3 ms·

I was not in the inner city and I was not alive/aware for the 70s and 80s (childhood innocence and all that). Just because we didn't stand up when it first hap

I was not in the inner city and I was not alive/aware for the 70s and 80s (childhood innocence and all that). Just because we didn't stand up when it first happened, due to whatever reason, doesn't mean we can't be outraged.

rayiner 14y ago
Call me cynical, but if it didn't affect middle class white people I don't think there would be much outrage. As it is, the outrage is totally disproportionate to things like stop and frisk. Searches in high risk areas like airports seems less offensive to me than searches of people who are just walking around their own neighborhood, but you don't see middle class people complaining about the latter. Indeed, I wonder how much of the outrage is because the TSA is so ineffective. People seem to be pretty on board with how techniques like stop and frisk have helped bring crime rates in the big cities down dramatically over the last few decades.
- gfodor 14y ago
  People get upset about things that negatively affect them directly. As opposed to stop and frisk, which for many people does not affect them directly, and many feel might positively affect them indirectly. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying it's strange to be surprised by it. It's even a stretch to call it hypocritical because you are talking about two types of situations.
- bcoates 14y ago
  Stop-and-frisk was only new because the newly expanded federal civil rights in the early 60s would have made the long-standing police practice illegal without a special exception. It's not like the cops discovered hassling people based on stereotypes in 1968. How would a new legal justification for something cops have been doing forever suddenly cause a crime reduction? You'd have a much better case arguing that the semi-professionalization of the police in the aftermath of Warren court rules complicating police procedure caused it. I'm not sure I understand your larger point at all: Singapore is a police state and people there seem to be pretty on board with it, so until everywhere is like Singapore we shouldn't do anything about it?

rayiner 14y ago

Call me cynical, but if it didn't affect middle class white people I don't think there would be much outrage. As it is, the outrage is totally disproportionate to things like stop and frisk. Searches in high risk areas like airports seems less offensive to me than searches of people who are just walking around their own neighborhood, but you don't see middle class people complaining about the latter. Indeed, I wonder how much of the outrage is because the TSA is so ineffective. People seem to be pretty on board with how techniques like stop and frisk have helped bring crime rates in the big cities down dramatically over the last few decades.

gfodor 14y ago
People get upset about things that negatively affect them directly. As opposed to stop and frisk, which for many people does not affect them directly, and many feel might positively affect them indirectly. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying it's strange to be surprised by it. It's even a stretch to call it hypocritical because you are talking about two types of situations.
bcoates 14y ago
Stop-and-frisk was only new because the newly expanded federal civil rights in the early 60s would have made the long-standing police practice illegal without a special exception. It's not like the cops discovered hassling people based on stereotypes in 1968. How would a new legal justification for something cops have been doing forever suddenly cause a crime reduction? You'd have a much better case arguing that the semi-professionalization of the police in the aftermath of Warren court rules complicating police procedure caused it. I'm not sure I understand your larger point at all: Singapore is a police state and people there seem to be pretty on board with it, so until everywhere is like Singapore we shouldn't do anything about it?