Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by DavidTC in reply to Chip Daniels*

On “Feds: Yale Discriminates Against Asian American and White Applicants

Oh, and another reminder: Legacy admissions basically exist to keep to Jews out of elite schools. That was their origin, literally to keep minorities out of the schools. Schools found the 'Jewish quota', the amount of Jews they were willing to admit, less and less defensible, so invented legacy admissions.

The minorities being kept out has changed a bit, but it's the same principle.

Affirmative action tries to undo the mistakes of the past by giving traditionally discriminated again groups a slight advantage. Whether or not people think this is justifiable is debatable. It's possible it's not a good idea. I've never liked it, mostly because college is actually way too late in the process to fix educational issues.

But having people complaining about _that_ while just blithely accepting the much larger system of legacy admissions that was literally built to give advantage to traditionally _privileged_ groups and lock out minorities, and still mostly manages that, is absurd.


A reminder: 12% of Yale students are legacy.

Aka, about 700 of them.

Sorta puts that 'rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit' in perspective, doesn't it?

Yeah, it might reject 'scores' of qualified white applications. It also might pick _hundreds_ of unqualified white applications because their parents and grandparents attended Yale. Some of who literally were attending while the school was segregated.

On “How to Lose Friends and Influence No One

Oh, the 'fun' thing about this election is...I live in Georgia, which _used to_ be a red state, so...I actually could sit out prior elections and not worry about it. I didn't, I care about local issues too, but...I could.

It's not a red state anymore, and I can't sit it out.


I don’t have the same struggle as you because I don’t believe Tara Reade for various perfectly good reasons which have been rehashed endlessly. I can certainly understand why someone would believe her.

Yes. I'm putting the Tara Reade stuff somewhere around 10%, due to a lot of factors about her I don't want to rehash either, but basically her story just keeps getting rather larger and larger, and I don't really think anything happened beyond the _normal_ Biden stuff. I believe everything Reade said in spring of 2019, because it fits perfectly in everything we know about Biden. It's the changes since then I don't believe, both because they're changes and because...there's lots of improbabilities there.

However...the actual known behavior of Joe Biden is pretty bad. How he has always interacted with women. He's clearly felt he can put his hands on them for decades. I would really rather he not be president.

But that said...we only have two candidates for president in reality, and one of them is a hell of a lot worse in this very specify way. Like we have Trump talking, on a recording, about doing what Biden is alleged to have done! He's been accused of rape by several women. He's gone into the dressing room of teenagers.

And, of course, that's not the only consideration. Trump is actually extremely dangerous as a president in all sorts of ways, and it really is starting to look like people pointing he would not easily leave office were right, which means we absolutely _must_ get him out.

But...I'm not actually sure how I would feel if we have some hypothetical Trump who was exactly Trump minus any allegations of sexual misconduct. Would I think the dangers of Trump outweighed the misconduct of Biden? Which would I value more?

Or what if that, plus, the Republic wasn't at risk? What it was a second term of Romney vs Biden, for example? Would I not vote? Would I vote Republican?

I don't know. I like to think I would at least not vote, if put in those circumstances. But I don't know if I'm telling the truth.

However...that's not what this election is. The last election, Republicans pretending that it was the 'Flight 93' election, despite Hillary being basically in exactly the same place, politically, as Obama.

This actually _is_ the Flight 93 election. We really are at the place where democracy is teetering, and that's on top of a massive pandemic that Trump is too incompetent to actually handle.


But let me give hope to those who take the Tara Reade allegations seriously: A reminder that we can _impeach_ Biden. We can elect them, and then we can impeach him. Because the Democrats are an actual political party, instead of personality cult. In fact, if real evidence shows up, he'll probably resign.

You want to argue for his impeachment the day after the election? Go for it. Maybe you can even get him to resign before taking office. I won't stop you, I don't care what lukewarm Democrat is president...hell, at this point I don't actually care if a lukewarm Republican is, except to the extent we actually need to _deal with_ a lot of Trump's crimes at this point and I doubt a Republican would do that.

For those of you about to say 'Clinton proves Congress people won't vote to impeach and remove their own party's president'...Bill Clinton probably would have been impeached (or resigned) if the allegations had actually been a plausible thing to impeach the president over. If for example Broaddrick, had come forward a year earlier, and the impeachment had been about that.

However, the thing he was actually impeached for was...incredibly dumb nonsense that no one cared about. Meanwhile, the right had pursued clearly bogus scandal after bogus scandal for such a long time that the public literally didn't care anymore.

On “The Crimson Letter

Yes, I surely have given some sort of indication 'I don't want to talk about' the example literally no one has mentioned in this discussion.

What happened to Emmanuel Cafferty is stupid and caused harm to him.

It is, however, the exact same sort of harm (losing his job) that happens to literally millions of people every year, which is why I find it slightly dubious we find it important to talk 'cancel culture', simply because conservatives have decided a very very very very very very specific reason for that harm (And no other identical harm caused for other reasons.) is unfair.


Uh, no, not even slightly. Cancel culture is about people who have said certain things, often political things, or who have done certain things. (Legal things, I think we can agree that people who have actually committed serious crimes should probably be canceled.)

This is...nothing to do with the labeling of music. To be clear, I think that forcible labeling music, or forcible labeling anything, would be constitutional overreach. But not all constitutional overreach is related to 'cancel culture'.

Now, there is a rather clear example in American history of going after people who have certain unpopular political opinions, and getting them fired and unable to get another job, and it's the most obvious one, so obvious I don't even need to name it. But just in case people aren't paying attention...the Red Scare.

But Red Scare is actually something quantitatively differently. It was the US government doing it. It wasn't random people demanding the firing of people at a certain place of work, and that place bowing to the pressure, which is 'cancel culture'. And yes, some of those places doing the firing are government institutions, but it's not 'the government' doing it. It's some random low-level state administrator who decided on the firing, not the gigantic 'entire US government' coming after a person, and there is a difference there. So that's not quite the same thing.


However...there's something _much_ close to cancel culture that occasionally happens. It's just not some big thing with a name, it's millions of tiny individual events.

Go ask gay people what happened in the 80s and 90s...or 00s...or 10s....or 20s...when occasionally group of people would freak out that they had jobs vaguely near children. Or...single female teachers, who would often get fired because of extreme 'morals policing', for example, they were seen on a _date_ or holding _beer_.

Let's not even ask non-white people how careful _they_ had to be in their job to present as non-offensively as possible, to make sure that the community didn't rise up about them and demand they get fired. (Or...worse. But we're just talking about fired here.)

There's your 'thing that evolved into cancel culture', right there. Employees have had their morality policed in _all sorts_ of ways, through history, including very modern history. Or, rather, individuals having their morality policed by the community, and said community put pressure on their employer to fire them.

This doesn't count as cancel culture because because most community policing is, of course, from the conservative side, so they have no problem with it, and often are the ones doing it.

Uh...I's not cancel culture because Twitter's not involved. I wouldn't want to imply that conservatives _have literally been doing cancel culture forever_, and are gigantic hypocrites for complaining that two dozen of them got hit with it.


I lost a post here somewhere, if you can find it it would be nice. But to summarize what I recall of it:

The conservative con was 'how dare academia infringe on our freedom of speech!', with them asserting a right to...somehow give speeches on campus. Which...even if it's a 'right', it' extremely trivial a right that it is not important. But it was a good grift, and the origins of the concept of 'cancel culture'.

But now we're at the point corporations are canceling people and...conservatives just keep yammering about 'cancel culture', but have utterly failed to create any sort of framework where their complaints make sense, because...they have functionally no idea how to argue for any sort of labor protection. They've spent their entire life arguing that corporations can treat workers how ever they want, in fact they still argue that in _literally every other aspect_, and don't have any sort of counter preposition they can put forward.


I guess I read your comment talking about 'death lasers' and 'good guys', and assumed you were trying to frame this in fictional good vs evil terms.

I don't really know what you're trying to say now. Are you _literally_ arguing: 'My side gets to have weapons it uses to kill people, and the other side doesn't get to use those weapons against us when it wrestles them free?'

Because otherwise, I don't have any idea what you're arguing. You've just...reframed the discussion in extreme, but it is still exactly the same thing.

And the answer is the same: It is perfectly fine to kill people with their own weapons when they are killing you.


My whole problem with the idea that “powerless” people getting cancelled is far more people get “cancelled” from their job every year by their bosses every year for trying to organize their workplace or hell, trying to have some sort of stability and flexibility in their workplace, and they never get long articles written up about them in supposedly centrist or “free thinking” magazines.

So, I’ll make a deal – I’ll give a damn about the supposedly tons of powerless people who get cancelled for getting caught up in the changing norms of society, when we repeal right to work laws, and treat wage theft as seriously as we do burglary, since more money is actually lost with the former than the latter.

My God, it's another me!

On “We Deserve Donald Trump

Both the candidates and the voters are actually smart enough to understand how the current system works and make decisions based on that.

I'm pretty sure that 'Trump is smart enough to understand...' requires citation.

I think perhaps his _campaign_ was smart enough.

On “Always at the Abyss

But Oscar, don't you see, Ryan Whitaker is white!

See? it's not racism at all! All those BLM protestors are wrong! This proves the amount of white people that the police murder is actually proportional!

I have proved a good thing about the police there.

On “The Crimson Letter

This is because when cancel culture _started_, it was a way for intelligent grifting conservatives to complain about free speech on college campuses. At least, that was the basis of what evolved into cancel culture.

This was, in fact, very dumb, on both sides, and very very very very very limited in effect. 'Who can give speeches at colleges' is literally unimportant in any sense.

Unfortunately for that con, like all conservative cons, a bunch of dumbasses who didn't understand the structure of the con got on board and it fell apart. That con was premised on infringement of rights, and you can't apply it to anywhere but entities that 'have to allow free speech'.

Now, instead, we're at the point where conservatives are bitching over the problem of corporations firing people due to public pressure.

Which is as I pointed out, a 'problem' that is impossible to square with literally any other way conservatives think about corporations or workers.

It's also a problem we don't even vaguely seem to consider a problem in any another sense. I am unsure why someone who causes public controversy (Whether justified or not) 'deserves' a job when 30,000 workers got laid off at Toys R Us because corporate looters stole all the money....oh, wait, I repeated an example, sorry, it's early. Um...I am not sure why anyone 'deserves' a job when gay people could just be fired in most of the US until this June.


Ah, you figure out the...wrong trap? See, I wasn't going to propose anything. I do think there should be more protections for workers, but that wasn't my point here.

My point is, a section of society is getting utterly worked out of shape of, at most, _dozens_ of wealthy men getting fired 'unjustly'. Maybe a hundred, at max? Yet no one seems to have anything to say about others getting unjustly fired, in much much much larger amounts.

For every person who did something and pissed the mob and got fired...I would bet even money there's a Waffle House employee who couldn't make it to their shift because they don't have reliable transportation and got fired. I mean literally that specific example, a Waffle House's employee, fired due to their lack of transportation. We weirdly don't seem to have anyone posting articles about them.

And that's not even getting into all the very well-documented ways that employees get stolen from. A study in 2009 had 68% employees report at least one incident of something that is wage the prior week. (I phrase it that way because they often don't even _know_ it's illegal.) Is 68 percent of usually min-wage worker having their wages stolen a larger problem than five wealthy person that has been canceled? What's the ratio here?

I'm getting off topic, we were talking about people fired, not money stolen. So, I just want everyone to be clear here: If a few thousand people on twitter want someone fired, and get them fired, it's a COMPLETE OUTRAGE if they're fired. However, if a private equity group buys Toys `R Us and decided to demantle it, laying off 30,000 employees at a perfectly functional company...that's not an outrage, right? We shouldn't worry about that?

You'll notice I keep switching between different ways workers are harmed, different ways that employment is shitty, I come up with a new time I mention it. A lot of which would be hard to prevent with any sort of laws, and I'm not proposing any. Because I'm not trying to point at anything specifically, but rather show that there are a ton of 'unfair' ways to end up out of work, or not for people to not make the money they 'should' be making in a just world. Some illegally, a lot legal, but...there's a very wide range, and it happens all the time. And being canceled is only about 0.00001% of the instances of that.

Cancel culture isn't even a's a spec of dirt. A single spec of dirt, and people have build something that is more important than the Alps out of it. The Alps, meanwhile, just sit there, uncommented upon.

But there's a reason: Almost every example of 'being canceled' is a wealthly man, almost always a wealth white man, although wealthy white women get caught in it too. Usually ones with powerful platforms. It's why we're talking about this. Elite, white men, don't like cancel culture. That's it. That's the discussion. That's why it, and only it, is an unfair employment practice we have suddenly gotten concerned about.


OT 2020, where the progressive liberal position is that scifi movies featuring wizards with laser swords are a sound basis for morality.

You're the one who brought up how things would look in a movie.

I just pointed out you were being a bit dumb about how that would actually look in a movie, because the good guys using enemy weapons against the bad guys is...a really common movie trope.

Don't blame me because you don't know how movies work.


I didn't actually intend to bold that entire thing, just the first sentence, but...hey. Seriously, I want people to answer that question. Either here or just in their head.

And then I want them to think about what happened with David Shor. In case people don't remember, he was a political consultant who tweeted a link to a Princeton paper that some people saw as somewhat racist, or just bad political strategy, and he got fired for it.

And I want people to ask themselves why they think those two situations are different, and in what way. Compare and contrast, if you will.


it’s always amazing seeing assholes like you make these arguments that go “look, we don’t LIKE having Death Lasers, honestly, nobody would cheer harder than us if Death Lasers were banned, we advocate for that every chance we get, but since they EXIST we might as well USE them” and expect us to think you’re the good guys.

In a movie where the other side has been building the Death Stars and aiming them at us, yeah, we're actually the heroes if we start hacking them to shoot them instead so they have to cut power to them.

That's how that would work in movie logic. I'm not saying movie logic is 100% correct...but yes, that is a thing heroes do in movies, it's a literally a movie scenario.

like, why is it so hard to not be cynical? What happened to the Audacity Of Hope? Why is it so hard to not do a bad thing that increases the entrenchment of the immoral order you detest?

Using people's weapons against them does not 'increases the entrenchment' of those weapons. It actually causes them to reconsider those weapons existing at all.

This is why a _lot_ of the anti-cancel culture people have been forced to focus on academia, because they can assert the rules should somehow be different there. They try to build a universe where it's perfectly acceptable for _everyone else_ to get fired at will, but different opinions should be protected in academia.

The problem is that con is wearing a bit thin, because people actually use cancel culture to talk about, for example, Rowling, who is not in academia. Jaybird gave three examples of 'cancel cultures', and two of them, David Shor and Gibson’s Bakery, aren't in academia.


So here’s my TL:DR response – when conservatives get rid of “Right to Work” states (where you can be fired legally for NO REASON AT ALL), then the Left will totally disavow what you allege is Cancel Culture (note – Nick Cannon getting fired for Anti-Semitic remarks is probably not the goto story on that).

You know I had a long rant type here agreeing with you, but I just deleted it, because I actually said most of it above.

I really just want everyone in this discussion to answer one question:

Do you think it's acceptable to fire someone because she has leave work and go pick her kid up from school because they're sick?

If somehow the specifics matter, let's say this has happened three times before, in the last two years, which is the entire span of her employment. Let's also say there no laws covering this, and no real corporate policy.

I want everyone in this discussion, literally everyone, to answer that question. It's a yes or no question, there are no tricks.

On “Student Suspended For Taking Popular Photograph

and I’m guessing the district has not yet been sued by a black student or 10 whose lives were upended by that same dress code

Remember, we're not racist, but also no combs, rakes, curlers, or picks in the hair.

It's weird how hairpins and scrunchies are allowed to be worn in hair. Hairbands aren't listed either, so who knows if that's what they mean by 'headbands'. It's almost as if they have hyper-focused on black hairstyles. (And curlers for some reason. Not sure anyone's really walking around with curlers?)

In case people don't know, dresscodes are often incredibly racist, not just in the wording, but more in the enforcement.

And just as sexist. They've managed to at least remove all gender _language_ from theirs, unlike what my high school had,'s just as gendered in the enforcement.

Hence all the use of 'appropriate' in there, which allow them to police teenager bodies however they want.

Anyway, schools assert really broad powers, including restricting first amendment rights. The fact they are not enforcing masks is not because any power problem, but because school administrators are often basically fascists that have been given their powers by external forces, namely the school board, so desperately suck up to them. And I bet the school board has morons on it...they usually do.


If were are going to act like education at home via high-speed internet is something the government can do to fulfill its obligation to educate people, we have now implicitly included high-speed internet as some sort of right.

Sorta like other civilized countries have explicitly had for years.

A reminder: ISPs can currently refuse to service people for basically any reason, and are almost always monopolies, or at least duopolies. They're even trying to argue out of being common _carriers_, which at least requires them to treat all communications the same.

See, this is why one of the best thing I think a billionaire could do is start blatantly absurdly abusing corporate power like this. Like, buy an ISP, and then block students from accessing their school. 'Hey, it's legal for us to do that!' And then , if they fix that, start canceling the service of people who have kids. 'Hey, we can still legally do this!'

On “The Crimson Letter

And here's something conservatives have often missed: Corporations have discriminated against liberals for a really long time.

I'm not just talking about illegal discrimination...stuff like hairstyles, earrings, and expressed political views, and perceived gender non-conformity, and _all sorts_ of stuff that liberals had to not do. Just ask a Black person about 'natural hair' and how it's perceived as unprofessional.

And I'm a white guy, but when I _worked at Walmart_ 20 years ago, I was technically in violation of the policy about long hair. That store didn't happen to care about it for me...but it was a small town and I knew some of the management.

The very concept of 'look professional' is 'look conservative'. And not just looks...the entire 'large corporate' structure is inherently conservative, because it usually has very wealthy, white, fairly conservative men at the top, and only conservatives views are allowed to be expressed, because _everyone higher up_ than you is more conservative than you, and you can't piss off the boss.

You want to talk about corporations stifling speech, there it is. Large corporations are really good at it, and have been doing it this entire time. Sorta exactly like how conservatives complain about Hollywood, except in reverse, and literally everywhere else.

The only new thing is corporations have _also_ started reacting to things that look like PR nightmares, which is what cancel culture actually is.

(And this is not even getting into the forms of corporate discrimination that is _now_ illegal, but wasn't for the longest time.)


To address the issue of 'It is dangerous to give corporations control over speech, and liberals are only in favor because it is going their way now', I feel I must point out the _opposite_ thing is also true, in that conservatives have long been in favor of, and still appear to be in favor of in all possible ways except this one, near infinite corporate 'rights' without any oversight or control.

One of these groups is betraying their 'fundamental principles', and it's not really the liberals. The liberal position is 'It is bad corporations have so much power, but at least we figured out how to get them to target the other side instead of just us' in not hypocritical, it's just somewhat cynical.

This is the same logic arguing that it's hypocritical for liberals to encourage black people to wander around heavily armed to scare exactly the same people yelling about the 2nd amendment. It's not really 'hypocritical', it's just taking advantage of the current system to point out the flaws and hypocrisy in supporters of it.

Because, to be clear, the conservative position is extremely hypocritical, because they've been presenting their position as absolutist 'corporations have civil rights exactly the same as people'...except when corporations use those civil rights to not associate with conservatives!

I mean, that's _still_ their position. Right now, there's conservative outrage that corporations now (finally) can't discriminate based sexual orientation or gender identity. It's not exactly a completely mainstream conservative position...but it's a lot closer to one than cancel culture is to a mainstream liberal position.

Meanwhile, liberals are arguing for policies that not only would weaken the power of corporations, and put more control in hands of the government and workers, but also make 'canceling' much less severe due to safety nets.

So I point out the same thing I've said every time people start complaining about cancel culture: You could stop a lot of cancel culture if you'd get rid of 'at will' employment, and even implement stronger protections for workers, including things like instituting some level of worker-based control and/or unions. And had safety nets that make being fired much less of an issue.

On “On Not Wanting to Rest Content

On top of that, as I've pointed out: George Floyd was asking them to stop. Last I checked, you can't give someone medical treatment against their wishes. That's assault.

It's almost surreal that George's supposed defense (Which, it should be pointed out, is something the right-wing echo chamber made up and is not actually being used.) is:

'Chauvin wasn't trying to do his duty by restraining suspect, he was instead committing both medical assault and medical malpractice.'

Attempting to refrain this as 'medical care', might, for people dumb enough to believe that, make it _sound_ better...

...but stepping outside of 'I had to do this as a police officer for safety' would actually be a _horribly_ stupid legal position for Chauvin to take, stripping him of his qualified immunity, and at that point he's a rando who ran up to someone and assaulted him with unwanted and incorrect medical treatment. Whereupon the victim then died during that treatment.

Which is, again, why Chauvin isn't claiming this, despite that gibberish the echo chamber has invented and George uncritically repeats.


Oh, he's been corrected more than once, because I've corrected him too.

For people who aren't aware why this is actually dangerous...not just pointless, but dangerous: Normal muscle operations has limits on it...people can sometimes get around those limits and lift up cars and other stuff, but your brain won't normally allow you to do that because it can damage muscles. Your brain shuts down your muscles well before they get damaged.

But the random signals sent in a seizure are not restricted in way normal signals are. They have my-kid-is-trapped-under-my-car strength...or at least _can_ have that, often conflicting muscles are trying to operate so nothing is happens, but they can have that.

So why you can't hold someone against the ground to 'protect their head' is obvious. Either you aren't actually going to manage it, they'll be able to shove it up for a moment and _you'll_ shove it back down and hit it on the ground...or you will manage to hold them down, which means they can sprain the muscles in their neck, or WORSE, trying to move their head. Because, again, they don't have the limits that muscles are supposed to have.

And that's true of any restraint...either they can break out of it, or their muscles will use their full power pushing against something that is not moving, and thus they will injure themselves that way.

Everyone: If you _really_ need to stop someone from doing something extremely harmful during a seizure, like fall off a balcony or something: Pull them away. Or give them a shove. Grab an arm and drag them if you have to, then let them go. Move them elsewhere as best you can, without limiting any of their moments.

Don't jump on top of them and hold them down, or try to wrap your arms around them. On top of everything I've said, that's a good way for you to get injured also! Oh, and panic someone who is coming out of confusion of the seizure.


As far as I can tell they skipped that crime and “only” engaged in fraud, even to the point of transferring money from a customer’s account to that same customer’s unknown-to-even-exist account.

A bank account includes a contract, that's part of the premise of a bank account. Every time you've opened one, you've had to sign something. Each individual account requires one, as they are are distinct things under the law with their own individual terms. If you didn't have a contract, you could, for a random example, sue the bank for taking a fee out.

Written contracts include signatures on them. And, yes, those were forged by Wells Fargo clerks.

Incidentally, this is not the first time Wells Fargo has forged documents. They did it during the financial crisis with mortgage documents that they had been too greedy and lazy to actually do correctly at the time.

If someone who is engaging in fraud resists arrest, my expectation is the forces of law will play the “violence” card. That’s what they do.

It's weird we didn't seem to drag _any_ bank managers or clerks out of Wells Fargo.

In fact...we didn't seem to arrest any of them at all. We...decided entirely to go after the company, and hit it with a comparatively small fine.

Similarly if we could reasonably expect people driving while drunk/high to not resist arrest and behave rationally we’d probably use lawyers or meter-maids to take their car keys.

George Floyd was an alleged counterfeiter...not even really that, it was just alleged he tried to pass a counterfeit bill, which isn't even illegal unless done knowingly.

He got a gun in his face.

A random Wells Fargo employee that created an account was at minimum a forger, and if they had to move any money, they committed 'theft by misappropriation' or whatever the various states call the crime of 'taking money that is rightfully in possession but is owned by another, and using it for your own purposes'.

They _didn't_ get a gun in their face, and weren't even charged with anything.

This theory that is has to do with 'the level we expect them to resist' is obviously bogus. We aren't even arresting them to start with.


Would not having cops be better than this?

It is worth reminding people that what they _think_ the police do, prevent crime, stop active crime, and solve crime after the fact, is a tiny fraction of that the police do.

Somewhere around 40% of police time are spent dealing with things that are clearly not crimes. At all. Just..not crimes. A large chunk is just 'people complaining about random things' and 'doing welfare checks', and another chunk is 'showing up along with ambulances for no actual reason'.

If we limit police to just 'crime stuff'...literally all crime...that's just something like 60%. And that percentage includes 'proactive' crime prevention _and_ a bunch of driving around for traffic duty.

We do not need armed police for traffic duty, and and we don't really need them for proactive crime prevention...some of that is just 'having someone make check business doors to make sure they didn't get left unlocked' and some of it is...frankly, the sort of harassment we shouldn't be letting police do, usually of minorities or the homeless.

For the actual solving real (non-traffic) crimes, it's somewhere under 30%.

So, let's pause here and realize that...the 'policing' part of police, if we split out the the actual crime bit of the police, it would be a third the size, and we could use people who are both cheaper, and who do not think guns are solutions to problems, or even have guns.


So that just leaves the crime solving. Which is where it gets interesting: The police are _extremely bad_ at crime solving. Like, really, really bad.

Something like 10% of burglaries get solved. Only about a third of rapes do. More than half of murders get solved, somewhere around 60%, so that's...good news, I guess? (OTOH, murders are pretty rare compared to other crimes.)

Note this is 'solved', not 'convicted'. Like, a suspect is identified and usually charged, or identified and the case is eventually closed due to lack of evidence. And this is assuming that the suspect was correctly identified.

Honestly, the police are often very bad at even _trying_ to solve crimes, which I can prove with three words: untested rape kits.

You know what the police are good at? Waiting until near the end of their shift, locating someone that they can plausibly make up a crime for, arresting them, and then filling their paperwork after their shift so they get paid overtime. Yes, really. It's an extremely common practice, and easy to prove, too: The amount of arrests near the ends of shifts is much higher than it should be, often with the people not charged, or even really a plausible crime.


Now where is some hypothetical possible argument that some of what the police do is needed to be done by armed officers, that we do need a 'police department'.

But there is no possible argument that the people we have now are every vaguely the correct people to have doing them. Because they are, again, very very VERY bad at THOSE things.

And this can't be of 'bad apples'. This has to be some sort of structure problem with the entire concept.

For example, I could make an entire post how the people trying to _solve_ crimes need to not stake out a position on the _adversarial_ system of justice our system uses, they should be neutral people that attempts to collect evidence both for and again the guilt and innocent of everyone. Instead of what the police do, which is sorta guess the most likely suspect and find evidence they did it, and mostly not bother to find any other information unless it is shoved in their fact.

Like, police working with prosecutors, in addition to causing the problem that prosecutors won't charge police officers, is actually a problem the other way: People who actually investigate crimes should not be 'taking sides', they should be neutral investigators. Like there's this absurd thing where prosecutors often don't share information, despite being required to, and no one seems to ask the question: Why the _hell_ is the _prosecutor_ the only person being given information? Oh, it's because the system is set up where the police and the prosecutor work together and the police are on the prosecutor's side. Huh. What a shitty way to try to find the truth.

But it's late and this is long enough.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.