4 ms·
Yeah, it's an interesting moral quandary and you run into questions of who, exactly, is responsible for making a victim whole again. I was talking more about th
by strken 3y ago
Yeah, it's an interesting moral quandary and you run into questions of who, exactly, is responsible for making a victim whole again. I was talking more about the immediate issue of the arrest rather than the follow-up, though.
An impression I have from some autistic former co-workers is that, when faced with a situation where there was a surface-level injustice and a more abstract justification for the injustice, that they would often not see the justification. This was particularly bad if it involved social cues like "that crowd of drunk people looks unpredictable and the police need to stop the fight so nobody else gets involved, so I shouldn't argue with them now", or "Bob looks like he's about to cry and is getting defensive, so we should back off this line of questioning". If you miss the murky social details then you're going to read those examples as clearly unjust.
- mindslight 3y agoPeople can certainly be wrong, and following authorities will actually get you the right answer most of the time. Like I've gone somewhat critical of police in a sibling comment (and very critical elsewhere), and yet I still recognize that the large majority of what police do is prudent, proper, and justified. IMO it's important to hold both of these perspectives in one's head. So your common imagined autistic case doesn't really speak to my general point - cases where authority is actually wrong and yet people line up behind it anyway with all sorts of justifications. These topics tend to get highly politicized as one tribe lines up behind the injustice and the other lines up behind the authority, but surely regardless of your latent tribe you can see that the phenomenon exists.