|
|
|
|
|
|
by jodrellblank
857 days ago
|
|
|
At this stage in my questions there is nothing to enforce, no rules yet. The original question set is bad because it's nitpicking a rule nobody chose but many people want exclusions to, despite the question saying no exclusions. Then we find "wow lots of disagreement". I think the disagreement is manufactured by the poor question design and not real, and if we had no rules yet, asked about various situations and found whether people approved/disproved of them in a park, we'd have much more agreement. And that there needs to be some skin in the game - to enforce a thing needs your tax dollars spent on police, and police time spent on this instead of something else, so do you still think it's worth making a rule for X situation? So in the case of 'being hassled' you answer that the things you want to do are acceptable. And we find how many people agree/disagree. > "Whether or not you're going to be hassled or have to deal with a public hassle is a personally more interesting question than what would you enforce in the situation. Even if you're a police officer" You can't even know that, that's just inviting speculative fearmongering, and therefore won't be interesting results. |
|
|
You earlier wrote: > a better question would be “for each case do you think the police should spend taxpayer money enforcing the rule?”.
It's this that I've been addressing.
There are very few brand new polities in the world today, and even then I presume the powers that be for most of them accept the previous laws as a baseline. Full law rewrites happen, but they're rare, even on internet forums. So basically everyone is stuck with a system of laws to which they did not agree, and which do not fully address the parameters of today. Thus, "are you going to be hassled?"
You're free to ignore the setup for the game. But that's what you're doing: ignoring it. And by ignoring it you're ignoring the lesson it's trying to teach which the entire blog post is based on.
> I think the disagreement is manufactured by the poor question design and not real, and if we had no rules yet, asked about various situations and found whether people approved/disproved of them in a park, we'd have much more agreement.
And again, in moderating decisions this is not seen. I believe the problem is more the severity of punishments handed down with unelected moderating decision. But recall that even in elected democracies significant chunks of the population feel that their votes do not, or would not, matter.
Without stating my attitudes on the matter, I found it informative that the blog post of the original link mentions feminism and the trans issue.
So here:
> And that there needs to be some skin in the game - to enforce a thing needs your tax dollars spent on police, and police time spent on this instead of something else, so do you still think it's worth making a rule for X situation?
This point of view is assuming the privilege of being heard and rules changing to address the majority concern.
> You can't even know that, that's just inviting speculative fearmongering, and therefore won't be interesting results.
No, you can't know that. Thus calling the police on a child selling bottled water on the street without a permit, and the counter-protests and doxxing against the caller as a response: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/permit-patty-alison-ettel-calls...
Since we were all privileged because this was just a game, I tried to make rules on what a vehicle actually is, instead of asking what are the odds a person would be hassled. But I think I've made my point that asking whether you are likely to be hassled is a legitimate method people use to determine what the laws allow. If I haven't, then just ask when do people disregard the speed limit on roads and when do they drive just below it.