You’ll notice that on HN it is pretty common to see people pop into the comments about anything police-related with “Well actually there is no empirical logical reason to disbelieve the notion that the police are the arbiters of truth. You sir are doing a fallacy of the most egregious degree! In fact you are violating the very covenant of the guidelines upon which this very website is founded by arguing in such a noxious manner! I know this because my herculean intellect tells me so, as I do not even have opinions but only the zen mastery of Truth Itself!”
I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian, but it’s an interesting and kind of amusing phenomenon.
You don't think that a possible explanation for GP's post is principled disagreement that the article makes a good case, rather than necessarily ardent pro-cop bias?
I did not make any comment about the GP’s post in particular. I made a comment about a funny phenomenon of posting on HN in general. I specifically brought up posters using highfalutin’ fancy speech to cover an ardent pro-cop bias.
There are some posters that will use their perceived skill at language to do somersaults of logic in order to eventually land at “the police are the arbiters of truth” or something similar. The primary tactic is to use high school debate club language to put words in other people’s mouths in an attempt to discredit any view that doesn’t align with their premise of “the police are arbiters of truth.”
I don't see that phenomena about cop boot-lickers on HN in particular more than anywhere else, but I'm sure it happens here sometimes too.
I also didn't think it was a well-written article, though. The fellow's injuries do not seem accidental if the article reported them accurately, but the connection to the rape case was pretty tenuous. It could be that, or something else that got him killed, or the article just got some facts wrong. The article didn't really give me confidence.
The “bootlicking” isn’t more prominent here than say, Twitter or Facebook, that’s for sure. It’s the manner of it that I think is amusingly distinct for this site.
On other platforms people will outright say “I back our boys in blue! I have a Punisher themed gun tattooed on my pubic mound!” On HN, instead of directly supporting the police and their narratives, there are posters that will pop up with no opinion other than “You are wrong” about anything that’s counter to police narratives. Instead of arguing for a narrative, they argue against any contrary narratives, usually on silly parliamentary grounds. This way they can support the police without appearing to support the police. It’s a fun little parlor trick!
>it is pretty common to see people pop into the comments about anything police-related with “Well actually there is no empirical logical reason to disbelieve the notion that the police are the arbiters of truth.
It's not just for police, HN is overwhelmingly a very pro-empirical community, much like the population it represents. One of the biggest weaknesses empiricists have as a mass movement is that they are extremely easily manipulated, so long as you are able to control the flow of information (which the police usually do).
A positivist must, by his or her principles, serve to bolster support for any likely genocidal dictator, murderer, what have you, until the bodies are actually found.
It's because libertarians actually love the police and government when they're doing things that they like, like enforcing capitalism with violence, kidnapping and death.
I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian, but it’s an interesting and kind of amusing phenomenon.