3 ms·

The problem is that it's legitimately what the people want. And the people want it because the police are very, very powerful especially in the South, and crimi

The problem is that it's legitimately what the people want. And the people want it because the police are very, very powerful especially in the South, and criminals are very, very much an outgroup. John Oliver did a story on "Air Conditioning" in jails, and how there is essentially no will to fix what is clearly a human rights violation. What he did not explore was the fact that nearly every ordinary citizen in those areas believes that whatever the criminals must endure in prison is better than they deserve, as being arrested and convicted of a crime means you may as well be dead. This sentiment also reflected in laws that make it difficult to impossible to reintegrate into society, by taking away voting rights, and allowing employers to screen prospects based on previous convictions, and arrests. What it means is that, in reality, any individual police officer exists in what I call a "Marshall Law Bubble" that allows them to do whatever it is they want to you. It's true they still have to pay lip service to the law, but that's very easy: they just have to memorize a few phrases like "I felt my life was in danger." I'm sure that many ordinary citizens resent the fact that these noble officers have to debase themselves with such a lie, and would prefer those powers to be overt. My theory is that this is prevalent in the South because speaking truth to power is simply not a cultural value. If you talk back, or challenge authority, it makes you a smart-ass trouble-maker, and that's coming from the people themselves, who elect the judges, the sherrif's who themselves reflect those views. Only the worst excesses get reported in the news. Sherrif Joe Arpaio was and still is lauded by his community for his overtly racist and illegal behavior, despite a rare conviction (and then pardon by Trump). It's the same story in 2014 with the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, near St. Louis Missouri, and even after Obama's federal team found blatant abuse of power everywhere in the city government. Those in power want it, and no-one who doesn't like it is allowed to speak without severe repurcussions to them personally. It's tempting to say that if you have democracy in areas with bad people, you get bad government. And there's truth to that. But it also means that democracy has to have a game mechanic that doesn't give the winners ever more "win more" moves. The edge always has to go to the underclass, the losers, the smartasses, the rude and impolite, if democracy is to function. As for why Southern cultures are particularly problematic around criminal justice, a system built to grind up a largely black underclass, I leave that up the reader.

joe_the_user 5y ago
We should be clear that this is not "the people", point blank, but a demographic, even in the South, one naturally cultivated by the police. The demographic and situation doesn't stay the way it is by the mere persistence of culture. But otherwise your points are reasonable.
- javajosh 5y ago
  It's the black political culture that I'm most curious about. Something has happened that has sapped the will to express power at the ballot box, and it's not just voter suppression laws (although that doesn't help). There are some unhealthy memes, like the idea (voiced by comedians like Dave Chappelle) that to vote just reinforces an unjust system, and that to not vote has the positive benefit that it will get so bad that a real revolution can happen. Less than 50% of blacks in Georgia voted in the election that could have propelled Stacy Abrams (a moderate liberal black woman) into the governor's seat. Think about that. Voter suppression cannot explain why half of Georgia's black voting population didn't show up to vote! It's just like the occasional comment that comes up at HN about the power of imposed censorship compared to the power of self-censorship - the latter is far, far more impactful than the former.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    Local elections everywhere have a lower turnout than national elections. It's how Biden could win Arizona and then have the state do it's audit. Just as much, having a system bought and paid for by billionaires will turn people off voting, whether you or I engage in "you're abandoning your civic duty" hand wringing or anarchist chuckling. Maybe if more people voted you could inch things forward but at scale, voting requires positive hope and aspirations. The current situation isn't intended to give that to the less-well-off person.
    - javajosh 5y ago
      Well, hand-wringing doesn't do any good. To me, it's a legitimate mystery, independent of how it should be I'm actually curious to understand why things are the way they are. We know people behave in reaction to incentives. So what are those incentives? How are they communicated? Why are they effective? I'm not sure what element of science it is (sociology? political science?) but it's an interesting problem - and certainly not unique to 21st century USA! I mean, these same questions are interesting to ask in many historical contexts when seemingly civilized, rational groups suddenly take a collective moral nosedive, to their own great detriment. Blacks not voting is a relatively mild case compared to the self-destructiveness of Germany in the 1930's or the USSR in the 40's-80's or the Cambodia of the 70's. There's plenty of other examples, too. Maybe if we can figure it out we can reduce the harm when it becomes an existential threat, as with climate change and WMD.

joe_the_user 5y ago

We should be clear that this is not "the people", point blank, but a demographic, even in the South, one naturally cultivated by the police. The demographic and situation doesn't stay the way it is by the mere persistence of culture. But otherwise your points are reasonable.

javajosh 5y ago
It's the black political culture that I'm most curious about. Something has happened that has sapped the will to express power at the ballot box, and it's not just voter suppression laws (although that doesn't help). There are some unhealthy memes, like the idea (voiced by comedians like Dave Chappelle) that to vote just reinforces an unjust system, and that to not vote has the positive benefit that it will get so bad that a real revolution can happen. Less than 50% of blacks in Georgia voted in the election that could have propelled Stacy Abrams (a moderate liberal black woman) into the governor's seat. Think about that. Voter suppression cannot explain why half of Georgia's black voting population didn't show up to vote! It's just like the occasional comment that comes up at HN about the power of imposed censorship compared to the power of self-censorship - the latter is far, far more impactful than the former.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Local elections everywhere have a lower turnout than national elections. It's how Biden could win Arizona and then have the state do it's audit. Just as much, having a system bought and paid for by billionaires will turn people off voting, whether you or I engage in "you're abandoning your civic duty" hand wringing or anarchist chuckling. Maybe if more people voted you could inch things forward but at scale, voting requires positive hope and aspirations. The current situation isn't intended to give that to the less-well-off person.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    Well, hand-wringing doesn't do any good. To me, it's a legitimate mystery, independent of how it should be I'm actually curious to understand why things are the way they are. We know people behave in reaction to incentives. So what are those incentives? How are they communicated? Why are they effective? I'm not sure what element of science it is (sociology? political science?) but it's an interesting problem - and certainly not unique to 21st century USA! I mean, these same questions are interesting to ask in many historical contexts when seemingly civilized, rational groups suddenly take a collective moral nosedive, to their own great detriment. Blacks not voting is a relatively mild case compared to the self-destructiveness of Germany in the 1930's or the USSR in the 40's-80's or the Cambodia of the 70's. There's plenty of other examples, too. Maybe if we can figure it out we can reduce the harm when it becomes an existential threat, as with climate change and WMD.