3 ms·

It's so weird we talk about it like this, to say an entire swath of social research and theorists are "crazy," because they have the audacity to think a less-th

It's so weird we talk about it like this, to say an entire swath of social research and theorists are "crazy," because they have the audacity to think a less-than-150-year state institution is maybe not perfect. Like, do any research at all into the history of criminal justice, you will find we live in a very contingent situation now, one that has other options. Like, do you all really think that police have been around forever? Do you really all think we would be violent state-of-nature monsters without them? That civilization is assured by them? Are we really so historically shortsighted that we see the existence of police as exactly corollary to law and order? Can we imagine for a second that just because something is sufficient doesn't mean that it is necessary? Can we think about this rationally at all? And then look at cost of the status quo... I don't know, its just so sad this is how we talk about it: the police (specifically, its unions/fraternities) truly have won the cultural battle. Doesn't even matter if there are some radicals out there, because the only way we can talk about these things means they will always win. Call those people naive if you like, but "crazy" is just disheartening to hear for people who are mostly just angry and wanting it to stop.

BobbyJo 5y ago
I mean, it is nothing short of crazy to think that solutions that worked 150 years ago would work better than the system that has evolved along side our society now. It is also crazy to think that we should throw out something that mostly works in favor of something entirely different when the ramifications of the new thing not working are very very serious. Also, you're throwing up a lot of extreme straw man arguments like that's what is being said. > Like, do you all really think that police have been around forever? I believe in dinosaurs, so no. > Do you really all think we would be violent state-of-nature monsters without them? No. I think more people would be without them than with them. Even if the difference between the two is 1%, that's a pretty serious change for the worse. > That civilization is assured by them? No, it's assured by faith in the system. Much like money. If everyone decided the law didn't matter there is very little the police force could do about that. > Are we really so historically shortsighted that we see the existence of police as exactly corollary to law and order? No. I certainly don't believe that. It's a component, but a small piece of the pie. > Can we imagine for a second that just because something is sufficient doesn't mean that it is necessary? Sure. Totally on board for that. It is sufficient to drive a monster truck to get where I want to go, but certainly not necessary. Not really a hard thing to imagine. I can run counter to basically every argument you lay and still believe that a police force is necessary without there being any logical inconsistency in my beliefs... > And then look at cost of the status quo Look at the cost of social security. Look at the cost of public school. There is so much tangible and intangible value locked up on those institutions that if anyone said "we can do better" you'd be hesitant to throw them out whether or not you agreed. > the police (specifically, its unions/fraternities) truly have won the cultural battle it's not a culture battle. We're in an equilibrium, and people are rightfully hesitant to leave it behind for promises of utopian glory. It's fine to think there is a better way, and it's fine to test that out. Looking at the places running such tests, the 'better ways' so far proposed are far short of actually better. > Call those people naive if you like It's a good term for how I see it. > but "crazy" is just disheartening to hear for people who are mostly just angry and wanting it to stop. It's subjective. If I saw someone saw off their own foot, I'd call them crazy. If I see someone do something, or advocate doing something, that I think would be extremely damaging, I call that crazy. It's not crazy to want to do better, it's not crazy to be upset that things aren't getting better fast enough. Only another set of crazies are calling that crazy.

BobbyJo 5y ago

I mean, it is nothing short of crazy to think that solutions that worked 150 years ago would work better than the system that has evolved along side our society now. It is also crazy to think that we should throw out something that mostly works in favor of something entirely different when the ramifications of the new thing not working are very very serious. Also, you're throwing up a lot of extreme straw man arguments like that's what is being said. > Like, do you all really think that police have been around forever? I believe in dinosaurs, so no. > Do you really all think we would be violent state-of-nature monsters without them? No. I think more people would be without them than with them. Even if the difference between the two is 1%, that's a pretty serious change for the worse. > That civilization is assured by them? No, it's assured by faith in the system. Much like money. If everyone decided the law didn't matter there is very little the police force could do about that. > Are we really so historically shortsighted that we see the existence of police as exactly corollary to law and order? No. I certainly don't believe that. It's a component, but a small piece of the pie. > Can we imagine for a second that just because something is sufficient doesn't mean that it is necessary? Sure. Totally on board for that. It is sufficient to drive a monster truck to get where I want to go, but certainly not necessary. Not really a hard thing to imagine. I can run counter to basically every argument you lay and still believe that a police force is necessary without there being any logical inconsistency in my beliefs... > And then look at cost of the status quo Look at the cost of social security. Look at the cost of public school. There is so much tangible and intangible value locked up on those institutions that if anyone said "we can do better" you'd be hesitant to throw them out whether or not you agreed. > the police (specifically, its unions/fraternities) truly have won the cultural battle it's not a culture battle. We're in an equilibrium, and people are rightfully hesitant to leave it behind for promises of utopian glory. It's fine to think there is a better way, and it's fine to test that out. Looking at the places running such tests, the 'better ways' so far proposed are far short of actually better. > Call those people naive if you like It's a good term for how I see it. > but "crazy" is just disheartening to hear for people who are mostly just angry and wanting it to stop. It's subjective. If I saw someone saw off their own foot, I'd call them crazy. If I see someone do something, or advocate doing something, that I think would be extremely damaging, I call that crazy. It's not crazy to want to do better, it's not crazy to be upset that things aren't getting better fast enough. Only another set of crazies are calling that crazy.