3 ms·

> The extremely important thing is enforcing ingroup/outgroup mentality, and so we have stuff like this. I would say overcoming that mentality is one of the mo

by zeven7 4y ago

> The extremely important thing is enforcing ingroup/outgroup mentality, and so we have stuff like this. I would say overcoming that mentality is one of the most important things for which our society could strive.

beepbooptheory 4y ago
I don't really think its the "mentality" that's the problem in this particular case though. Insofar as we want the particular kind of policing that we apparently do in the U.S., we need to teach cops they are somewhat outside/above of society. Those in charge aren't dumb, this isnt just simply a greed for power, its all highly research-based and intentional, it maximizes the desired outcomes.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  If this is the outcome, it would seem clear that we do not want the particular kind of policing which produces it.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    I mean who is "we" here? In this particular case, it has been decades, and its not like this wasn't known or a particularly spacey conspiracy theory... You either gotta believe the democratic process is totally bankrupt, or that there is an implicit/unconscious compromise among voters to choose particular promises of safety even if the cops are sometimes corrupt. There is the idea of policing, and then there is the reality. They can only coincide so much, but if you talk to any cop or read an literature about this, it really is only "so much." And it's not like we have any historical precedence for a police force being different than this either, its just how it always been. You can't blame them for doing their jobs!
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      >And it's not like we have any historical precedence for a police force being different than this either, its just how it always been Policing like we do it today in the West with state employees going looking for violations of law didn't exist before the surpluses of the industrial revolution enabled the high touch administrative state. In the 18th and 19th century there were far, far fewer professional local/county "police", many of the duties were performed by other offices/officials and when needed they got their muscle from community volunteers or the state (usually from the national guard or army in the US). Consequently they didn't spend much time enforcing petty civil laws and enforcing social norms because the manpower simply wasn't there and you couldn't afford to piss off the fraction of people such enforcement pisses off. (Obviously this all varies by country and year so I'm speaking generally)
      - mr_toad 4y ago
        > Policing like we do it today in the West with state employees going looking for violations of law didn't exist before the surpluses of the industrial revolution enabled the high touch administrative state. It often used to be up to the victim to pursue justice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker There are obvious problems with this approach.

by zeven7 4y ago

beepbooptheory 4y ago

I don't really think its the "mentality" that's the problem in this particular case though. Insofar as we want the particular kind of policing that we apparently do in the U.S., we need to teach cops they are somewhat outside/above of society. Those in charge aren't dumb, this isnt just simply a greed for power, its all highly research-based and intentional, it maximizes the desired outcomes.

marssaxman 4y ago
If this is the outcome, it would seem clear that we do not want the particular kind of policing which produces it.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  I mean who is "we" here? In this particular case, it has been decades, and its not like this wasn't known or a particularly spacey conspiracy theory... You either gotta believe the democratic process is totally bankrupt, or that there is an implicit/unconscious compromise among voters to choose particular promises of safety even if the cops are sometimes corrupt. There is the idea of policing, and then there is the reality. They can only coincide so much, but if you talk to any cop or read an literature about this, it really is only "so much." And it's not like we have any historical precedence for a police force being different than this either, its just how it always been. You can't blame them for doing their jobs!
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >And it's not like we have any historical precedence for a police force being different than this either, its just how it always been Policing like we do it today in the West with state employees going looking for violations of law didn't exist before the surpluses of the industrial revolution enabled the high touch administrative state. In the 18th and 19th century there were far, far fewer professional local/county "police", many of the duties were performed by other offices/officials and when needed they got their muscle from community volunteers or the state (usually from the national guard or army in the US). Consequently they didn't spend much time enforcing petty civil laws and enforcing social norms because the manpower simply wasn't there and you couldn't afford to piss off the fraction of people such enforcement pisses off. (Obviously this all varies by country and year so I'm speaking generally)
    - mr_toad 4y ago
      > Policing like we do it today in the West with state employees going looking for violations of law didn't exist before the surpluses of the industrial revolution enabled the high touch administrative state. It often used to be up to the victim to pursue justice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker There are obvious problems with this approach.