Skip to main content

View Diary: U C Davis Police Used "Standard" Proceedures (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for taking the time to explain. (0+ / 0-)

    Now I understand the point you were attempting to make.

    However, since I'm so befuddled by the obvious, perhaps my dislike of your condescending tone and treatment is another error on my part.

    pft and Fin.

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 12:48:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You move from personalizing the pepper (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Lyon

      spray incident as a one off to personalizing our interaction as my being rude to you.

      I am responding in kind to what you put out. You claimed to not have any idea what I was saying where someone else did. That raised a red flag for me because I am paying attention to the dynamic.

      When i clarified, you have nothing to say  about the clarification which illustrates the questionable nature of your argument because I am "being condescending" (again personalization) despite your own prior rude behavior.

      •  I believe that we have here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bruh1

        an example of a person creating the reality they want to believe no matter what.

        •  It is one of the more frustrating dynamics (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Richard Lyon, OHdog

          The fact that any police officials at all is saying this is routine is or should be enough circumstantial evidence to cause people to be concerned.

          The manual would really just be additional supporting evidence,  but, if one thinks about it, the evidence would only be supporting because even if not written down, the fact it is considered routine is enough to say again "there's a problem here"

          Instead, the response is typically to move the ball so that the belief system is maintained.  Rather than being additional supporting evidence, the ball is moved to the only way you can prove systemic is to find it in a manual.

          You can't have a functioning society like this.  An analogy may illustrate why that is the case. When Brown v. Board of Education came down from the S.Ct., one of the eventual tests developed was whether a law or private action, could be facially neutral, and yet either could be substantively something that was common operating procedure as far as promoting racial discrimination.

          If this sounds familar to the 1st Amendment analysis I pointed out the other day, that's because it is conceptually the same thing. Back when the courts were liberal, they realized that its not enough to have equality or free speech in theory, but it must be something that exist in fact.

          By moving the ball, one could always claim, "I don't see discrimination here" or "I don't see any first amendment violation"

          It becomes a mechanism (both intended and for many not intended) of reinforcing the status quo (again even if that's not the intent of the person who so narrowly reads the situation being discussed).

          Now, taking this back to world views- this becomes a problem where in order to demonstrate that we have a system of routinized brutality people start to play legalistic games that say "its not  routinized because its not written down every where" "Its not repression of free speech because there was this 1845 law that says that people aren't supposed to wear mask in public" (the later example was the first arrest 4 days into the OWS movement in which the NYC police arrested some people for wearing a mask based on an 1845 law that says only party goers or something like that are suppose to wear masks).

          Its a system of denial rather than skepticism. Skepticism is where one requires evidence, not where one denies it. Denial is a logical fallacy, but it has the advantage of appearing to be an argument. I deny your facts, now prove it to me sounds reasonable in the thick of a discussion until its repeated again and again

          And that's the predicament. Its a frustrating dynamic because the ball will just keep moving. Last night, someone said that we could not be in a police state because of another fallacy for example in which they said it can't be a police state because they had a friend grow up in the country of Georgia, and those people there know a real police state. Or, its not a police state because its racism, not a police state (another move the ball argument). The former statement about other countries is appeal to perfection (here that unless its the worst of the worst then it can't fit the definition. Unless its Nazi Germany we can't say that its a police state.). The later works off of the red herring of disctintion without meaning. It happened to the brown people so its not a police state. Why should race here matter? The diarist last night never said. He followed it up with appeal to authority.

          The point here is that I am not sure how to get around these sorts of arguments that move the ball to reinforce the idea that there is nothing wrong. That this is isolated. That if we change the right people everything will be perfect. I am not sure how to get people to see things as a system. Here, that system being "if a police officer or officers" are teling you that its normal,t  hen with or without manuals- you got a problem. They are telling you its a practice in fact regardless of manuals.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site