9 ms·

This is about accountability, not right vs wrong. The courts can decide that (in theory, anyway).

by Judgmentality 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
Does accountability mean retaliation to you?
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  I already made it clear it's about greater transparency so people can be held accountable by the courts. Whether or not the court system is about retaliation is a completely separate debate. I'm exiting this thread as you've shown no interest in listening to anyone that has disagreed with you.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Exit whenever you like. This is not about ‘disagreement’, it’s about understanding distinctions. Doxxing doesn’t equate to transparency or holding people accountable in court, and it certainly can mean retaliation. That brings us back to my original point - if you believe in accountability you don’t necessarily believe in doxxing cops. It’s not that clean.
    - MegaButts 6y ago
      So you believe the police should police themselves? Honestly I'd prefer vigilante justice over that. Dox the cops, 100%. I'd rather a cop be hurt unfairly in the line of duty than a protester fighting for what he believes in. This country was founded on overthrowing tyrrany. If the cops don't accept the risks of the job then they can quit. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, not lower or even equal. The government (and police) should fear the people, not the other way around. So no. It is that clean.
      - zepto 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862215 Nobody said anything about the police policing themselves. That doesn’t mean the only alternative is doxxing. That is a false dichotomy. It’s only ‘clean’ if you can only see two options, and think there are no alternatives.
        MegaButts 6y ago
        The police need to be held accountable, full stop. The police need to be held to a higher standard than the people, full stop. Even if that means an angry mob it's still preferable to no accountability. It's clean because the police should be held to higher standards than the public, and they can quit if they don't want that responsibility.
        zepto 6y ago
        Again, a false dichotomy. Now it’s “angry mob” vs “no police accountability”. Nobody else is talking about either of these.
        MegaButts 6y ago
        You're right - it's just you baiting people into this false dichotomy to make it seem like people are anti-police. I was just calling your bluff. I'll take an angry mob over lack of police accountability, and the police cannot police themselves so the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers. I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob. Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
        zepto 6y ago
        I’m not baiting people into anything, and you aren’t calling any bluff. You are free to engage in this dialog without using false dichotomies if you choose. As to making people “seem like they are anti-police”, why would I need to do that? I don’t think people have a problem with being seen as anti-police. Is there something wrong with being anti-police? It seems like an entirely valid position to hold. Being anti-police as an institution doesn’t automatically mean being in favor of mob violence against individuals. You can be strongly against a structure, without hating the individuals who occupy the role. It is possible to want to hold the police accountable without believing that the only way to do this is to dehumanize them, or to doxx them. All you have done here is double down on an extremist position. “The police” is a very large and diverse group of people. You have said you feel no remorse for anything that happens to them. You have said that you are willing to completely dehumanize all police, and support violence of any kind against all of them and the killing of innocent people in the name of your cause, which is an unspecified ‘accountability’. You are therefore a politically violent extremist, or at the very least someone who supports politically violent extremism if such a distinction can be made.

This is about accountability, not right vs wrong. The courts can decide that (in theory, anyway).

zepto 6y ago

Does accountability mean retaliation to you?

Judgmentality 6y ago
I already made it clear it's about greater transparency so people can be held accountable by the courts. Whether or not the court system is about retaliation is a completely separate debate. I'm exiting this thread as you've shown no interest in listening to anyone that has disagreed with you.
- zepto 6y ago
  Exit whenever you like. This is not about ‘disagreement’, it’s about understanding distinctions. Doxxing doesn’t equate to transparency or holding people accountable in court, and it certainly can mean retaliation. That brings us back to my original point - if you believe in accountability you don’t necessarily believe in doxxing cops. It’s not that clean.
  - MegaButts 6y ago
    So you believe the police should police themselves? Honestly I'd prefer vigilante justice over that. Dox the cops, 100%. I'd rather a cop be hurt unfairly in the line of duty than a protester fighting for what he believes in. This country was founded on overthrowing tyrrany. If the cops don't accept the risks of the job then they can quit. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, not lower or even equal. The government (and police) should fear the people, not the other way around. So no. It is that clean.
    - zepto 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862215 Nobody said anything about the police policing themselves. That doesn’t mean the only alternative is doxxing. That is a false dichotomy. It’s only ‘clean’ if you can only see two options, and think there are no alternatives.
      - MegaButts 6y ago
        The police need to be held accountable, full stop. The police need to be held to a higher standard than the people, full stop. Even if that means an angry mob it's still preferable to no accountability. It's clean because the police should be held to higher standards than the public, and they can quit if they don't want that responsibility.
        zepto 6y ago
        Again, a false dichotomy. Now it’s “angry mob” vs “no police accountability”. Nobody else is talking about either of these.
        MegaButts 6y ago
        You're right - it's just you baiting people into this false dichotomy to make it seem like people are anti-police. I was just calling your bluff. I'll take an angry mob over lack of police accountability, and the police cannot police themselves so the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers. I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob. Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
        zepto 6y ago
        I’m not baiting people into anything, and you aren’t calling any bluff. You are free to engage in this dialog without using false dichotomies if you choose. As to making people “seem like they are anti-police”, why would I need to do that? I don’t think people have a problem with being seen as anti-police. Is there something wrong with being anti-police? It seems like an entirely valid position to hold. Being anti-police as an institution doesn’t automatically mean being in favor of mob violence against individuals. You can be strongly against a structure, without hating the individuals who occupy the role. It is possible to want to hold the police accountable without believing that the only way to do this is to dehumanize them, or to doxx them. All you have done here is double down on an extremist position. “The police” is a very large and diverse group of people. You have said you feel no remorse for anything that happens to them. You have said that you are willing to completely dehumanize all police, and support violence of any kind against all of them and the killing of innocent people in the name of your cause, which is an unspecified ‘accountability’. You are therefore a politically violent extremist, or at the very least someone who supports politically violent extremism if such a distinction can be made.