3 ms·

> One example of this is policing in the US: modern day policing arose from slave patrols [0]. This seems poorly supported, even by the cited article - it just

> One example of this is policing in the US: modern day policing arose from slave patrols [0]. This seems poorly supported, even by the cited article - it just says there was a group A doing X, then A doing Y, then later the police did Y too. And, what about: - police forces outside the South? - influence from policing around the world, especially England?

ashwagary 4y ago
>police forces outside the South? Slavery existed outside the South. >influence from policing around the world, especially England? English policing had very different standards that were derived from Peelian Principles [0], at least until the very recent push for militarization. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
wonder_er 4y ago
'whataboutism' is unbecoming. That there might exist other influences behind modern day policing than just slave patrols doesn't free the institution from that stain. Policing as an institution should be recognized as what it is - one social class being given tremendous resources to support the casual and regular enactment of violence upon other social classes. I, personally, don't rely on violence, or threats of violence, in my day to day, and don't support anyone else doing the same, even if they think they really really really need violence in their lives.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > I, personally, don't rely on violence, or threats of violence, in my day to day Sure you do. You might not have to actually make the threats, but the implicit threat protects you and your property.
  - wonder_er 4y ago
    Ooooh, hard disagree. Just because I live in a place where the police claim jurisdiction doesn't mean I consent to it. Their threats don't protect me any more than I protect myself with threats against others. Which I don't. I'm big on consent. Do not say something so nakedly condescending and dismissive of my stated views. Do you do this to others? 'i don't consent to [...]' 'sure you do. [...]' For your sake and those you interact with, I hope the answer is 'no'.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      Whether you consent to policing or not, police exist, and they protect you from people who don't rely on consent. You can't absolve yourself of that by simply denying it. You'd need to make it clear that anything you temporarily possess is free for the taking and that people are free to assault or kill you without police response (and somehow convince the police to honor your wishes).
      - wonder_er 4y ago
        You and I have a different mental model of how policing works. I think you are both believing the propaganda about the existence of policing agencies, and projecting your beliefs about them onto me. Police don't protect people from people. People don't not assault and kill others because of police. There's abundant counterfactuals I could list that demonstrate that people generally don't avoid unethical behavior because of the police. And, police are often the originators of unethical behavior. I humbly propose that you grow your mental model of policing in America to a more sophisticated level. Marketing is not reality.

ashwagary 4y ago

>police forces outside the South? Slavery existed outside the South. >influence from policing around the world, especially England? English policing had very different standards that were derived from Peelian Principles [0], at least until the very recent push for militarization. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

wonder_er 4y ago

'whataboutism' is unbecoming. That there might exist other influences behind modern day policing than just slave patrols doesn't free the institution from that stain. Policing as an institution should be recognized as what it is - one social class being given tremendous resources to support the casual and regular enactment of violence upon other social classes. I, personally, don't rely on violence, or threats of violence, in my day to day, and don't support anyone else doing the same, even if they think they really really really need violence in their lives.

leereeves 4y ago
> I, personally, don't rely on violence, or threats of violence, in my day to day Sure you do. You might not have to actually make the threats, but the implicit threat protects you and your property.
- wonder_er 4y ago
  Ooooh, hard disagree. Just because I live in a place where the police claim jurisdiction doesn't mean I consent to it. Their threats don't protect me any more than I protect myself with threats against others. Which I don't. I'm big on consent. Do not say something so nakedly condescending and dismissive of my stated views. Do you do this to others? 'i don't consent to [...]' 'sure you do. [...]' For your sake and those you interact with, I hope the answer is 'no'.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Whether you consent to policing or not, police exist, and they protect you from people who don't rely on consent. You can't absolve yourself of that by simply denying it. You'd need to make it clear that anything you temporarily possess is free for the taking and that people are free to assault or kill you without police response (and somehow convince the police to honor your wishes).
    - wonder_er 4y ago
      You and I have a different mental model of how policing works. I think you are both believing the propaganda about the existence of policing agencies, and projecting your beliefs about them onto me. Police don't protect people from people. People don't not assault and kill others because of police. There's abundant counterfactuals I could list that demonstrate that people generally don't avoid unethical behavior because of the police. And, police are often the originators of unethical behavior. I humbly propose that you grow your mental model of policing in America to a more sophisticated level. Marketing is not reality.