ACAB.

BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to Lefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com – 904 points –
388

You are viewing a single comment

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?

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.

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.

It's at least worth looking into, although at this point I can't say I trust the civic virtue of the military any more than I trust the civic virtue of the police.

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.

I've been arguing for reform and regulations being a better answer chanting taunts in the other comments.

I agree with all of your proposals, especially the mental health suggestion.

People desperately need mental health and well-being support in the states.

ACAB isn't about corruption, it's about the fact that all police enforce all laws 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:

  1. Cops that do bad things on purpose
  2. Cops that do bad things on accident
  3. 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.

Thanks, lot of time over here.

Accuracy is important, and so is making things better.

I have a big problem with authority and don't trust cops much myself, but mindless slogans like acab aren't going to fix anything any more than cultists screaming maga is going to fix anything.

"Defund the police"

"Black people cannot be racist"

"Trans women are women"

I'm sure we're actually all on the same page, with the exception of how valuable we consider the optics of these slogans.

I see right wingers present these slogans as evidence of our mental deficiencies.

They are either convinced we are stupid, or are trying to convince others we are stupid. We have given them ammo.

To this point, people have claimed they'll have ammo regardless, but I'm not so sure. People detransition from the (alt)right every day.

The more sensible we appear, the easier it is for them to consider whether they were justified in what they believed in the first place.

I'm okay with defund the police because it doesn't say "totally defund the police" because it's so often explained as "stop letting them buy literal tanks" and "regulate or reform police spending"

I'm okay with "trans women are women" because trans becomes a modifier of women, so it's an accurate description.

"Black people cannot be racist" makes no logical or practical sense and I have the same reaction to this phrase as I would if somebody told me "black people cannot eat ice cream".

The problem with all of them is that they lack nuance.

Sure, they can be used as incindiary and provocative statements to initiate conversation or oust someone, but more often than not, the words are not crossing the aisle.

When the left says "defund the police" the right hears "completely strip the police of all money" (I have actually seen leftists make the claim that this is not hyperbole).

When the left says "trans women are women" we mean "the definition of woman has changed from biological to cultural" but what the right hears is "accept our assertion that trans women are biological women or be branded a transphobe".

When the left says "black people cannot be racist" they mean "racism is mired in oppression. It's a waste of time trying to address biases towards white people because they aren't in a position to be opresssed" - but the right hears "black people are hypocrites".

None of this shit does any good to making the world better. It doesn't bridge a divide, it widens it.

On a similar note, did you hear the news about that "tik tok trad wife" who said the n-word? People found her employer and got her fired.

Good job dickheads, now she's doing the rounds on Fox News, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson etc.

Jordan Peterson, same deal. Brett Weinstein, same deal.

The left need to stop making these people.

Don't argue with the right or left, and don't use their slogans is good advice.

Have a valid perspective and stand up two individuals in defense of that perspective.

Problems arise when one takes the shortcut of chanting a slogan instead of saying what they actually mean.

Jordan Peterson made his own bed, that guy never sounded rational or balanced to me. I was confused how people were convinced by him until I found out that he used to be a preacher and listened to the rhythms of his speech. I can see how people can be tricked by that.

Publicly exclaiming racial slurs is gonna to get you dumped from society. I think people using slurs are assholes anyway, and using them on a public forum is about as aware a form of expression as taking a nap on railroads tracks.

4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...

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.

It seems like that's the case to you because you're surrounding yourself with an echo chamber instead of rationally thinking about the situation.

It makes no sense in any capacity to assume that any group of humans are all identical or behave identically.

We aren't saying they do. What we are saying is that the system discourages good cops to the point most are forced to leave. You would have realized this if you weren't blinded by your own axe to grind.

Yes, you are saying that:

"Except in America it seems that's the exact case"

Please elaborate on what axe I'm grinding.

Logically explaining the truth and repeating basic facts?

How devious.

Logically explaining the truth and repeating basic facts?

What facts? You keep making statements without baking them up at all, or even giving any reasoning.

I don't agree with leftists that all police throughout the world are evil or unnecessary. I think in some countries they are demonstrably better or worse than others. Places like Mexico and the USA they seem to be corrupt or straight up sadists, who are in the pockets of gangs and rich capitalists respectively.

So you've already forgotten the facts, but your argument as that those facts that you can't remember don't have any reasoning?

Unconvinciiing.

Some police officers are corrupt and sadists.

Some bakers are corrupt and sadists as well.

Don't worry. Although you appear confused and defensive about these statements, nobody is saying otherwise.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

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.

You're taking personal credit for the changes I was talking about after agreeing with me.

Strange opening.

Okay so you define good and people as bastards, so for you, APAB. All people are bastards.

You think everybody is a bastard. That's your own problem, and further clear evidence that people who use the phrase acab don't understand the world around them

Because if you look at the legal experts, the cops, the civil Rights groups making those changes? They aren't screaming illogical, false slogans across the table at police unions without understanding what they're saying.

They know that doesn't effect change.

They're negotiating changes within a flawed system.

And they're changing the system from within and without successfully whether or not you hurl inaccurate epithets into the void of the internet or scrunch your eyes up tight so you can't see what's going on around you.

Nope. I think cops are bastards. They did a thing that makes them a bastard. They stop being a bastard when they stop being a cop. They can be bastards for other reasons, but if they don't do those things they also aren't bastards.

I... Didn't take personal credit for anything, any more than I do for public schools or our road system. I'm part of the society that helped create those things, enact that change. I didn't personally do them, but I did have a hand (more like voice) in their creation.

I deny, however, any credit to the institution that is police. They did not change by choice. They routinely refuse to change by choice, it is only by our (society's, again - not me personally) hand that they ever change.

I see, so you don't consider yourself part of society.

"They can be bastards for other reasons, but if they don't do those things they also aren't bastards."

Not much of an argument, that what you do and are doesn't determine what you do or are.

"I deny, however, any credit to the institution that is police."

Good thing no one gave credit to that institution then!

"They did not change by choice."

According to you, it doesn't matter if they change by choice or not. All humans are immutably defined in perpetuity.

"They routinely refuse to change by choice"

Again, apparently choice doesn't matter in your eyes.

This whole previous comment. It's just you either agreeing with me or contradicting yourself.

But high five! I'll take it.

Not doing this anymore. You clearly only intend to twist the words I'm saying, rather than apply a bit of logic and argumentative integrity. Have a good life.

I'm using your literal quotes and then directly and succinctly pointing out their errors.

It must be difficult for you that direct analytical critique of your perspective related to the topic we are discussing confounds you so.

2 more...
2 more...

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.

PEB: Policing Enables Bastards

  1. Shorter
  2. 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.

Way to pretend I don't understand exactly what you're saying and am effectively countering your avoidance techniques so that you can avoid addressing the flaws in your arguments I pointed out and don't have to admit you don't have a leg to stand on here.

It doesn't even engage with what I said, it dismisses it out of turn.

To break it down for anyone else bothering to read this:

The natural conclusion to the points about HOAs and Gestapo is thus:

You don't have to change the police system if it doesn't exist. Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don't need, and rebuild something else in its place.

This point has been entirely ignored. I didn't think I had to spell it out entirely, but there we go. I'm done with this entirely. Good day.

I love it that you think finally explaining your actual argument is tantamount to "spelling it out".

"You don't have to change the police system if it doesn't exist".

Yeah, and if qualified immunity didn't exist then it would be easier to prosecute police officers.

Unfortunately, that dreamscape, along with your own, is currently irrelevant since qualified immunity is still a reality.

Hardly seems worth bringing up, wouldn't you agree?

So let's get to what you've been trying to say by tiptoeing around the tulips this whole time:

"Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don't need, and rebuild something else in its place."

Because we know how to fix it. Because there is evidence and historical precedent that fixing it works. Because what suggestions I have heard so far for a rebuilt law enforcement, amounts to "fixing" The system now by adding more support services and increasing regulations and training. Because tearing it down takes a lot of time, and how long do you want there to be no law enforcement? Do you do it in stages?

Because, you saccharine dreamer, fixing broken windows is a heck of a lot easier and more responsible than burning your house down and starting from scratch.

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.

Are you tired of thinking of all of the synonyms for a house that prove your first paragraph incorrect?

Our "foundational difference" relies on you actively ignoring the world around you and insisting that all humans are the same no matter what, and if they get a tattoo or hold open a door then they are no longer a human.

Not a strong or defensible foundation for your worldview.

Seems to be working out for me well. Have a good life, bud.

It's merciful that you think of your self-Imposed limitations that way, but try to bear in mind for the future that with your eyes closed, you can't really tell what's going on around you.

6 more...