I meant for any corrupt regime, anywhere in the world, run by any ideology or political party, the most expedient solution is to vote with your feet. I think Colibri thought I was implying that it was POSSIBLE for some part of the USA to have corrupt police. And this it was “political” to say this since recently there have been many documented instances of American police committing homicides and facing relatively light consequences.
At times in American history there have been clear and documented examples of police corruption. This is an undisputed fact. And during those past eras your best move would have been to keep your head down and leave. So my statement doesn’t refer to any specific country or political party or era. Just that in general, by definition, authorities got that way for a reason and fighting them is usually not going to work.
Yeah, I can’t believe I’m saying this but I agree. I don’t think that response was egregious enough to merit a warning and in general was a decent answer. I suppose you could say that answering a question in GQ that has no GQ-appropriate answer is unwise, and I agree; generally I just report such questions for forum change. But a warning is heavy-handed I think, and I think the answer was worded in such a generic way that I didn’t see it as taking any kind of political stance.
I say this as someone who is not at all a fan of SamuelA, which I’ve made clear elsewhere. But that post in particular was not objectionable and if a warning is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who it’s given to.
Given that the incident in the OP was specifically in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and that your post made no qualification that it was referring to conditions anywhere else but the US, I don’t find this to be a reasonable excuse.
Now I’m confused. You say your post was justified because police in the US are now, or were, corrupt, but that it doesn’t actually refer to conditions in the US. Which is it?
Yes, I acknowledge that police in the US have sometimes been corrupt, now and in the past, and have engaged in unacceptable actions such as extrajudicial killings. But since it was made in relation to a specific case in the US, your post implied that this was a general condition, which is a political statement, and was made in a especially over-the-top manner. In addition, as your personal opinion, your post wasn’t appropriate as a first response in GQ.
Note that the statement “the best policy is to avoid being an easy target and to leave” is a falsifiable statement and thus can be tested for truth. Where “best” is defined as “maximum probability to remain alive and conduct the activities of daily living”. So it’s objective and may be true or false, like any factual statement
Post doesn’t reference the US. Just that IF the authorities are corrupt you should leave. Did the OP observe the police openly committing crimes? That’s a good hint they may be corrupt.
Am I saying the police in Tulsa are corrupt? Where do I say that? I am just noting this policy is the same regardless - if the authorities are corrupt, do the thing best for you, regardless if this is supposed to be impossible because 'merica.
Moving away appears to be a factual answer to the factual question, “What options does one have if you know that something is legal and the police try to prohibit it?” It is also a factual answer to the question “How can you actually get to do something legal if the police stop you from doing it?”
SamuelA’s attempt to justify this option is ill-suited for the original forum, but I wouldn’t construe it as a political jab against the Tulson, OH police rather than a broad rationale, not directed at any particular jurisdiction.
Either way, the immediate change in forum to IMHO gives me cause to suggest Colibri reconsider the warning.
Sure. So long as there is a way to determine ahead of time if you broke the rules. Given so many posters disagree that the text content is rule breaking - I certainly didn’t think it was when I posted it - this was not possible to avoid in this case.
Other than I guess pre-posting for moderator review.
The OP asks a very general question in the thread title that SamuelA addressed with reasonable information in the first line of his response. After that his answer is less objective and colored by opinion. But that’s what happens trying to answer the question as stated in the title. This is not the kind of political commentary that I’ve noticed getting a warning in GQ such as this post where I gave a purely factual answer and was warned anyway.
Yeah, a warning seems unduly harsh. The thread wasn’t a good fit for GQ in the first place. It seems unfair to penalize someone for giving an IMHO-type answer to an IMHO-type question just because the OP misjudged the forum placement. If someone incorrectly posts a worthwhile question in GQ that doesn’t have a straight-up factual answer, should people who answer be warned? That doesn’t seem right, but that seems like the logical extension of SamuelA’s warning.
