In this thread I recieved a warning: Not gonna argue about that. My post was not really a GQ post; It was more an expression of outrage and that is not the forum for that. I would argue that it was in the correct thread.
Seriously, how is “is choking a handcuffed suspect acceptable procedure?” a subject deemed fit for GQ? There is a factual answer: Fuck no!
So why have this in GQ?
Does anyone think a factual discussion of police procedure is warranted here?
There is also a good case to be made that the question is JAQ/trolling to start with.
(Go out right now to a black neighborhood and ask that question; I dare you. If you’re too chickenshit to do that; how about you go to your local police station to ask them?)
There’s a difference between asking whether it *should *be acceptable procedure and whether there are law enforcement organizations that *actually *endorse it as an option.
There were plenty of GQ answers in that thread. A question about police procedures can be answered with cites to those procedures. A question like “should this be an accepted police procedure?”, however, would not have been appropriate for GQ.
You are wanting a thread to be moderated for moral reasons. And that isn’t unheard of on this board (See recent changes on racism and misogyny). But it’s not normally a priority in the moderation. In fact, it appears to me that most of the respondents don’t even seem to understand what your objection even is. It seems silly to them, since there is a “factual answer.” It’s not even that they’ve said that the factual part overrides the moral issue–they just hadn’t even considered that the latter might be something someone would want moderated.
I will say I get it. The OP asks in a way that implies that it might possibly be moral to act in this way, and that the only reason they don’t think so is because 2 days have gone by and no one defended it. It falls right into the trap where asking if there is a legal defense is inherently implied that such would also be a moral defense. That’s why you need disclaimers to say that’s not what you’re doing, or people will misunderstand.
So I get why, given what the very contentious situation the question is asking about, you might find the question morally offensive. It definitely could have been worded in a better way, and I personally think you should have just gotten a note and told to stay out of the thread, due to the extenuating circumstances. (Yes, even with their past history. This is an exceptional situation.)
Note, I’m not saying that such threads should not be allowed. I’m saying I understand why the OP was offended. It doesn’t do a lot of good to tell them that “there is a factual answer” when that isn’t their objection. I’m trying to bridge the gap in understanding here.
And if you knew this and didn’t say it, then I would just say “why not?” I really think acknowledging why the other side is upset is a good technique. Ironically, it’s something that is relevant in the situation that inspired the GQ thread. (Not that I’m saying that these situations are even remotely the same. Just that what’s good for small issues can be good for much, much larger ones. Same with disclaimers to avoid implications.)
(I’m still not contesting my warning “for political potshots in GQ”—it was an emotional reaction -that doesn’t belong in GQ)
There are factual aspects; OK. However, there are moral, political, emotional aspects that, in my mind, take precedence.
Discussing only the factual aspects (Something you are trying to make happen with a barrage of notes and warnings) could be interpreted as callous.
You didn’t address my other point:
How is this question not trolling?
This question is likely to get you a beating irl. regardless of who you ask. Here we pretend it is just a finer point of police procedure.
I don’t get this thread - the question clearly has factual answers (unlike something like ‘is Trump a dumbass?’) and different groups have come to different answers on it - for example, the Minneapolis police have rendered 44 people unconscious with similar restraint techniques in the past five years. If a police department is routinely using a procedure, asking ‘is this something that is generally considered acceptable’ is an actual question. I would think that anyone who is outraged by the behavior in this case would WANT anyone who wonders “is there a reason for this” to get a wall of factual answers all saying “No, this is dangerous and ineffective” in the thread rather than an angry “fuck no” that’s easily dismissed as baseless online ranting. The claim that the question is likely to get you a beating IRL seems rather odd too, as it’s something that’s been asked in a wide variety of forums and in media without any reports of people being beaten for wondering about it.
Those belong in other forums, where there are in fact threads on them. You appear to be saying that if there are moral or emotional aspects to a question then it is impossible just to discuss the factual aspects of it. I don’t believe this to be so.
There is no “barrage of notes and warnings” in that thread. I issued one note to avoid a hijack into another issue. Otherwise most people have been well behaved and stayed within forum rules, until you decided to violate them.
I see no evidence that the question was asked in bad faith. It appears to me that the poster is incredulous that this could possibly be acceptable, but news media were not reporting that it wasn’t. (Note that this was several days ago, not long after the incident had happened.) The followup question, whether “I can’t breathe” is enough to change police questions, also leads me to believe this was a legitimate attempt to determine actual police procedures.
All the better that people are able to ask about the factual aspects of that here.
As apparent from the thread, it has sometimes been part of police procedure. Should people be unable to ask if certain agencies have practiced waterboarding (for example), even if that’s abhorrent? If a practice is abhorrent, there’s all the more reason to obtain information on how much it is practiced, if you want to seek to have it declared unacceptable.
There are many factual questions regarding police procedure, the particular laws in the state, court proceedings, autopsy reports… outrage should not keep people from being able to get factual answers to specific questions. Having more facts is not a bad thing regardless of moral outrage regarding the incident.
