mentions IQ
very cool, very normal. Youre right, cops arent smart, or they wouldnt be cops! On unsmart people are cops, because unsmart people are evil!
acab includes people policing other peoples intellect
It’s a thing,
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Aren’t memes supposed to be funny?
It’s funny because the (far) left vilifies the police and then goes all surprised Pikachu when they turn out to not be manned by far left people.
Idealism in all honor, but you’re not gonna change the system without being in control of the current power structures.
Memes are the political cartoons of the 2000s. Hopefully a bit funny, but more about the message.
Memes are about dumb jokes, the reason political cartoons and political memes aren’t funny is because the second you bring politics in you brutally murder comedy. Not saying politics dont belong in comedy, but when the comedy is the vehicle to push your agenda, you get dumbshit like this.
Political agendas can’t meme.
You got an ouchie on your feefees, bud?
The child presents as “gee whiz, aww shucks mister” and then his words are increasingly harsh and abrupt (coincidentally, they are also true). The juxtaposition in the child’s presentation is objectively funny.
If the precocious little guy was here right now, he’d probably be eating a giant novelty lollipop and asking you if you brush your teeth every time you get done licking those boots.
I just think its a shit joke.
Doesn’t actually seem like you think at all, just react - likely because you or someone you know is a cop and you’re either in denial of the bigger known reality of cops at scale or you simply lack the basic empathy to consider any experience outside of your own first hand account of the world.
You know what’s funny about this, you arrogantly assume that because I think its a shit joke I must be a bootlicking cop fucker who sucks every cops dick.
I just think its a shit joke you dumb fuck, but you ultra lefty cunts need to vilify anyone who says anything vaguely against your precious idealistic views, if yours so god damn ACAB, go punch a cop you cowards.
Its people like you that are making lives hard for actual caring left leaning people to make some sort of change, you lot are the lefts equivalent to MAGA and I can’t wait for both sides to die out.
Go fuck yourself you sad fuck.
I don’t think it’s every cop’s dick, I think at the most it’s every other cop… Scary enough to give yourself a built-in breather and time to wipe up.
Oh fuck that last line is good.
Did you cum? Glad to hear it.
Sure as fuck did.
Sounds like a dumbass problem to me. Kid has some funny lines.
More importantly though, the space exists for both, apolitical memes and political alike. My point with the previous comment is that these kinds of small, digestible, somewhat funny but really more poignant pieces have been around since politics have. Once again, they’re called political cartoons. They’ve been co-opted into practically every form of comedy throughout history. This is nothing new to memes.
Sounds like a dumbass problem to me.
Ohh yeah, for sure, you have no argument there lol.
The best thing about comedy and pretty much everything is, it’s subjective and my opinion of it can’t destroy your opinion of it and vice versa. At least you were chill about it lol.
People who make politics their identity ain’t funny. None of them are. No exceptions.
They are bitter people living in rage. Doesn’t matter what faction.
Oh how many comments I have seen on Lemmy from lefties suggesting death or violence upon right wing people. Horse shoe theory is not a theory. Tjeu should just get together and fuck or something.
feel better about yourself after typing all that worthless schlock?
Huh?
Oh how many comments I have seen on Lemmy from lefties suggesting death or violence upon right wing people. Horse shoe theory is not a theory. Tjeu should just get together and fuck or something.
Sniff your own farts harder.
“Everything I don’t like or understand is lefties!!! Objective, verifiable reality is lefties!!! The consequences of my own actions are lefties”
Just yesterday I had a conversation here with a self-described communist who thought the entire American middle class should be murdered by a mob for being part of a capitalist society that exploits poorer nations.
So I would categorize that as a leftist on Lemmy suggesting death or violence on people. Not only right wing, either.
I’m going to guess, reading between the lines here… “Just yesterday I had a conversation (that I didn’t have) with a real person (who doesn’t exist)”
If only that were true. But sadly, no. Here’s a link, I think: https://lemmy.world/comment/10693493
I’ll direct you to the key paragraph:
Yes [the Kulaks did deserve being killed], and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.
I’m glad you linked source. Counter to what I perceive your intentions were, it actually shed light on how dishonest you had been in your representation of that previous comment as a part of the bigger conversation you’d had in that other thread - I’m only left to assume that you had hoped that nobody would read the source conversation in full and would instead see the basic presence of the URL and accept your own POV as fact.
Frankly, I think you should be a bit ashamed that you tried to misrepresent ALL OF THAT INVOLVED CONVERSATION in the other thread with little-no larger context presented. All for an attempt at some minor “win” in this unrelated thread?
To the dishonesty, YOU are actually the one who introduced the original premise of the “middle class being murdered” and in response, this person (in a bit of a passionate response, sure) engaged to reinforce a point they had been otherwise making throughout that fuller conversation - that American “success” in capitalism is zero sum, it always thrives on the backs of a set of conveniently ignored victims (throughout the third world especially). It IS something that we in the US conveniently ignore each and every day in the perceived “success” of capitalism, like averting your eyes and stepping over a houseless person to buy an $8 coffee. On a human level, yes, that is a horrible indefensible choice many of us make consistently to preserve a higher level of personal comfort when we could choose to do otherwise. The quiet guilt that the “wonders” of capitalism rightly have is why reagan had to make that famous speech where he told yuppies something akin to, “You don’t need to feel ashamed for owning your own fancy, personal swimming pool”
I don’t agree with every position of that other poster, but there is definitely nuance here worth discussion every day - especially as the people who probably benefit the most (are a global level) from this broken system.
It is a truly rare thing that you get someone actually educated and involved enough with a counter position to engaged in meaningful debate - for you to then betray that here by trying to reduce that entire interaction to your singular misrepresentation of a flawed point that you originated yourself ONLY makes the reader walk away with a deeper consideration of your opponent’s positions and a dismissal of your own assertions.
LOL
At you, not with you, so everyone is clear.
Got brigaded I guess. Went from upvoted to downvoted pretty fast. Intence community. Guess there’s some radical discord or something. Enjoy your politics.
“did you used to be”
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses…
The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.
I mean, if the line is supposed to be coming from a curious child, poor grammar is excusable
An adult wrote that. That’s why it’s embarrassing.
I wouldn’t necessarily, myself, consider an adult writing the realistically flawed dialogue of a child to be embarrassing.
#1 That does not sound like a child, or someone trying to write like one.
#2 They’re adult topics and adult talking points, so we are, again, not quoting a child.
#3 You know this full well and are just arguing in bad faith because you dislike irony being pointed out. You can leave now.
#1 That does not sound like a child, or someone trying to write like one.
#2 They’re adult topics and adult talking points, so we are, again, not quoting a child.
#3 You know this full well and are just arguing in bad faith because you dislike irony being pointed out. You can leave now.
IQ tests are about reasoning ability, not nitpicky grammar rules.
Prescriptive grammar is useless and often racist. “Use to be” and “Used to be” are identical when spoken. There is no practical reason to know the difference or to care about rules regarding past participles and their relationship to the word “did” unless you are grading a paper or jerking off to your own superiority complex.
If language conveys meaning, it is sufficient. If you can’t understand the meaning of a sentence with this kind of error, you might be a poorly programmed AI.
“no practical reason”, except for the fact that no one would understand you if you decided to replace the entirety of your sentences with oogas and boogas. It’s as if language serves a purpose, curious how that works.
IQ tests aren’t even a valid metric of reasoning, they’ve been debunked… Yet another reason not to take this post seriously. I’ll provide sources since it seems like you can’t be bothered, with a god complex like yours, no wonder you think your word is law…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480769/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm
Not to even mention… You think correcting spelling/grammar mistakes is racist. Do you even know the history of IQ tests you’re vehemently defending like a clown?
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376687/
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28152/chapter/212962746
“no practical reason”, except for the fact that no one would understand you if you decided to replace the entirety of your sentences with oogas and boogas. It’s as if language serves a purpose, curious how that works.
IQ tests aren’t even a valid metric of reasoning, they’ve been debunked… Yet another reason not to take this post seriously. I’ll provide sources since it seems like you can’t be bothered, with a god complex like yours, no wonder you think your word is law…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480769/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm
Not to even mention… You think correcting spelling/grammar mistakes is racist. Do you even know the history of IQ tests you’re vehemently defending like a clown?
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376687/
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28152/chapter/212962746
Oh honey… I’m sorry you don’t have better ways to interact with the world.
An adult wrote that. That’s why it’s embarrassing.
Reposting my comment to combat mod abuse:
“did you used to be”
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses…
The mod log reason for removing this comment thread is “Toxic and pointless off-topic comment thread about grammar in a meme.” That’s not mod abuse, it’s just moderation. Mod abuse would be telling you to fuck off.
the only thing you’re combating is being perceived as a reasonable person.
The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.
Shame that the kid was such a threat to the cop that he needed to unload several magazines into him.
He wanted a vacation so he pretended he was scared
Partially because he was scared that young people understand the evils of capitalism and he fears that one day he may pay for his decades of evil. He may not be directly threatened by the kid but to him there is no greater threat than those who are willing to challenge the authority of the Capitalists.
Hell yeah brother, no guns no police!! Hold up someone just stole my car and is extorting my family… Someone help plz :(
Police are largely a gang of thugs, they serve Capital, not people.
Solving root causes makes police far less important.
So what do you propose for solving root causes and enforcing regulations? You have a Disney movie I could watch?
More Zach Snyder;
Marxists argue that the economic system of capitalism itself causes crime. The whole system is based on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class, leading to the ever-increasing wealth of one class and ever-increasing poverty of the other. source
Kewl article. So your fantasy societies have no crime therefore no need for police. I’ll make sure to bookmark that laterz
Unlike the fantasy we live in now, where the police are not obligated to protect you?
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005’sCastle Rock v. Gonzales*, *a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.
You are right, both of those cases were directly related to crimes caused by capitalist societies. Police were never intended to protect you, only to enforce laws and arrest those who break those laws, they aren’t hired bodyguards or private investigators.
Expanding social programs and employing social workers instead of police for mental health crisis events.
Crime happens because of poverty and desparation for the most part, not because some people are born evil.
Socialism would eliminate the biggest sources of poverty.
What type crime are you talking about? Petty theft? 🤣 Social workers, projects and food stamps?? This movie sucks ass
Almost all crime. Do you have a point?
I think you’ve made mine. Thanks
yeah, if there’s no cops around who’s gonna show up 4 hours late and shoot my dog after I report a robbery??
Is your dog on a leash or put in a kennel? Why are you reporting a robbery? You don’t need the police man!
Because cops routinely get anywhere in time to stop a crime. That’s one of the biggest flaws with the ‘cops make safe’ argument. They only work as a deterrent to crime if they’re actually there right when the crime happens. The only time they show up with any expediency is when there’s money to be protected.
Also, victim blame more.
We don’t need cops or prison man
Not in any way resembling what we have today. Good straw man tho.
Wat
Hold up someone just stole my car and is extorting my family
Someone like the police
WHO IS WATCHING THE WATCHMEN??!!!
You are right, we should go somewhere where there is no police.
No we should make it so that there’s no police where we’re at.
You are damn right! I can take what I want and kill whoever…I don’t even have to bury the bodies…No one around to stop me from changing towns every couple days and rinse/repeat. Not because I’m struggling but I enjoy killing…Less people means less carbon emissions, amirite?
You sound disturbed, mate.
I’ve been a lot of different places including prison and I know the way people act when there is no law. Maybe I am considered disturbed because I can’t unsee things that I’ve seen.Decent people, including you, would do the same or become prey. People are animals after all. 😇
Sounds wild. One wonders how humanity survived for thousands of years until police forces were created last century…
Haha you think they can help you with that?
You are right, you got this
Do you really think all cops are bastards or is it like a easy thing to type instead of “corrupt cops are bad” or something?
ACAB isn’t about corruption, it’s about the fact that all police enforce allaws no matter how bad, as a condition of keeping their job.
That’s absurd on its face. Cops routinely look the other way in tons of minor civil code violations they don’t judge as damaging to society.
Cops have the discretion to enforce laws.
Some use that discretion poorly and they suck and some use that discretion well and they’re fine.
Discretion is just selective enforcement. Lots of people do a thing. But cops only think it’s damaging to society when the wrong kind of people do it. That thing might just be existing.
Maybe that punishment involves jail time, but more likely it means being harassed, or put in cuffs for a while but let off, or just be intimidated by a guy who can legally whisper “I fear for my life” into a body cam and then kill you.
ACAB means cops either participate in that system, do nothing to stop it, or try to stop it and get forced out.
Okay, so then NACAB.
That’s all I’m saying.
I understand frustration and even hatred toward law enforcement due to atrocities or idiot mistakes or qualified immunity, but making a blanket statement that depends on a misunderstanding of basic human discretion and personality demeans any legitimate facet of that argument.
If you say acab and believe it, then clearly you don’t understand reality well enough to want or have the capacity to change it, you just want to yell at somebody and stamp your feet.
Which isn’t very helpful.
It sounds like you’re breaking down cops into several categories:
- Cops that do bad things on purpose
- Cops that do bad things on accident
- Cops that work alongside groups 1 and 2
Sure, group 3 cops may use that discretion for good. Maybe they don’t pull someone over for going one over the speed limit, or decide to look the other way when a homeless guy tries to sell cigarettes. I agree with you, this is the kind of discretion that’s supposed to happen.
But when people say ACAB, they’re saying that when cops that don’t do terrible things work alongside cops that do, they are complicit. One cop slowly, agonizingly kills a guy. Three cops watch and do nothing to stop him. That’s an extreme example. But there’s a million small versions of that, in every big city and small town, where a cop uses either their legal authority or “I’m a person with a gun” authority to do something bad, and their coworkers let it happen.
Cops that don’t stop their coworkers from doing bad things are just as bad as those doing the bad things. So, ACAB.
No, I didn’t break cops down into those groups.
You did.
Holding a hammer, everything is a nail.
But keep your proprietary delineations to yourself, you know what they say about assumptions.
ACAB is a pretty poor descriptor for " I don’t like corrupt or cruel cops"
I agree with what you say above. Some cops are bastards and some cops are not.
I similarly don’t let unhelpful, inaccurate slogans govern reality.
It isn’t much more difficult to accept and understand a complex reality than to forcibly ignore reality every second of the day just to hold on to unproductive anger
Keep it up man, you’ve obviously got more energy than most of us who think that slogan is shit.
ACAB is one of the things which give ammo to the conservatives on a silver platter. It makes us look stupid.
There are occasional stories about cops who risk their lives to save people. But, fuck them I suppose, because of that one time they heard a story about their colleague they knew was shady, shooting someone for smoking weed and they didn’t organise everyone else in their department to protest outside the station until they were fired.
No room for nuance with these people.
All. Because the ones who aren’t corrupt fucks either look the other way, or try to report the bad ones and get bullied off the force.
You say “all” but I’m pretty sure you only mean the ones in specific countries. In most European countries they simply do their job and don’t have a negative connotation (apart from people getting angry when they have to pay fines for speeding / parking wrongly / etc.).
Requirements and training also are much harsher here.
Just assume anyone making a post on the internet in English is American, because they have the majority of the publicly discussed issues and post most of the English content.
You’ll be less confused and not lots people off by studying a “well aktchually” in where it’s not needed.
Pretty much everyone is making posts in English because I’m pretty sure literally everyone on Lemmy can speak English. You can’t assume someone’s nationality / first language just because a post is in English.
Woo, I disagree. I mean, statistically that can’t be true.
Do you have a proposed alternative to law enforcement?
There are all sorts of ways to make police less shit. Maybe police should not have the means and freedom to arbitrarily apply violence. It doesn’t take much imagination to think maybe acorn cop shouldn’t have a gun.
Regulate law enforcement.
That’s a much more convincing and realistic way to improve law enforcementn than calling them names.
ACAB is some insecure schoolyard taunt that doesn’t help anything or affect the social conscience.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Other guards…this question was never as profound people thought it was.
I teach Latin and read comic books, what are the chances a similarly socially handicapable nerd would serve me up this phrase?
Not my job to convince you of anything.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Read again but actually try to understand
Which part are you confused about?
See this is what I’m talking about
Sure, let’s start with not making armed thugs the first line of defense. Your average traffic cop, contrary to what the bastards will say, doesn’t need a gun. The presence of one only intensifies the situation.
Easy counterpoint: traffic stops are dangerous!
Counter to the counterpoint: they’re only dangerous because cops are jumpy. A person being pulled over for a traffic stop is being interrupted - UNDER THREAT OF STATE SANCTIONED VIOLENCE for what most likely boils down to either a speeding ticket or an excuse to ID the driver. Naturally someone in that situation may do something rash.
Wellness checks. Those are a big one, too. Glen’s suicidal, got his gun to his head? What should we do? Call 911 obviously! They’ll send out someone with some mental health training. A paramedic at least! What do you mean they sent out a jacked up jackboot who won’t stop shouting “drop your weapon”? He’s already got a gun pointing at his own head, what’s another gun do to help this situation?
I’m not a legal scholar. I don’t claim to have all of the answers, and honestly yes - an armed protection force is probably a necessity, from a societal safety standpoint, but they absolutely do not need to be the first line.
Southern Occupation style military police detachment,
A soldier fresh out of bootcamp has more trigger discipline and de-escalation training than your typical blue bastard anyways, and the federal military answers to the federal government, so they can’t negotiate qualified immunity agreements or any of that shit, and their funding is already provided, so no quota meeting traffic ticketing.
I agree about trigger discipline and de-escalation training, don’t they also have training to dehumanize their opponent?
Maybe I’m missing something, what exactly is " Southern occupation style military police detachment"?
I will say right off the bat that I completely support way more training for police officers and a far more rigorous screening.
The post civil war occupation of the south.
It was basically a brief golden age for black leadership in the south because that’s how “not letting anyone fuck around” the union occupation force was with the traitors.
It was so effective at cock blocking the terrorist little shitbags that the red second they had enough political leverage they had them disbanded and proceeded to immediately kick off the first golden age of the klan.
But you still think it’s a good idea to use MPs in civilian metropolitan areas?
I’m not totally against the idea if only because there’s so much more training.
Like you say, I’d be a little wary of retaliation with even more heavy-handed law enforcement.
If it’s good enough to keep the racists rightfully terrified for their miserable lives, it’s good enough for the rest of us to have a law enforcement infrastructure that actually protects and serves us.
These people have such an oversimplified view of the world that there’s no reasoning with them. They can’t comprehend that people would join law enforcement for any other reason than denying people civil rights.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be a police officer out of truly caring about and wanting to improve your community. Sadly what happens is those good meaning people are the minority and there are countless cases of them being harassed and outed, sometimes even assassinated, by the bad cops who are the majority.
When you have an entire occupation, in every state, doing shady shit, killing bystanders, killing innocents, even killing the people they were sent to help, it is a huge problem that can not be ignored. They act without consequences and it needs to stop.
Good cops are awesome. I love good cops. I wish them the best and hope they make it home safe.
If you want to truly care and help people, be a firefighter. Be a medic. Get into the mental health industry. Feed people. Teach. Build. There are near infinite ways to help people, that don’t involve walking around the city dressed, literally, to kill.
Violent crimes consistently trend down. We actually don’t have too many people randomly killing others. When we do, it’s a big fucking event, that could have probably been avoided entirely with some more of those mental health people I mentioned before. BEST case, a cop does something after blood has been spilled.
At best a cop thinks they want to help people, and thinks the best way to do that is with violence.
Bizarre.
The fact that anyone can say “all” this is that speaks to such a misunderstanding of their reality.
It’s like choosing to refuse certain lengths of the spectrum. How many years are they going to force themselves to live colorblind?
Who are you referring to?
anyone that can say “all” this is that about a non- identical group of anything “all” of them obviously cannot be the same.
“All dogs are dangerous”
“All houses are safe”
“All birds are real”
Using “all blah are bloo” to describe a complex group of anything and their necessarily complex associations between and outside of each other belies such a fundamental misunderstanding and incomprehension of the world you live in and the topic you’re talking about.
An important thing to remember with something like ACAB is, even if it’s not literally ALL cops are bastards, it loses its bite if it’s anything else. When we say ALL cops are bastards, we serve to remind the people who already at least partially buy into this belief that it doesn’t really matter about the individual. It’s about the institution. Anyone party to that institution is part of the problem, even if they’re a generally decent person who, in a particular situation, did something commendable.
As far as getting the people who don’t already buy in to buy in? Well,that’s what these kinds of discussions are for. No motto easy to turn into a soundbyte is going to change too many minds, they’re more rallying calls.
Further, unlike the other examples, “cop” isn’t a fundamental aspect of their existence. Any cop, right now, can stop being a cop. I have no problem throwing shade at something someone can change. Dogs can’t not be dogs. Birds can’t not be birds. Houses… well, they could be something else with a lot of effort, but it’s fundamentally different.
Interesting that at the exact point your examples break down, the contradicting evidence to your point becomes fundamentally “different” and you just dismiss it.
Besides, don’t you know the animorphs? Birds can change into humans, andalites, tons of stuff.
Back to your point: a slogan does not gain validity or credibility by being false; it loses its validity and credibility by being fundamentally false.
You see that slogan as particularly important because you’ve used it before and because it’s popular.
That does not make it a good or correct slogan.
It just makes the person saying it look like they’re spouting gibberish since there are so many simple examples that prove it incorrect, many of those examples displayed in these threads given by the people myopically chanting that acab is valid.
I agree these discussions are important, but what hope do you have of influencing other perspective when your argument is, at its foundation, flawed and clearly incorrect.
Black Lives Matter? Undeniable.
Of course they matter.
All Cops Are Bastards?
Objectively false schoolyard taunt.
That backfiring banner is working against your point and against your credibility.
I dismissed houses because they’re inanimate objects that we can literally break down and turn into something else. That thing would no longer be a house. And, if I DID think all houses were inherently safe, then that change would mean that I no longer think it’s a fundamentally safe thing. There’s no gotcha here.
I’m tired of the rest of this conversation, we’re clearly at foundational differences in our world views.
Seems like you are trying to oversimplify their world view so you don’t have to question your own.
Bullseye
People always try to invoke “just a few bad apples” forgetting the rest of that phrase.
One bad apple spoils the bunch. Doesn’t matter if you’ve got a squad of Clark Kent boyscout types, the fact remains that if they can deal with even one Lex Luthor being a shitass in their uniform without actively trying to put a stop to that situation, they’re all suspect.
Normally it’s unreasonable to expect someone to stick their neck out just for the sake of doing the right thing alone, but these people menace society with military kit and weaponry under the premise that they’re the exception to that. They tell us all the time that it is their job to risk their lives to stop people from getting victimized, so it’s more than fair to judge them when they don’t hold themselves to the same standard when dealing with their own.
Sure, let me know if you see someone using that phrase.
I don’t follow your ensuing logic that because a cop could be corrupt you should treat them like they are corrupt.
“They’re all suspect”? Okay. So is everybody else.
But the presumption that they’re all corrupt or acab is silly and unrealistic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswgEdJTrfU here’s a really famous guy using that phrase, though I will admit he’s got a few felonies under his belt.
My case in point. Only the dumbiest dummies that have ever dummied say that
Nobody here is saying that.
Oh, cool, so you’ll just keep moving the goalposts and other bad faith tactics. Thanks for letting me know I should block you.
You’re using those words wrong.
You equivocated my argument that it’s unrealistic to assume that acab with The first half of a phrase “a few bad apples”, and argued against that phrase even though nobody had used it.
I asked you to let me know if you saw anyone using that phrase, since nobody had used that phrase except for you.
Those goal posts are pretty firm.
I understand how you would see my speaking accurately as “bad faith” given your way with words.
Enabling the corrupt ones is almost as bad being corrupt.
Sure. Taaangent?
Taaangent?
You asked about ACAB and got an answer about ACAB. This feels like a cope.
Oh.
I see
If you think you can only come up with ax partial answer, it’s usually an indication you don’t understand the concept as well as you think and a good idea to just skip trying to come up with an answer.
Your talk if you want to! I’m just saying it might confuse the situation unless you have a complete answer.
I thought you did that deliberately so I was wondering why you were explaining what a slice was when I asked about making a pizza.
I’m not the same guy, it’s just obvious to everyone else here what he was saying since we don’t need our hands held through every implication.
If bad cops can just get rid of others who call out bad behavior, what is left but the corrupt and the complicit? Hence, complacency is bad too so ACAB.
First it was “tangent”, then it was, “ax partial answer”, so now what is your excuse?
Making assumptions and looking for excuses is the reason you Don’t understand.
“If bad cops can just get rid of others who call out bad behavior, what is left but the corrupt and the complicit…”
If that were true, you would have a case.
Since that is not true, you don’t.
Since that is not true, you don’t.
Except in America it seems that’s the exact case. Maybe not in other countries.
Hardly a tangent. If a cop is otherwise good, his simple existence within the establishment of “cop” is enabling the continued existence of that establishment, while also providing obfuscation for the shitbags, letting people like you say not all cops are bastards. In the famous words of Tim minchin, “if you cover for another mother fucker who’s a kiddy fucker the fuck you mother fucker you’re no better than the rapist” - replace “kiddy fucker” with any of the atrocities police are regularly known for.
The establishment is corrupt, you cannot be party to it and be innocent, period.
That’s such a limited and flawed perspective.
Literally any example of a whistleblower destroys your client.
The evolution of civil rights proves you wrong.
Of course you can make change from the inside, of course it’s easier to pretend you can’t. That’s a scary job.
If you condemn everybody trying to make a positive change within a dangerous environment at personal risk, then you don’t have to question why you aren’t putting yourself at risk trying to make a change yourself.
The institution that is The Police is too large to change with any action other than collectively deciding it’s not one we need. Other industries, I’ll give you. That’s why, for instance, not all, idk… dentists? Are bastards.
Cops have one thing that other industries do not - the explicit right by the state to use violent force against its citizens with no, or next to no, legal repercussions. This closeness and uniqueness means that we can’t really CHANGE them, the state is too invested in their continuation. The only thing to do is to seek to eliminate it.
As far as whistleblowers, they’re whistleblowers, not cops. They put the badge down (most likely, you don’t often get to continue serving after blowing the whistle), and they did something good. They were still a bastard before tho.
Some states are already switching out police for mental health professionals and civilian law enforcement.
That shows that you can change the system.
It’s difficult, but with as giant an institution as law enforcement already having been changed fairly rapidly just in the last hundred years, it doesn’t make any sense not to expect further change.
Especially when so many legal groups and victim advocacy groups are demanding change and changes are literally occurring currently.
And yea, saying all dentists are bad is about as absurd as saying all cops are bad.
As far as whistleblowers go, I was referring to all whistleblowers anywhere, but yes whistleblowers are cops and that’s a good point.
You can pretend that a cop who reports or fights against corruption or supports the rights of minorities isn’t a cop, but that’s factually and objectively inaccurate.
Is a cop marching in BLM rallies a bastard? Is a cop getting a rape victim, proper health and mental support even if it isn’t warranted by their department a bastard?
Of course not, you have to ridiculous myopic mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that acab when it’s clearly not true.
The institution is being changed, by us. By people forcing changes. The police didn’t just decide to include mental health professionals randomly, we put pressure on them and our elected officials.
I can get behind someone saying that some form of policing may be necessary. This is where I cut out caveats for things such as the idealized version of a sheriff. Someone elected by the community they’re policing, who is a member of the community they’re policing, and with rather limited power in excess of the average citizen.
As far as the BLM protests go, honestly yeah - if they’re marching in uniform they’re bastards. Most likely their MO is to show some of these people that “not all cops!”. If they want to support the cause, they can, not as cops though. That’s tone deaf at best.
Is a cop getting a rape victim help a bastard? Yup. They’re doing a good thing, as a bastard. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Maybe they should change their career into something a bit more geared towards helping people, like social worker or similar.
PEB: Policing Enables Bastards
- Shorter
- Not literally wrong in case there’s a mountain town of thirty people with two cops on the force that have never covered for a corrupt cop
Sure, works fine.
And yes, it’s not literally wrong, haha
One would think being not literally being wrong would be fundamental to the developing and adoption of a slogan.
Further evidence acab is a taunt rather than a serious slogan.
ALL cops are bastards, yes. It’s in the title.
Each and every cop could have chosen not to be a bastard. Some of them weren’t bastards when they started, but by the time they’ve been in it long enough to identify as a “cop” they’re a bastard. They are either actively participating in the system that the state uses to violently enforce their whims, or are complicit by virtue of continuing to perpetuate the establishment. Some of them, a vanishingly small minority, have the moral character to go back to not being a bastard, of they quit the police force, but until then, they cop, they bastard.
So in your perspective not all cops are bastards.
They may become bastards over time or may become a complicit part of the system, and if they decide not to be bastards, they may be kicked out, but at any time there are non-bastard cops
I agree. That’s what’s so silly about this taunt.
It is unproductive and exposes your unwillingness to deal with the complex reality.
Chanting an obviously incorrect slogan backfires pretty hard upon every utterance.
It sure is here.
Nope. The moment they’ve self identified as cop, they become bastard.
The slogan isn’t incorrect, you simply choose to look at the individual actions, which yes, CAN be good actions, whereas others apply it to the institution that is the police force. If you are a part of that force, you are complicit in being a bastard.
Were all the gestapo bastards? Or did some of them do a few good things while participating in MASSIVE amounts of state sanctioned violence?
Nope, I’m looking at individual people, not actions.
No, you don’t become complicit in being a bastard simply by becoming part of a corrupt institution.
The Jewish sympathizers that were part of the Reich who saved Holocaust victims?
HOA participants who change the laws to be more fair and beneficial to everyone?
IRS agents offering free file programs and tax benefits for low-income individuals?
You are blind to how systems of the world actually work and what creates change.
You can keep throwing a tantrum and calling names, eventually you’ll realize you’re not changing anything.
It’s just going to take a lot longer than if you open your eyes.
By your logic, you are a rapist and a murderer because you live in a society within which rape and murder occurs.
If that’s how you like to see yourself, that is your choice.
It isba false, narcissistic and deluded perspective to ascribe total immutable personal responsibility for the actions of others by virtue of association.
You know what would be better in each of those situations? The offending party not existing in the first place.
Don’t have to save the Jews if the Gestapo doesn’t exist.
No need to change the HOA if you don’t have a HOA.
I could tackle the IRS Example as well, except I actually believe in (some degree of) taxes. Good on the people for finally twisting the IRS’s arm on free file options though, they’ve been vastly limited until lately.
Yes, if everything we’re talking about was different and behaved in a completely different manner than it does in the reality everybody lives in(that’s right, you too!), then there would be a way to support your worldview.
Way to miss the point like you have this whole thread.
Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.
The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H…, Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:
Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.
There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:
The study includes as ‘violent incidents’ a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn’t indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c
An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:
The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.
More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, ‘Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.’ Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862
Yet another study “indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent).” A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to ‘getting physical’ (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
I’m not exactly sure by what standard you’re distinguishing between “survey” and “empirical study,” considering all of your cited studies also rely on surveys.
Not prepared to read through over 100 pages of unrelated stuff, perhaps you could add a page number? It sounds like this source is included only for a critique of the original study though, and I’ll accept that that study isn’t perfect.
Ninety officers returned the surveys for a response rate of 36%.
This type of sampling comes with both weaknesses and strengths. One important weakness of using this convenience sample is that the results generated on the nature of the police sub-culture and the frequency of interpersonal violence on the part of police will not necessarily be generalizable. Although these results may not be generalizable, this sample is satisfactory for testing relationships among the variables—traditional police sub-culture, police domestic violence. This sample comes entirely from Central Florida, which further limits generalizability.
This paper is focused on a link between a domestic violence and a “traditional police sub-culture,” it is not intended to be taken as a reliable, generalizable source of overall domestic violence.
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Did not investigate this one because I don’t have the means to read floppy disk .iso images readily available.
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
This one does reference the studies you mentioned, along with other studies showing much higher numbers. It then goes on to say:
The data on intimate partner abuse by police officers are both dated and potentially flawed, but in ways that make it more likely that abuse is being under—rather than over—reported.59 Most of the studies rely on self-reporting by police officers to establish prevalence of abuse. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable measure; as one study noted, “The issue of the reliability of self-reports data is problematic when considering any socially undesirable behavior.”60 Intimate partner abuse is frequently underreported,61 both by those who experience it and those who commit it. Underreporting is likely to be particularly prevalent among law enforcement officers “who fear, even when anonymity is assured, that admitting their own or their colleagues’ abusive behavior may jeopardize careers and livelihoods and break up families.
TL;DR: only ~10% of police are confirmed assailants of domestic abuse!
Now go look up the incidence of domestic violence in the general population, and see if you still feel so smug in saying that, lol.
I’m gonna be that person right now, but i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat. If they get to throw around 13/50 or that trans suicide number without any care to the actual reasons I’m gonna throw around 40% self report to domestic abuse. Just like you can’t stop them, you can’t stop me. Go ahead and down vote internet numbers mean nothing to me
BTW did you know that 40% of cops abuse their spouse?
i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat.
I’m frankly not surprised. Decent, honest people do, though, hence my effort to reveal that it is, in fact, a bogus stat, so that said people will know to disregard both it, and those like you, who continue to spread it in the name of their narrative despite knowing it’s bogus.
People who care more about maintaining and propagating their biases/prejudices than about being honest and truthful, are abhorrent scum, and don’t belong in civilized society.
Like I said, I’m gonna be that person.
don’t belong in civilized society.
It’s not like we’re ever going to reach that civilized society with the way everything is sliding to the right. It’s also not like they don’t already plan on removing me, so feel free to remove me once you have your civilized society, until then I’ll be here.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance. Essentially, one group has been found to manipulate stats. However, the focus is on the other group’s manipulation rather than accuracy across the board. This ends up working as a form of oppression through bias enforcement of the social contract. Not saying you are going that, just pointing out a possible bases for the other person’s comments.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance.
lmao, no it fucking doesn’t. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That’s all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you’re spreading bullshit in support of it, that’s your own damn fault. If you’re right, you don’t have to lie to prove it.
Hmm, maybe you are right. However, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a biologist and mathematician who was considered the “Father of modern genetics”. However, he lied about his findings. We now know his numbers were fudged (sometimes heavily so) to create statistical findings that matched his assertions. This was likely done because there were other factors at play that he did not have enough information to know, but did not want to have the lingeriering unknowns destroy his support for genetics. And this is one of the reasons we now understand genetics.
If your argument is right, are you saying he was wrong? If so, how do you think the situation should have been handled? Further, why did the stratagy work so well? Are you suggesting this is an effective but immortal strategy? Was the father of genetics and a Catholic friar immortal?
Lying to support your position is how people lose trust in arguments. I’m used to seeing this kind of BS from the RW but it’s disappointing to see it from the left. We need to be better than this or discussion becomes completely useless
There are few things more frustrating, politics-wise, than seeing someone who you presumably fundamentally agree with on issue X, fuck everything up by exaggerating or fabricating evidence.
It’s better to get called out by someone who isn’t interested in doing anything but correcting them. Could easily be fuel to completely reject the premise if it was someone else.
Don’t talk to cops like this, they will ruin your life or end it. Use that energy to campaign for electoral reform in your state so we can break the bipartisan police state.
Meet the police with equal force.
That kid’s getting punted across the street the next second lol
That kid had a gun 🔫
Is being facist towards people born with a low intellectual capacity OK? They cant help it
-
That’s not “being fascist”.
-
They don’t necessarily have a low intellectual capacity, they’re just barred from becoming cops if they score too high. The cops are discriminating against people with high capacity and that’s not OK.
-
The thing that is happening here is OK because they’re class traitors and 100.0% bastards. You’re licking boot.
-
“did you used to be”
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses…
It’s a quote from a kid. Kids talk exactly like that sometimes.
I don’t know in what shithole of a country you guys live to hate cops, but here they are just decent, helpful protectors they ought to be. Never ever met one single piece-of-shit-cop in my life. There surely are rotten apples, but that is due to being human, not being a cop. There is no field of anything where everything’s sunshine and lollipops. Maybe it’s a case of how you treat them? You know, like give respect, earn respect? That thing?
Nuh uh, dehumanizing them works better!
You know, I’ve also never personally had too bad of an encounter with a cop. I mean, I was falsely arrested once, but the cops were chill, only half of them had their guns pointed at me for no reason. They were just doing their job though, the others were all super chill!
No. Doesn’t matter. You see DAILY that people are victimized. Not just in the states, you can look through this very thread for accounts of other people from other countries with terrible stories.
The very system of the state giving some non-elected individuals sole legal authority to excise violence against their peers, even ostensibly to prevent crimes we all agree are crimes, creates a power dynamic that leads to all sorts of problems we see today.
There might be bad daily incidents here too. Sure. Even if it were 10, what about the tens of thousands of incidents where cops just were helpful and/or protective? Same like with plane-accidents. Millions don’t happen but the one that does makes the media.
I really don’t see the problems you do. Cops here are highly selected (a weekend full of assessments of all kind, physical, intellectual and psychological evaluation). From like 300 participants, 0-3 get chosen. Then follows 3 years of training and regular checks. Not every country is like the USA which seems to recruit nutjobs and then give them a 2 week crash course.
But, for the sake of the argument: what is the alternative? No cops at all? What do you do if you’re in need of help? Elect cops? That already seems to work great with politicians /s
I’m not an expert on any of this. Just a caveat, I’m sure anything I propose will have it’s share of flaws.
State law enforcement (men armed with guns apprehending private citizens) should be the LAST step. For in-the-moment intervention, cops are already useless - unless they happen to be on site already, whatever violence happen, will happen before they get there. There’s no good answer to stopping a determined violent individual, short of empowering people to defend themselves and others around them.
I think there’s always going to be some level of violent crime. Some people simply don’t function the same way. For these people, we clearly need some kind of active response force. It’s use should be limited, based on hard fact and actual threat to civilian life. We also clearly need some kind of (humane) separation for people who cannot or will not rehabilitate, people who cannot be reintegrated into our society. These are two of the only acceptable uses of state violence, in my opinion.
I don’t know the exact way it would look, but I’d like to see a move towards communities looking after themselves and those around them, in all aspects, and this includes safety and security.
Unfortunately, for property crimes, the only way to actually enforce property ownership is through violence, either direct threat of violence (break my shit and I’ll end you), or state violence (break my shit and the state will send armed men to apprehend you unless you reimburse me). We have to determine what level of property security versus violence we seem acceptable. I tend to fall a bit more extreme towards violence not being okay to protect property - I don’t think there’s a single piece of property worth killing or maiming an individual over. Thus, if the only way to protect property is this level of violence, I believe it is wrong to intervene. I don’t believe it is right for the individual to intervene, and I don’t believe it is right for the state to intervene. The sad truth is that most of what the police force does now is enforce these types of crimes.
Maybe an actual cop can give insight.
I was talking about real cops in more civilised countries. Not untrained us-american gun-monkeys. For the US my statement surely isn’t valid.
Real cops don’t exist.
When you grow up some day, you might notice who’s your real enemy. As it surely ain’t the stupid cop who’s just doing another stupid job of all those stupid other jobs in a stupid society of stupid people running after stupid pieces of paper with stupid numbers on it.
Who’s the real enemy?
Maybe the billionaires running this planet? Who all just have the best of our future at heart
The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid- to late-19th century from the threat posed by that system’s offspring, the working class. source
Criminological data has told us for decades that police are irrelevant for public safety. Other data tells us a lot about what does influence safety. British researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their classic 2009 book The Spirit Level show that a large number of social problems, including violence, correlate strongly with inequality. Their work also shows different options for achieving equality: high wages by private employers (as in Japan) or high taxes and redistribution (as in Northern Europe). In the United States, every option for increased equality has been blocked by the wealthy who have—as Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page make clear in their important 2014 study—captured politics. source
How is defunding the cops and courts not prosecuting going?
Patrol Cop once told me a joke about how he ran over a black kids bike. When got back to the station he saw the kid at the desk trying to report the incident. He’d carried his busted up bike the entire way. The cop behind the desk called out “Hey Rob, did you run over this kid’s bike?”. “Nope”. Case closed. No report filed.
How the fuck is that a joke?
It was funny to him. It was the moment he realized he could get away with crime.
Removed by mod
I wish I had an answer
Aristocrats!
That’s the sadism they are best at.
Cops love it when you tell them that they are free to go.
