Job Discussion Forums

[amnesty]

Some famous Mexican author once said that in Mexico there are two kinds of people: torturable and untorturable. The elite, and everyone else, who are completely at the mercy of the venal, sadistic gangsters they call "police".

I don't doubt this is true, because I've heard all kinds of horror stories about Mexican police, including stories in mainstream newspapers and also first hand accounts of shit that happened to my friends (different people, totally different occasions!). And no, I'm not talking about being pulled over for "driving while gringo" and asked to pay a bribe. That's the least of what they'll do. They can kidnap you, beat you, torture you, rob you, rape you, apparently even kill you with total impunity.

So my question is, how do the police in Mexico know who they can mess with and who they can't? Do the elites get some kind of special ID? Can foreigners get this kind of protection? If anyone can shed any light on this mystery I'd really appreciate it - because I'd like to visit a bunch of places in Mexico, but there's no way I'd feel safe doing so until I get this figured out.

[saraswati]

I've lived in Mexico for 14 years and have never been on the receiving end of any of the options you described. Yes, horrible things happen to people, but they can happen ANYWHERE.

You fear the unknown; we all do to some extent, but you have to realize that the unknown can also be absolutely AMAZING!! Make your travel plans, buy a ticket and come see that there is less to be feared than you ever imagined.

[ls650]

Some famous American author once said that in the USA there are two kinds of people: torturable and untorturable. The elite, and everyone else, who are completely at the mercy of the venal, sadistic gangsters they call "police".

I don't doubt this is true, because I've heard all kinds of horror stories about American police, including stories in mainstream newspapers and also first hand accounts of *beep* that happened to my friends (different people, totally different occasions!). And no, I'm not talking about being pulled over for "driving while black" and asked to pay a bribe. That's the least of what they'll do. They can kidnap you, beat you, torture you, rob you, rape you, apparently even kill you with total impunity.

So my question is, how do the police in the USA know who they can mess with and who they can't? Do the elites get some kind of special ID? Can foreigners get this kind of protection? If anyone can shed any light on this mystery I'd really appreciate it - because I'd like to visit a bunch of places in the USA, but there's no way I'd feel safe doing so until I get this figured out.

[Ben Round de Bloc]

Like "saraswati," I've never been on the receiving end of any of those options you've mentioned either. I've never even been hit up by the police for a mordida, and I've been driving here for over 7 years. I'm not saying the things you mentioned don't happen -- I know they do sometimes -- but it's not like the police are lined up waiting for hapless victims to wander by so they can torture them.

I think a lot depends on how foreigners carry themselves -- their attitude and behavior when dealing with the police -- as well as what types of places they choose to frequent. In the city where I live, the only foreigners I know of who've had problems with the police have been those who were in places that they probably shouldn't have been in the first place. Any time a person has a potentially negative encounter with a police officer, no matter where, an almost guaranteed way to create problems is to raise one's voice, become angry, make a scene, or be rude.

Police are given positions of power, naturally, and many of them do not have the experience, education, background, or training to deal well with it in a professional manner. For most of them, being a police officer is a status symbol, something that they feel puts them above "the common poor person." I've seen lots of examples of police exercising their inflated feeling of power against those they perceive as being of a lower class/status than themselves. Additionally, police are usually paid so poorly that many of them somehow justify mordidas as well as just plain stealing money from people when the opportunity arises as part of their job in order to survive financially. Picking up extra money via mordidas or stealing it from people is often viewed as a normal benefit of the job in the same way that most employed people view health insurance and paid vacation days as benefits. Also, most police officers are well aware of the fact that, in general, locals don't like, trust, or really respect them, which probably makes them a bit defensive in their direct dealings with people.

[moonraven]

I don't think Is650's take on the original post on this thread was especially subtle--thanks Is650--but just in case some folks thought it was: I am amazed, after the exposure of the torture of Iraqis by the US military (and paramilitary), the inhuman treatment of "prisoners" in Guatanamo that even raised the hackles of an ultra-coservative US Supreme Court, and the horror stories about foreigners being arrested and tortured since 9/11 in the US itself--that someone could raise such a question with a straight face.

Or was it not raised with a straight face? I would really like to know whether folks in the US have any idea of what's going on in the world around them--both inside and outside the US borders.

[saraswati]

I think that the majority of Americans watch and, unfortunately, believe what the see on the news. Same goes for the newspapers. Most still think that only military targets were bombed in Desert Storm!

People are very adept at practicing cognitive dissonance and Americans are no exception.

[moonraven]

I don't think that one can "practice" cognitive dissonance, but some people have a very high level of "tolerance" for it.

[saraswati]

Moonraven, your previous comment is why so many posters take exception to you. Not that you care. I think you rather like the all-knowing pedestal on which you have placed yourself.

Yes, cognitive dissonance, as a psychological process, can be "practiced," albeit unconsciously. I mentioned the example of bombings. Upon hearing that military sites AND shelters had been bombed in Desert Storm, people "justified" this by saying that the shelters must have been next to military posts. This justification is the externalization of cognitive dissonance.

I agree with your comment about it being "tolerated." Those who hear others making said justifications all too often just let them slide.

[moonraven]

I am sorry, Saraswati, but I am not going to allow you to bully me on this--I was actually trying to be polite when I said "I don't think you can practice cognitive dissonance", instead of just telling you that you were wrong.

The following is a definition of cognitive dissonance:
"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. " (http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm)

In short, it is a condition of cognitive discord. The example you stated about the people's reaction to the bombings, similar to that of the Fox in the fable who said the grapes were sour because although he wanted them he couldn't get them is a REACTION to the occasionally quite painful experience of cognitive dissonance--a reaction which allows them to tolerate the dissonance.

This is of particular concern to me as a teacher because it has some very important implications in regard to learning. I am currently teaching a course about Learning Strategies in the university where I work--and cognitive dissonance, being one of the phenomena that causes resistance to learning new information, is something that we are examining this very week.

It's not a question of putting myself on an all-knowing pedestal--I get PAID to know this stuff.

[saraswati]

I'M the bully??? Right...

I, like many others, have no wish to further engage in discussion with you. I studied Psych...they call in Cognitive Dissonance. If the term's now changed, so be it.

[saraswati]

By the way, maybe you should be the one to look it up. http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html

[moonraven]

S--I checked your link--it's one I am familiar with, as I have used it several times:

"When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior."

Cognitive dissonance is the condition itself--not the reaction to the condition--and that's why it cannot be practiced. The reactions are varied--as the quote from your site indicates.

I am not implying that you didn't study pyschology, but it appears that in this case you misunderstood a cocept. I also assume that you did not do any investigation in regard to learning theory, as you did not mention that. I spent a few years doing that in university laboratory settings in the US in the early 70s, and I have not forgotten basic concepts.

No one is forcing you--or anyone else--to discuss anything with me.

[Ben Round de Bloc]

Don't feel bad, saraswati. Here are some others who apparently haven't heard yet that cognitive dissonance can't be practiced.

[moonraven]

Your implication is that because you found 4 other instances of misuse of the term--in contradiction to the information on the very site that Saraswati cited, that that means the misuse suddenly becomes correct usage. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

If you hear a mistake in grammar 4 times, does that mean that it's suddenly become correct usage?

Or if you hear a lie 4 times, does that make it true? Joseph Goebbels said yes to that question, and that strategy has recently been used to justify the invasion of Iraq, too (the lie that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11).

[Ben Round de Bloc]