7 ms·

> It is not just Baltimore cops. It is cops. They will shoot you in the face in front of your infant daughter. They will choke you to sleep for selling cigarett

• sho 9y ago
  > This is the tone and conclusion of this "article" Why on earth did you put "article" in quotes. Are you questioning whether it is, in fact, an article? Because that seems quite self-evident. You might disagree with it but be assured TFA is, in fact, an article and putting the word in quotes just makes it look like you don't know what quotes are for. Hint: quoting.
  • chatmasta 9y ago
    The term “article” used to refer to a piece published in a newspaper or periodical that went through a thorough drafting, editing and review process before publish. Nowadays anyone can post an article on the internet. That’s great. But because of this, the definition of “article” has become basically meaningless. An article could be entirely fact based, full of falsehoods, or misrepresent facts by mixing them with opinions. There really should be a distinction between different levels of reporting. Most of the problems cropping up these past two years can be traced to the fact that people put the same credibility in a piece by some random person on the internet as they do in one by a career journalist.
    • Judgmentality 9y ago
      > Most of the problems cropping up these past two years can be traced to the fact that people put the same credibility in a piece by some random person on the internet as they do in one by a career journalist. Citation needed.
      • chatmasta 9y ago
        For which part? Have you missed the whole “fake news” fiasco? People will upvote and share any article that reinforces their existing beliefs and world view. Rather than approaching articles with a healthy skepticism and critical thinking, many people are consuming content based on what “team” the author seems to be advocating for. Instead of asking questions like, “what is the author’s agenda?” or “does this author have a track record of reliability?”, people are asking “does this author believe the same things I do?” If the answer to that is “yes,” then not even a follow-up article from a Pulitzer Prize winner will be sufficient to discredit it for many people.
        • fao_ 9y ago
          > People will upvote and share any article that reinforces their existing beliefs and world view. People do that with accredited news already. For example, in communist circles there is some groups that believe that no matter what, everything that Stalin did was justified. They will bring up no amount of obscure scholars, and disregard large amounts of citations from modern scholars and new evidence to protect this world view. The same goes for any world view. Look at all the people hoping against all evidence that bitcoin is a fad. Ultimately, people will do this no matter what quality of the evidence presented is (aside from one or two people who decide that they like X news source, there is a chance they will reverse with a citation from that news source, but no other, even if the quality of the evidence is the same). 'Fake news' existed long before it came to that name.
          • Density 9y ago
            Are... tankies and bit coin bubble realists on the same page to you?
            • fao_ 9y ago
              Typo. I meant the people hoping that bitcoin isn't a fad, against all evidence to the contrary.
        • titanix2 9y ago
    • minxomat 9y ago
      I changed it now. But wow, that was quite the reaction. Your interpretation is correct and at least in my cultural circle, quotes around nouns serve as a way to express the lacking quality of the thing. Ie. this is a rant pretending to be a news piece. But that's just my opinion. Equally IMO, the actual source is more important than an opinion on the source.
      • sho 9y ago
        The use of quotes to question the authenticity or true nature of something is accepted in English. You could have said "journalism" and I wouldn't have jumped on you. On "article" though it's inappropriate. The other comment notwithstanding, an article is an article, no matter if it's written by a journalist, an amateur, or a monkey banging its head on a keyboard. There is zero credibility implied by the word. Example: > The "food" from that restaurant was awful Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning that what you received was food at all. > The food from that "restaurant" was awful Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is a restaurant (ie, a place that dispenses food, with no consideration of quality implied). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided.
        • cjrp 9y ago
          Isn't something being food (edible, contains sustenance) also a fact?
          • sho 9y ago
            Yes, but the fact is that there is that alternate state (inedible, not-food) that it can at least be compared to, and humorously categorised as. An article is an article is an article. What is it if it's not an article? Imaginary? It just doesn't work.
        • irishsultan 9y ago
          Food is food, with no consideration of quality implied, so that doesn't quite work as an explanation of why it would be right around food, but not around restaurant.
    • anon1385 9y ago
      Can you point to some of the things in this article which are "falsehoods, or misrepresent facts"? Some of the worst and most inaccurate articles I've ever seen have been written by career journalists. (Admittedly I live in the UK where the majority of newspapers are on a par with Infowars for honesty and fact checking. Maybe you live somewhere where professional journalism is more respectable).
      • chatmasta 9y ago
        See the referenced quote that started this sub thread for example: > It is not just Baltimore cops. It is cops. They will shoot you in the face in front of your infant daughter. They will choke you to sleep for selling cigarettes. They will shoot you in the back for walking away. This is drawing a false equivalence by assuming the actions of a subgroup represent the group as a whole. It’s no different than citing a few brutal murders from black people and then concluding with “this is black people. They will murder your children...” No editor would ever allow a line like that to make it to publication. It’s needlessly provocative language that reveals the author’s bias and reduces the credibility of what might otherwise be a decent piece of writing.
        • OldGuuuuy 9y ago
          Black people do not cooperate in a group the way police officers do. Claiming so would be a conspiracy theory. Police a paid from the same bank account, work in the same house, are hired by the same organization, wear the same uniform and have the same training. So there is a difference between claiming "blacks do this" vs. "cops do this". Also the paragraph before the quote was conveniently left out "Or maybe Baltimore is indicative of police departments all over the country. Maybe they’re like the one in Cleveland, which hired the cop who killed Tamir Rice after he was fired by another police department. Or like the South Carolina state trooper who said he shot a man because he was moving erratically while reaching for his wallet. Or when a paid police informant planted cocaine in a store owner’s shop."
        • anon1385 9y ago
          >No editor would ever allow a line like that to make it to publication. I'm sorry, but have you ever read an actual newspaper other than the New York Times? That kind of thing makes it into newspapers with editors all the time. Hell, a lot of the time it's the editors writing it! [1] [1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/aishagani/muslim-and-jewish-groups-complain-ipso https://www.buzzfeed.com/aishagani/muslim-and-jewish-groups-... to pick one of the more high profile recent examples from the UKs biggest selling newspaper, in a column written by a former editor
  • Chazprime 9y ago
    If it’s a Gawker-associated publication, isn’t there always a question of validity?
  • weberc2 9y ago
    Presumably to highlight the difference between real journalism and this glorified blog post. He used the quotes correctly.
• Vosporos 9y ago
  "And they will get away with it so often that we are shocked when they are indicted." You forgot that.
• pornel 9y ago
  The article is about people literally trying to get away with murder. The last two sentences are references to well-documented cases of police officers killing non-dangerous citizens. There's no reason to be polite about this.
  • ckastner 9y ago
    The article is about a sub-group of these people, but the tone to me as well was one of sweeping generalizations. Edit (instead of replying to all of the individual replies): I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are systemic problems in police forces worldwide, just like there are systemic problems in any large organization, especially one endowed which so much executive power. However, any argument that paints a picture of "uniform equals bad" is, in my opinion, not only delusional, but is also a severe injustice to the good apples in public service, that is: in service to the public.
    • OldGuuuuy 9y ago
      Ahh the bad apple defence.
    • mikepurvis 9y ago
      Any member of the force, its leadership, or the surrounding politicians who is not 100% supporting the investigation and calling for heads to roll, is complicit. If that's a large enough group, then a sweeping generalization is absolutely warranted. "Bad apple" arguments only work if there's actual evidence of "good apples" working to expel the bad ones.
      • weberc2 9y ago
        There's no evidence that even 1% of all police are complicit. What is your standard for "large enough"?
        • mikepurvis 9y ago
          Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit officers standing with victims, insisting on justice for those guilty? Because that's the standard I'm calling for.
• talldan 9y ago
  The author is citing real events. When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? An individual police officer represents the entire force. They wear the colours and the badge as a representative of the whole establishment. Would you call the police if you knew there were such troubling corruption issues? It would definitely make me think twice - you just don't know which officer will turn up. Zero tolerance is the only way forwards when it comes to this, otherwise the few destroy trust for the masses.
  • weberc2 9y ago
    > When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? Yes. Of course it matters.
    • talldan 9y ago
      And what's your argument?
      • weberc2 9y ago
        Generalizing a huge population on the basis of a tiny, curated group invites bad policy and general ignorance.
        • talldan 9y ago
          I agree with that. There are always shades of grey to every argument. However the point that I'm trying to make (maybe badly) is that the Police are different to most other organisations. They're probably closest to healthcare in that the population, or maybe even distinct communities of a country needs to be able to trust the entire police force has its interest at heart. From an outside perspective, this is failing in a bad way in the US. It is more than likely the actions of a few that is causing it. That failure has bad repercussions, things get worse because people start taking justice into their own hands ... it leads to riots, clashes and worse. That's why you can never tolerate any corruption in a justice system. I've witnessed first hands the riots here in London that resulted from questionable Police actions (we still don't know the full story of those events). It feels like society is crumbling when things get that bad.