7 ms·
Irony if this was done for political reasons that it was by law enforcement who have a strong union.
by adrr 6y ago
Irony if this was done for political reasons that it was by law enforcement who have a strong union.
- brendawalsh 6y agoDifferent union.
- riffic 6y agoNot ironic. Police unions are fundamentally different than other labor unions. This might spell it out for you: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-to-know-police-unions-labor-movement https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-to-know-police-unions-l...
- cardamomo 6y agoThank you for sharing this. I learned a lot about police unions' tactics from this article.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- angry_octet 6y agoI love that this is in Teen Vogue. It used to be that you'd only see this in Socialist Worker Daily or something.
- riffic 6y agoThe fact that it's Teen Vogue is 100% why I chose to link this and not any other article I could Google about cop unions.
- angry_octet 6y agoWhat I find most encouraging is that they wouldn't be printing it if there wasn't a receptive audience.
- camelite 6y agoLess than 4% of Teen Vogue's readership comes from actual teenagers.
- camelite 6y agoLess than 4% of Teen Vogue's readership comes from actual teenagers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kortilla 6y agoTeenage targeted publications are actually pretty common ground for extremist viewpoints. It’s an audience pretty receptive to new ideas. Not having “adult responsibilities” nor having to really be a functioning member of society in general makes Marxism, Ayn Rand Capitalism, etc all pretty palatable and reasonable ideas (albeit normally to different cliques).
- angry_octet 6y agoFox and old white man media generally seems chock full of extremist propaganda and to have a throughly receptive audience. Frankly I think you're reguritating a Fox talking point.
- redis_mlc 6y agoWhat the GP meant was that homeowners generally don't protest in the streets because they have too much to lose. It doesn't cost a homeowner anything to watch Fox news, regardless of how extreme it is (or isn't these days.) Although ironically it's the left's identity politics that is subverting Western Civilization. Also ironic is that while BLM protests brought attention to police officer abuse, the issue is with police union power. In a previous HN post I explained why that's unlikely to be fixed because of how the power structure between DA's and police unions is constructed.
- kortilla 6y agoCalling Ayn Rand Capitalism extremist is a Fox talking point now? Isn’t that channel usually associated with right wing extremism? Is it possible that you didn’t understand the point I was making and you retreated into a political tribe reaction?
- angry_octet 6y agoYou should re-parse that sentence, because you're misrepresenting what I wrote.
- 6y ago
- Gibbon1 6y agoFor 70 years all this stuff was deliberately suppressed. But of late the corruption and raw incompetence has become too much.
- ahelwer 6y agoNot ironic at all. Police are the agents of capital and their union is thus in service of capital, not labor. They are conspicuously the only union which isn't protested very much by the powers that be. The union protects police from retribution by the people against whom they mete out punishment, who are essentially never capitalists. To put it another way, there is zero solidarity between police unions and unions of other types. IWW does not allow police (or prison guards) into its organization.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoPolice are agents of the state and the state serves nothing but itself.
- _nalply 6y agoThe state serves entities in power, not itself. To give an example: In Switzerland being a direct democracy many people would say that the state serves the people who vote, but I know someone who says that Switzerland is in reality a plutocracy, so in this case the state would serve the one percent.
- bobthechef 6y agoWell, there’s whom the state is supposed to serve and there’s whom they actually do serve. Any state that serves anything but the common good is a tyranny by definition. The US and most countries are globalist oligarchies and so you might say that the state is serving capital in our day and age. However, there is variation in the degree of oligarchic capture of the state and while it is good to reduce this capture, I am not sure I can name a single state in history that wasn’t a tyranny to one degree of another in practice (again, matters of degree). A good way of limiting the totalizing control of oligarchs is through a subsidiarian dispersal of political power. But direct democracy and mob rule are perhaps the worst options. It’s also an illusion because the mob is always just an instrument of power (communists for example mobilized the mobs by whipping jealousy). I think the best attitude is one which presumes that corruption is an inevitable and endemic feature of all human societies and that while we can deal with some or much of it in small ways as these things occur, there is no solution. The belief in a solution ultimately leads to far worse things. Don’t immanentize the eschaton.
- alexashka 6y agoMost people are driven by zero-sum power games, not philosophy and rationality. To maintain a 'strong union', you gotta do do some dirty work every now and again. Cost of doing business, nothing personal, doing it for the mortgage, etc. Not that different from most people here who study leet code to get a job and put up with open offices instead of lifting a finger to organize and end this insanity. Anytime there's discussion of how to make even more money by investing, these forums are ablaze with knowledgable advice. Anytime its time to lift a finger collectively, it's crickets, empty moralizing or strawman defense of the indefensible aka 'don't like it, go somewhere else'.