2020.08.13
That's kind of funny, because the Atari generation couldn't pause, but it's the Nintendo generation having kids.
(And maybe a later generation grew up with more Tivo than cable TV, where you could pause after all.)
Worthwhile episode of the podcast 99% Invisible: Policing the Open Road. Automobiles really changed how policing was done in the USA - they added a whole bunch of rules everybody had to obey (because roads are a shared resource, and cars have are hugely empowering for people but also dangerous) and the decision was made to add enforcement of these rules to what cops do, beyond classic crime fighting roles like dealing with theft and violence. (Enforcement of vice laws was another issue some thought were below what police should be dealing with.)
So this car-based stuff was the wedge for our 4th Amendment protections getting split open... during prohibition, it was decided that cars were so potentially empowering for "bad guys", they were no longer part of "person, houses, papers, and effects" that were protected and cops didn't need a warrant. And once that precedent was set, that the 4th Amendment wasn't an absolute protection and times change, somehow "Stop and Frisk" seemed ok too. (Funny but I don't recall too many "strict constructionists" bitching about that clear violation of the letter of the law/Constitution?)
The podcasts talks about ideas for trying to treat traffic enforcement more like an administrative task, for example they mention you don't give building inspectors guns just in case they run into some criminal activity over the course of their work. But attempts to de-police-ize traffic enforcement have sometimes failed.
But it is weird. I'm in about the most privileged + protected demographic class the country has got (save for not being stinkin' rich, and having a car that's even shabbier than that) and my pulse goes crazy if I think I may have caught the attention of a police cruiser.
Gotta be a better way.
One of the more common frustrations I've seen expressed on Tumblr is "why don't neurotypical people just say what they want?" – and I guarantee you, 100% of the time the answer is "because we live in a society that imposes an obligation to agree to any halfway-plausible request, no matter how unwelcome or inconvenient it is, unless you can cite a specific justification for refusing it". That leads directly to this elaborate song and dance of implying requests without actually expressing them so that the receiving party is free to refuse without being obliged to justify themselves. It's not irrational – it's a specific solution to a specific problem!
(Now, if you're going to ask why this deranged expectation that one should always agree to explicitly stated requests unless one can justify refusal has come about in the first place, well, that's where we're gonna have to get political.)