8 ms·

Yeah, but there are second order effects. You've heard the terms "tattletale" and "snitch". They developed in reaction to a police force that is seen as outside

Yeah, but there are second order effects. You've heard the terms "tattletale" and "snitch". They developed in reaction to a police force that is seen as outsiders, and as violent and arbitrary. If you invoke the "authorities," you're punished by your peer group, because the authorities tend to make the whole group's life more difficult. Instead of invoking "the authorities" you're left with direct confrontation, or often a makeshift internal justice system mediated by insider "elders" of some stripe. Anyway, your position is understandable, but it also betrays a middle class privilege that most inmates don't experience.

mjolk 13y ago
Sure, this advice might be helpful in the context of "you're in prison, the person that slighted you is also in prison," but outside of that, it's advice that only serves to aid the aggressor. Also, why are you suggesting that my position is "middle class privilege" when you're suggesting that you understand ad-hoc prison justice systems?
- pmichaud 13y ago
  It's helpful in most contexts outside of white/middle class privilege. But I don't really understand your question?
  - mjolk 13y ago
    In your opinion, why do you believe that reporting crimes is a "white/middle class privilege" decision?
    - kbenson 13y ago
      There are portions of society that believe, sometimes with good cause, that bringing police into an interaction will result in a negative outcome for all involved, not just for the perpetrators. That said, please stop perpetuating a strawman argument. You've taken the most extreme interpretation of the original statement, propped it up and vilified it. Considering all the possible ways you could have interpreted the statement, I think you are doing the writer a disservice.
      - mjolk 13y ago
        I'm not perpetuating a strawman. The reason why there's a secondary justice system (normally in which the aggressors are the victors) is because people allow it to exist.
        kbenson 13y ago
        Original statement: I learned that you should go straight to the person you're upset with rather than go to authorities. Your response: This is bullshit and dumb advice. If someone steals my bike and I find out who it is, I'm not going to go to his apartment and beat him to death in the middle of the day (smart money on confronting a scumbag not leading to a productive conversation). So it appears you are interpreting "go straight to" as "confront with violence"? There are any number of circumstances where going to the person you believe responsible may be beneficial over including the authorities. For example: 1) You are wrong in who you think perpetrated the crime. Involving the authorities may cause great harm to that individual, event if they are found innocent. Talking to them first may clear up misunderstandings. 2) It was a misunderstanding. Maybe there wasn't even a crime, what you thought you saw/experienced wasn't the case. Getting a fuller picture may result in your reassessment of the situation. 3) You don't think the punishment meted out will fit the crime committed, and you want to give them a chance to make amends. Maybe they are young, and you can speak to a parental figure to try to resolve the issue. 4) You have some relation to them or people close to them that you would rather not sour. That isn't to say don't go to the authorities. Of course there are cases where you go directly to the authorities. I doubt the author would dispute that. The real world is a place of nuance. I feel confident asserting that you know this to some degree. Acting like it isn't doesn't do anything useful, least of all lead to a conversation that has much benefit.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        ...people allow it to exist. Are you suggesting that the victims of police indifference and misconduct are actually to blame for those? That doesn't really contradict the "privilege" diagnosis.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      Because the outcome can be different on the person filing a claim. I am sure that in the majority of the world a daughter of rich businessmen/politician/high ranking police officer will get a lot different treatment and have her taken seriously by the the police while reporting sexual assault than some poor girl from the ghettos or working poor background. (I really really hope that I am wrong in that assumption)
    - pmichaud 13y ago
      Because when anyone else reports a crime, bad things tend to happen [at a statistically higher rate]. Everyone suffers, including you. Or maybe nothing happens at all because first responders don't get there fast enough, or they choose not to do anything once they arrive. Or maybe they do the right thing, and you (or your family) suffer when the guy you called the cops on comes back and kicks your ass, or breaks your sister's leg. Last on the list of possible outcomes is that the cops stop the "bad guy" and everyone is hunky dory. Contrast that to the white/middle class historical experience of police being generally helpful and protective. Middle class white people call the police (predominately other middle class white people), and good things happen. Then they wonder why everyone doesn't just call the police when they need some help. That's privilege.
    - auctiontheory 13y ago
      Because if you're poor, or black, or poor and black, you probably already know that the police are likely to mistreat you for no reason at all.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Sure, this advice might be helpful in the context of "you're in prison, the person that slighted you is also in prison," but outside of that, it's advice that only serves to aid the aggressor. I've actually found "deal directly with the person with whom you have the issue" is a good default rule in most areas of life (work, social, etc.) even where the issue is the kind of thing for which there is an available authority. Recourse to authority when that fails, or when there is a specific reason in the immediate case to believe that dealing directly will be ineffective or involve intolerable risks is still part of the equation, but not the default action.
  - arca_vorago 13y ago
    A thousand times this. When did it become wrong to bring up issues with the persons involved? This is one of the things I have noticed as a growing personality traits largely in the younger generation, where all conflict is avoided through passing all responsibility up to whichever higher authority is around. So we have given the authorities the power to create systems like this and still haven't realized that sometimes, when that person who you have an issue with, is prone to violence, lies, and numerous other skullduggeries, you have to walk into that confrontation either armed yourself or with some visible external backing. I would venture to say our police state national security apparatus is quickly falling under this category.
  - vacri 13y ago
    It's a false dichotomy. There's no solid rule. Sometimes going to the authorities is the best course of action, sometimes a direct approach, and sometimes going to a third party. It depends on the situation.

mjolk 13y ago

Sure, this advice might be helpful in the context of "you're in prison, the person that slighted you is also in prison," but outside of that, it's advice that only serves to aid the aggressor. Also, why are you suggesting that my position is "middle class privilege" when you're suggesting that you understand ad-hoc prison justice systems?

pmichaud 13y ago
It's helpful in most contexts outside of white/middle class privilege. But I don't really understand your question?
- mjolk 13y ago
  In your opinion, why do you believe that reporting crimes is a "white/middle class privilege" decision?
  - kbenson 13y ago
    There are portions of society that believe, sometimes with good cause, that bringing police into an interaction will result in a negative outcome for all involved, not just for the perpetrators. That said, please stop perpetuating a strawman argument. You've taken the most extreme interpretation of the original statement, propped it up and vilified it. Considering all the possible ways you could have interpreted the statement, I think you are doing the writer a disservice.
    - mjolk 13y ago
      I'm not perpetuating a strawman. The reason why there's a secondary justice system (normally in which the aggressors are the victors) is because people allow it to exist.
      - kbenson 13y ago
        Original statement: I learned that you should go straight to the person you're upset with rather than go to authorities. Your response: This is bullshit and dumb advice. If someone steals my bike and I find out who it is, I'm not going to go to his apartment and beat him to death in the middle of the day (smart money on confronting a scumbag not leading to a productive conversation). So it appears you are interpreting "go straight to" as "confront with violence"? There are any number of circumstances where going to the person you believe responsible may be beneficial over including the authorities. For example: 1) You are wrong in who you think perpetrated the crime. Involving the authorities may cause great harm to that individual, event if they are found innocent. Talking to them first may clear up misunderstandings. 2) It was a misunderstanding. Maybe there wasn't even a crime, what you thought you saw/experienced wasn't the case. Getting a fuller picture may result in your reassessment of the situation. 3) You don't think the punishment meted out will fit the crime committed, and you want to give them a chance to make amends. Maybe they are young, and you can speak to a parental figure to try to resolve the issue. 4) You have some relation to them or people close to them that you would rather not sour. That isn't to say don't go to the authorities. Of course there are cases where you go directly to the authorities. I doubt the author would dispute that. The real world is a place of nuance. I feel confident asserting that you know this to some degree. Acting like it isn't doesn't do anything useful, least of all lead to a conversation that has much benefit.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        ...people allow it to exist. Are you suggesting that the victims of police indifference and misconduct are actually to blame for those? That doesn't really contradict the "privilege" diagnosis.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Because the outcome can be different on the person filing a claim. I am sure that in the majority of the world a daughter of rich businessmen/politician/high ranking police officer will get a lot different treatment and have her taken seriously by the the police while reporting sexual assault than some poor girl from the ghettos or working poor background. (I really really hope that I am wrong in that assumption)
  - pmichaud 13y ago
    Because when anyone else reports a crime, bad things tend to happen [at a statistically higher rate]. Everyone suffers, including you. Or maybe nothing happens at all because first responders don't get there fast enough, or they choose not to do anything once they arrive. Or maybe they do the right thing, and you (or your family) suffer when the guy you called the cops on comes back and kicks your ass, or breaks your sister's leg. Last on the list of possible outcomes is that the cops stop the "bad guy" and everyone is hunky dory. Contrast that to the white/middle class historical experience of police being generally helpful and protective. Middle class white people call the police (predominately other middle class white people), and good things happen. Then they wonder why everyone doesn't just call the police when they need some help. That's privilege.
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    Because if you're poor, or black, or poor and black, you probably already know that the police are likely to mistreat you for no reason at all.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Sure, this advice might be helpful in the context of "you're in prison, the person that slighted you is also in prison," but outside of that, it's advice that only serves to aid the aggressor. I've actually found "deal directly with the person with whom you have the issue" is a good default rule in most areas of life (work, social, etc.) even where the issue is the kind of thing for which there is an available authority. Recourse to authority when that fails, or when there is a specific reason in the immediate case to believe that dealing directly will be ineffective or involve intolerable risks is still part of the equation, but not the default action.
- arca_vorago 13y ago
  A thousand times this. When did it become wrong to bring up issues with the persons involved? This is one of the things I have noticed as a growing personality traits largely in the younger generation, where all conflict is avoided through passing all responsibility up to whichever higher authority is around. So we have given the authorities the power to create systems like this and still haven't realized that sometimes, when that person who you have an issue with, is prone to violence, lies, and numerous other skullduggeries, you have to walk into that confrontation either armed yourself or with some visible external backing. I would venture to say our police state national security apparatus is quickly falling under this category.
- vacri 13y ago
  It's a false dichotomy. There's no solid rule. Sometimes going to the authorities is the best course of action, sometimes a direct approach, and sometimes going to a third party. It depends on the situation.