4 ms·
You said you had zero problems with police and did never encounter them mistreating others personally. I know you have internet access, so you're not looking be
by mellow2020 6y ago
You said you had zero problems with police and did never encounter them mistreating others personally. I know you have internet access, so you're not looking beyond your own tiny physical bubble. That is what your words mean.
Plus some ominous addendum about voting, without saying what that would mean in practice in this context, i.e. voting for whom over whom. Why do I care more about what you're actually saying than you do? Would you say that's also true for the silent [sic] majority who only votes awesomely, for whom you presumed to speak?
- DenisM 6y agoConsider the parent post: >it's easy for everyone here to estimate the actual amount of malfeasance by taken the number of times they've seen police behave inappropriately (dozens) and divide it by the number of complaints they've made (zero). Followed by my reply: >In two decades I’ve had a handful interactions and witnessed quite a few more in Seattle - zero malfeasance observed. Most people who are happy with the police will never be loud about it, but they do vote. The implication here is that there is a significant group of people who had (seen) virtually zero bad behavior and yet will never speak up thus never contributing to any such computation, thus making the "estimate the actual amount of malfeasance" entirely unsound. Everything else you read into this is entirely the product of your imagination.
- strathmeyer 6y agoI guess in order to see things you have to open your eyes to it.