3 ms·
B and C probably both fit - police aren't inherently a net bad, but the policing system in america produces too many bad outcomes to lend blanket support to; it
by designdesign 6y ago
B and C probably both fit - police aren't inherently a net bad, but the policing system in america produces too many bad outcomes to lend blanket support to; it's arguably unethical to profit from such a problematic body of work.
- jeffdavis 6y agoThis is what I don't get: saying they are theoretically good but problematic (without necessarily saying "police are a net bad"), and then saying it's unethical to do business with them for routine products. If there is logic there, it's very subtle and I'm not getting it. Can you elaborate or compare it to a precedent?
- designdesign 6y agoThe logic is that you don't have to do business with organizations you don't like (outside of some very specific situations). If you think police need reform and cause harm, then ethically you get to decide for yourself if you're ok with exchanging services with them despite the issues.
- smileysteve 6y agoThis reasoning seems much like Communism vs communism; communism, as a concept seems fair and just. Communism in practice by Russia or China has often benefitted a few. police, as a concept of investigating and providing justice for crimes is a good thing; American Police, however, are showing fundamental misunderstandings of the rights of citizens and have seen reduced repercussions because of things like qualified immunity, asset forfeiture, or biases. Another example of an attorney representing the people, is a good thing; but in US law (as opposed to European law) the DA sometimes seeks a conviction EVEN IF the DA has found exculpatory evidence (and doesn't have to share that evidence with the charged or their attorney)