3 ms·
It's interesting to note that Dan Weber appears to feel the 'defend all actions' is obviously correct, while you say your community feels that it is obviously w
by nkurz 11y ago
It's interesting to note that Dan Weber appears to feel the 'defend all actions' is obviously correct, while you say your community feels that it is obviously wrong. Presumably he would say the opposite about his community. I don't know either of you, but I wonder if there is less consensus on this issue than either of you believes. Or are you two in fundamentally different communities?
- mikeash 11y agoWho is Dan Weber? I'm sure we're in different communities, but surely there are a lot of "mainstream leftists" with lots of public visibility? And I haven't seen "unions are always correct" expressed by public figures.
- nkurz 11y agoSorry, I thought it was clear from context. Dan Weber is 'danielweber', who wrote a sibling comment to yours, but starting from the opposite premise.
- mikeash 11y agoI didn't see it, since I didn't revisit the whole thread again. That comment is rather weird. It seems to be saying basically, "The cops are entitled to a legal defense, therefore a legal defense is good. This is a legal defense, therefore this is good." But the problem is not really that the union is legally defending these officers (if that is in fact part of their responsibilities then it's only reasonable that they should do so) but that they're doing it crazily. Filing a lawsuit to suppress good evidence from being used in an internal investigation is not a reasonable legal defense in my eyes. Anyway, I don't know that that comment qualifies as "anything the union does is fine," unless that was actually supposed to be a parody of something less extreme.