problem, not the blame.” Expounded upon, for instance, here:

http://www.holliseaster.com/p/fix-the-problem-not-the-blame/

◧◩◪◨⬒
42. teddyh+CGA[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-05 21:48:58
>>banads+xy7
I could have sworn that the comment originally contained more text which expanded the finger-pointing towards neighborhood denizens, but I could certainly be mistaken. However, your speculatory accusations of me personally are unseemly, and, moreover, off topic.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
43. teddyh+XNA[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-05 22:53:58
>>banads+hqk
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.

[go to top]