4 ms·

Anothet fun fact: People have been calling police pigs since the first ones, the Bow Street Runners.

ratsmack 7y ago
Does it really help to disparage an entire group just because a small minority of said group are problematic?
ailideex 7y ago
I mean, if you think the writer should have use some derogatory term for cops maybe you should take it up with them. Still does not make what you wrote factual. > the first ones, the Bow Street Runners Incidentally this is also counter factual: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#Invention_of_%22police%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#In...
- wallace_f 7y ago
  Sort of. They were the first police force in an English speaking country afaik. Your other comments are nonsense. Something is not counterfactual just because certain phrasing offended you.
  - ailideex 7y ago
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/counterfactual https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/counterfactual > Contrary to the facts; untrue. Your claim: "the first [police were] the Bow Street Runners". Not your claim: "the first police force in an English speaking country was the Bow Street Runners" The fact: The Bow Street Runners, created in 1749, were not the first police force as there were at least one other police force before them created in 1667 by King Louis XIV in France [1][2]. Your claim is contrary to the facts. i.e. it is counter factual. Not sure what about that is unclear to you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#Invention_of_%22police%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#In... Also I would ask for a citation for your claim that the derogatory term for cops started before or with the Bow Street Runners but if we were to, colloquially speaking, face the facts, then it is not likely that you would be able to produce such a citation... you could always prove me wrong though.
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      >then it is not likely that you would be able to produce such a citation I will prove you wrong. There's a citation to this usage in the OED back to 1811 that is specifically as I stated. If you had even tried to verify what you are writing you would have found this on your own. This is also flagrantly against this board's guidelines of arguing in good faith and not wasting time with flame bait writing such nonsense. And look, if we're talking about an English word it is not unreasonable to reference the first instance of the word that language's country. But you sure did put effort in that point that technically speaking, there was an earlier police force, which also has almost no bearing on the idea that the word pig has been used to describe professional police for basically just as long as the english language would have been used to describe police.
      - ailideex 7y ago
        > People have been calling police since the first ones, the Bow Street Runners. Now: > There's a citation to this usage in the OED back to 1811 that is specifically as I stated. The Bow Street Runners were founded in 1749[1]. 1811 is after they were founded so it does not really support your original claim. Which would require the use to have been <= 1749. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Street_Runners?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Street_Runners?wprov=sfti1
  - dang 7y ago
    Your comments in this thread are breaking the site guidelines. Would you please not? We're trying for better than mutual flamewar slagging. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      Can you let me know what guideline you believe was broken?
      - dang 7y ago
        Be kind. Don't be snarky. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Does it really help to disparage an entire group just because a small minority of said group are problematic?

I mean, if you think the writer should have use some derogatory term for cops maybe you should take it up with them. Still does not make what you wrote factual. > the first ones, the Bow Street Runners Incidentally this is also counter factual: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#Invention_of_%22police%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#In...

wallace_f 7y ago
Sort of. They were the first police force in an English speaking country afaik. Your other comments are nonsense. Something is not counterfactual just because certain phrasing offended you.
- ailideex 7y ago
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/counterfactual https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/counterfactual > Contrary to the facts; untrue. Your claim: "the first [police were] the Bow Street Runners". Not your claim: "the first police force in an English speaking country was the Bow Street Runners" The fact: The Bow Street Runners, created in 1749, were not the first police force as there were at least one other police force before them created in 1667 by King Louis XIV in France [1][2]. Your claim is contrary to the facts. i.e. it is counter factual. Not sure what about that is unclear to you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#Invention_of_%22police%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice#In... Also I would ask for a citation for your claim that the derogatory term for cops started before or with the Bow Street Runners but if we were to, colloquially speaking, face the facts, then it is not likely that you would be able to produce such a citation... you could always prove me wrong though.
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    >then it is not likely that you would be able to produce such a citation I will prove you wrong. There's a citation to this usage in the OED back to 1811 that is specifically as I stated. If you had even tried to verify what you are writing you would have found this on your own. This is also flagrantly against this board's guidelines of arguing in good faith and not wasting time with flame bait writing such nonsense. And look, if we're talking about an English word it is not unreasonable to reference the first instance of the word that language's country. But you sure did put effort in that point that technically speaking, there was an earlier police force, which also has almost no bearing on the idea that the word pig has been used to describe professional police for basically just as long as the english language would have been used to describe police.
    - ailideex 7y ago
      > People have been calling police since the first ones, the Bow Street Runners. Now: > There's a citation to this usage in the OED back to 1811 that is specifically as I stated. The Bow Street Runners were founded in 1749[1]. 1811 is after they were founded so it does not really support your original claim. Which would require the use to have been <= 1749. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Street_Runners?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Street_Runners?wprov=sfti1
- dang 7y ago
  Your comments in this thread are breaking the site guidelines. Would you please not? We're trying for better than mutual flamewar slagging. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    Can you let me know what guideline you believe was broken?
    - dang 7y ago
      Be kind. Don't be snarky. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html