Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Electr_O_Purist t1_j3rym4l wrote

Reply to comment by Living-Pineapple-589 in Inky: "Crashes are down 36% on Roosevelt Blvd., thanks to speed cameras" by just_start_doing_it

Guy…a camera is impartial and it only documents what it is set to document. Cops are overwhelmingly racists who profile and use speed stops as excuses to violate people’s 4th amendment rights and further invade their lives.

It’s not like having a traffic cop sitting on the corner makes getting caught speeding just bad luck or something. Cops can make up any reason they want to push you around, and can then use any reason they make up off the top of their head (imagined smells, an interpretation of your demeanor, a ‘suspicion’) as a cover to harass, and it’s clear who they like to harass most.

Cameras don’t harass. Cameras just sit there and document who sped. Emotionlessly. Without bias. People are far safer with cameras on them than cops running around lugging all the baggage that shoved them into a miserable life as a traffic cop.

3

LFKhael t1_j3ryt06 wrote

Dude was never arguing in good faith the moment he equated getting pulled over for a broken tail light and getting your car searched with "public safety."

6

Living-Pineapple-589 t1_j3s059m wrote

I never equated getting your car searched due to a broken tail light as "public safety". That's ugly and just ridiculous.

And to imply that I'm simultaneously not in favor of police reform because I have serious concerns about how the recordings of daily life in the city could destroy the privacy of citizens is in and of itself the definition of a bad faith argument.

−1

AbsentEmpire t1_j3st8ne wrote

You have zero right to privacy in the public realm, a legal precedent that's been well established. You don't have a right to drive a car, nor a right to break speed and other traffic laws.

Your equating of automated traffic enforcement as being equal to a police state is just absurd.

3

Living-Pineapple-589 t1_j3swbqq wrote

Really? It's well established? Because it doesn't seem like it.

A five second Google search shows major opposition across the country to anything from a basic speed camera to something as advanced as facial recognition.

> a legal precedent that's been well established.

Heh, hopefully you're nobody's lawyer. And maybe this issue isn't as black and white as you want it to be.

1

LFKhael t1_j3s0hod wrote

Just because you claim to be something doesn't mean anything.

Same "as a centrist" bullshit people have been pushing for years.

Nobody is stupid enough to buy that anymore.

0