Tyndmyr wrote:The claim was really more that unwarranted claims were damaging. The idea that if only we'd have painted all folks from a group with the same broad brush, we'd be better off is...both mostly unrelated and very dangerous.
Which is why I'm not having that idea.
Unless I'm very much lost here:
1) someone claimed that people criticizing the police and justice system in Ferguson, MO, and related was akin to a lynching.
2) someone (I think the same someone, but not sure) claimed that the accusations of racism would permanently taint these peoples careers, so we can't just be "bandying those about" (as if the people alleging racism have no evidence and are being hypochondriacs)
3) I'm saying -- if (2) wasn't a blatantly false, moronic
thing to worry about -- a beautiful derailment of any type of rational, cogent thought -- then it would have meant that a person would still be alive. Even in the world where that's a real thing to worry about
(that it will taint a career irrepairably, not
just that it would be potentially false), having done so to the people that posters are claiming are being lynched
would have saved at least one life.
(And let me just be clear -- if Wilson can't get a job in law enforcement again, it's not because he was accused of being a racist. It's because he killed an unarmed man
First off, you can't really use a single anecdote to disprove something. Unwarranted claims can still be damaging overall even if in a particular case they are not.
See next to last paragraph above for why "it's just anecdotal!" makes no sense in this thread of thought.
Secondly, encouraging people to be sloppier with evidence and quicker to jump to conclusions is highly likely to have undesirable effects. There is a wealth of history that bears this out.
I'm not encouraging them to, I'm not even encouraging that people should be barred from jobs for being racist. I'm pointing out that the "OBJECTION!" is so far beyond rational as to be obscene.
Thirdly, judging individuals by the groups they happen to be a part of, without any additional evidence applying to that individual, is a HUGE problem, and not one that should be encouraged, regardless of if that group is race based or say, police. Just because a group has a statistically provable problem overall does not mean every member of that population has that problem.
Again, I'm not the one who brought up the idea of people being tarred and feathered as a group. I'm saying it abso-fucking-lutely doesn't happen, and isn't a relevant worry to the person
we were talking about.
Police get paid to place themselves in those type of situations.
I hate this idea, because it is so persuasively false.
They don't get paid for that. They get paid to place themselves in those type of situations and resolve them toward the greater peace of society, in accordance with the law
. Otherwise they'd just be a company of David Blaines and Chris Angels, getting money for putting themselves in stupidly dangerous situations.
If you forget the last part, then you're basically saying that it would be equally acceptable for them to accomplish their "goal" by simply shelling the area the perp is in, justice be damned (to be fair, that has
happened before, though I forget which city -- gmalivuk and sardia could probably name it off the top of their heads. Detroit, maybe?).
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.