3 ms·

Have I been missing stuff like this throughout the time I was growing up? This person is pretty much arguing for a legally different, privileged class of citiz

Have I been missing stuff like this throughout the time I was growing up? This person is pretty much arguing for a legally different, privileged class of citizens to be created. The New York Times published an article by someone asking to create two classes in American society. Have power hungry nut jobs been publishing this stuff in the most respected media outlets forever? Or is this new?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
yuubi 12y ago
If it makes you feel any better, you can read some of his other stuff and see that he's arguing that such a class is on its way to bring created if not already here, and that he's against it.
hobs 12y ago
Its more like they want to codify it explicitly because the implicit understanding wasnt benefiting them enough. The rich and famous, the politicians, and the police/military already have elevated status and treatment within most societies even if it is not officially written, and this goes back to the earliest human establishments.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
coliveira 12y ago
In the US there is already a separate class of people that cannot be touched. You just need money to be part of that class. The criminal system is designed such that if you have no money you'll go to jail for the smallest of the offenses. But if you have good lawyers, it is almost impossible to be convicted, because either you can pay fines and escape jail, or the prosecutors will be too afraid to go to court against you.
mikerichards 12y ago
Do you have a link to that NYT article you mentioned?
- mikeash 12y ago
  Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/29/baltimore-and-bolstering-a-police-officers-right-to-remain-silent/greater-scrutiny-makes-officer-vulnerable-to-false-charges http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/29/baltimore-an... It's linked from the popehat.com article, but not made completely obvious.
mikeash 12y ago
Opinion pages like this are exactly where these articles belong. The national president of the Fraternal Order of Police is a pretty important position, and I see no reason not to let him have his say in the opinion pages of an important publication. You seem to be implying that they shouldn't have published this. Personally, I'm much happier with having powerful nutjobs like this get attention for their views than keeping them hidden away. Mr. National President of the Fraternal Order of Police is going to think that police need their own separate "bill of rights" whether or not he gets space in the New York Times. By publishing him, the NYT is merely making us aware of that fact, and I think it's good for everyone to know.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  But he is not just sharing his opinion, he's using it as a propaganda vehicle and trying to further a campaign. If he gets support by doing this, it's a net loss.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    If our position cannot withstand some attention being given to the opposition, then it's not worth defending in the first place. Censorship solves nothing. If he gets support by doing this, then we need to counter that by providing a better argument, not by trying to silence the opposition.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

yuubi 12y ago

If it makes you feel any better, you can read some of his other stuff and see that he's arguing that such a class is on its way to bring created if not already here, and that he's against it.

hobs 12y ago

Its more like they want to codify it explicitly because the implicit understanding wasnt benefiting them enough. The rich and famous, the politicians, and the police/military already have elevated status and treatment within most societies even if it is not officially written, and this goes back to the earliest human establishments.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

coliveira 12y ago

In the US there is already a separate class of people that cannot be touched. You just need money to be part of that class. The criminal system is designed such that if you have no money you'll go to jail for the smallest of the offenses. But if you have good lawyers, it is almost impossible to be convicted, because either you can pay fines and escape jail, or the prosecutors will be too afraid to go to court against you.

mikerichards 12y ago

Do you have a link to that NYT article you mentioned?

mikeash 12y ago
Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/29/baltimore-and-bolstering-a-police-officers-right-to-remain-silent/greater-scrutiny-makes-officer-vulnerable-to-false-charges http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/29/baltimore-an... It's linked from the popehat.com article, but not made completely obvious.

mikeash 12y ago

Opinion pages like this are exactly where these articles belong. The national president of the Fraternal Order of Police is a pretty important position, and I see no reason not to let him have his say in the opinion pages of an important publication. You seem to be implying that they shouldn't have published this. Personally, I'm much happier with having powerful nutjobs like this get attention for their views than keeping them hidden away. Mr. National President of the Fraternal Order of Police is going to think that police need their own separate "bill of rights" whether or not he gets space in the New York Times. By publishing him, the NYT is merely making us aware of that fact, and I think it's good for everyone to know.

lawnchair_larry 12y ago
But he is not just sharing his opinion, he's using it as a propaganda vehicle and trying to further a campaign. If he gets support by doing this, it's a net loss.
- mikeash 12y ago
  If our position cannot withstand some attention being given to the opposition, then it's not worth defending in the first place. Censorship solves nothing. If he gets support by doing this, then we need to counter that by providing a better argument, not by trying to silence the opposition.