5 ms·

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

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.
    - MegaButts 6y ago
      Whatever you say dude. You're obviously trying to label everyone that disagrees with you as a violent extremist - you end every one of your comments like that. I don't know why you'd do that and I don't care it's just obvious and that's why everyone is downvoting you.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I’m labelling you a violent extremist, because you said you don’t care if innocent people die as a result of your cause. I’m not sure why you think I’m labeling anyone else. Can you find one other comment where I have labeled anyone anything? It should be very easy if I end every one of my comments like that. Nobody else here has said they don’t care about innocent people dying. That is only you.
        MegaButts 6y ago
        Again, you're clearly baiting. I said I don't care about police dying, not people. The police can quit whenever they want. You keep twisting what people say only to respond with gotchas and try to wear down your opponents.
        zepto 6y ago
        There is no twisting going on here. No gotchas. You are saying that you don’t care about police dying. I could point out that police are people, so what you are doing here is to dehumanize anyone who you consider to be police. However, I accept that you wouldn’t recognize that argument, because you then go on to say, that they can quit whenever they want. I.e. they can avoid being killed by simply making the choice not to be Police. This is the very definition of political violence - threatening the lives of people who support institutions you don’t like.
        MegaButts 6y ago
        Again with the twisting of words. I'm not threatening anyone or advocating for violence, I'm saying I choose the people over the police.

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.
  - MegaButts 6y ago
    Whatever you say dude. You're obviously trying to label everyone that disagrees with you as a violent extremist - you end every one of your comments like that. I don't know why you'd do that and I don't care it's just obvious and that's why everyone is downvoting you.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I’m labelling you a violent extremist, because you said you don’t care if innocent people die as a result of your cause. I’m not sure why you think I’m labeling anyone else. Can you find one other comment where I have labeled anyone anything? It should be very easy if I end every one of my comments like that. Nobody else here has said they don’t care about innocent people dying. That is only you.
      - MegaButts 6y ago
        Again, you're clearly baiting. I said I don't care about police dying, not people. The police can quit whenever they want. You keep twisting what people say only to respond with gotchas and try to wear down your opponents.
        zepto 6y ago
        There is no twisting going on here. No gotchas. You are saying that you don’t care about police dying. I could point out that police are people, so what you are doing here is to dehumanize anyone who you consider to be police. However, I accept that you wouldn’t recognize that argument, because you then go on to say, that they can quit whenever they want. I.e. they can avoid being killed by simply making the choice not to be Police. This is the very definition of political violence - threatening the lives of people who support institutions you don’t like.
        MegaButts 6y ago
        Again with the twisting of words. I'm not threatening anyone or advocating for violence, I'm saying I choose the people over the police.