3 ms·
Doctorow's arguments seems to fall into the categories of 1) police unions exist for the benefit of their members not for society at large, and 2) a list of thi
by finnthehuman 6y ago
Doctorow's arguments seems to fall into the categories of 1) police unions exist for the benefit of their members not for society at large, and 2) a list of things not to like about the police in general, not their unions.
It's a decent list if you just want to get someone hot under the collar about the police, but not for arguing that their unions are nontraditional in any sense other than the type of job their union represents.
- finnthehuman 6y agoI just see contortion to avoid admitting that it's both possible and reasonable for generally pro-union people to disagree with any specific union. That's ground he doesn't want to cede to people that might be less positive on unions overall. But it's a crazy stance to take. For any goal it's possible for a group or organization to work towards, there is going to be a non-zero number of perfectly-typical groups doing it that people don't like. There's a pizza shop downtown that I think makes retched pizza, but I also know people who think they're the best in town. Doesn't mean I go around saying they're "not a traditional pizza shop" because I'm afraid of looking anti-pizza when I say I'm not joining you for lunch if that's where you're going.
- joshribakoff 6y agoI believe a more accurate metaphor would be if the pizza shop was known for regularly stealing people’s money, or assaulting their patrons. In that case they would in fact not be a traditional pizza shop and there would be no confusion about you being anti pizza. You’re the one using contortion here in my opinion.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]