[ryandrake]

All the recent policy, technical leaps, and innovation around policing seem to be focused on cracking down on protesting and speech, and not really on what people would consider "fighting crime". You could get mugged on the street corner in broad daylight (or worse) and the police won't even answer your phone call, but the minute you show up on that street corner with 10 friends carrying signs and shouting, 20 officers will show up in riot gear, and every one of you will be identified using technology.

[potato3732842]

The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does.

Always been that way, always will be. It's just a little harder to bury your head in the sand than it used to be.

[chongli]

The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does.

Nope. That's an ideology, not a statement of fact. It completely negates the possibility that systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose.

[arrowsmith]

"systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose"

Er, that's exactly what "the purpose of a system is what it does" means.

[chongli]

No, “the purpose of a system is what it does” implies that the original intent of the creators of a system was for it to become corrupted.

[arrowsmith]

That's one way to read the literal meaning of the words, but it's not what the phrase means as originally intended.

[chongli]

Right, but then we apply the phrase to itself and this is what we get!

[uoaei]

Nope. That's an imposition of metaphysics onto what is solely clearly mere empiricism.

[immibis]

Nope. You added that extra word "original" in there.

[breppp]

the purpose of circular logic is circular logic