4 ms·

In what way is equating the actions of some police officers with all police officers different than equating the actions of some specific ethnic or religious gr

In what way is equating the actions of some police officers with all police officers different than equating the actions of some specific ethnic or religious group with all the people of that group? If it isn't okay to stereotype based on race or religious affiliation maybe we shouldn't stereotype based on profession either. Just because some group has become the whipping boy of the moment (for good reason), doesn't mean we should assume the worst of everyone in it.

echlebek 6y ago
I'll explain how, even though I suspect you didn't take the time to think about it. It's because police groups are a command and control hierarchical organization. They aren't some loose group of people that share an attribute. When police officers commit crimes, their commanding officers share the responsibility.
- kbenson 6y ago
  The implication of the original comment is that the negative influence of this small group of police officers really doesn't matter to the reputation of the police because they are "the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months", which is also applying the actions of some of that group to the group as a whole. I understand it's cathartic to have an "other" that you can focus anger on, and it's extremely beneficial for those trying to push an agenda, and the police have largely brought this upon themselves by being so insular, dysfunctional and resistant to any change, but it is an organization full of people, and I'm hesitant to apply a group stereotype to all individuals in a group, for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
stouset 6y ago
Police officers choose to be a part of that group of their own free will, for starters.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  That is also true for religious groups.
  - gruez 6y ago
    And? The catholic church is under fire for the past few decades for harboring pedophiles.
colinmhayes 6y ago
Being a cop is a choice. You can stop whenever you want. Race and to a large extent religion(lots of religions implore the congregation to shun those who leave) are not a choice.
- kbenson 6y ago
  Yes, being a cop is a choice. But not everyone becomes one for the same reason. Assuming negatives about everyone in that group is unfair and unhelpful to the people that are within it trying to actually enact change. In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers? There's plenty of jokes about lawyers, but I assume most people take those for what they are, jokes playing on stereotypes that shouldn't be applied to an individual or inform your opinion of an individual prior to evidence about them. Are you saying it's okay to immediately have an opinion about the trustworthiness or likelihood of an individual police officer just because they are a police officer? That seems to be what your comment is defending.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers? Yes, because lawyers aren't in charge of enforcing the law, and even if they weren't, there isn't some sort of "thin blue line" where they're covering for each other.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      Again, this is taking actions of a group, and some within it, and applying it to all the individuals. That your excuse for doing so is that "they are police" or "they are in charge" isn't all that convincing. Last time I checked, bigotry was bad in general, not just when applied to those without power.
      - 6y ago

echlebek 6y ago

I'll explain how, even though I suspect you didn't take the time to think about it. It's because police groups are a command and control hierarchical organization. They aren't some loose group of people that share an attribute. When police officers commit crimes, their commanding officers share the responsibility.

kbenson 6y ago
The implication of the original comment is that the negative influence of this small group of police officers really doesn't matter to the reputation of the police because they are "the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months", which is also applying the actions of some of that group to the group as a whole. I understand it's cathartic to have an "other" that you can focus anger on, and it's extremely beneficial for those trying to push an agenda, and the police have largely brought this upon themselves by being so insular, dysfunctional and resistant to any change, but it is an organization full of people, and I'm hesitant to apply a group stereotype to all individuals in a group, for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.

stouset 6y ago

Police officers choose to be a part of that group of their own free will, for starters.

zajio1am 6y ago
That is also true for religious groups.
- gruez 6y ago
  And? The catholic church is under fire for the past few decades for harboring pedophiles.

colinmhayes 6y ago

Being a cop is a choice. You can stop whenever you want. Race and to a large extent religion(lots of religions implore the congregation to shun those who leave) are not a choice.

kbenson 6y ago
Yes, being a cop is a choice. But not everyone becomes one for the same reason. Assuming negatives about everyone in that group is unfair and unhelpful to the people that are within it trying to actually enact change. In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers? There's plenty of jokes about lawyers, but I assume most people take those for what they are, jokes playing on stereotypes that shouldn't be applied to an individual or inform your opinion of an individual prior to evidence about them. Are you saying it's okay to immediately have an opinion about the trustworthiness or likelihood of an individual police officer just because they are a police officer? That seems to be what your comment is defending.
- gruez 6y ago
  >In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers? Yes, because lawyers aren't in charge of enforcing the law, and even if they weren't, there isn't some sort of "thin blue line" where they're covering for each other.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Again, this is taking actions of a group, and some within it, and applying it to all the individuals. That your excuse for doing so is that "they are police" or "they are in charge" isn't all that convincing. Last time I checked, bigotry was bad in general, not just when applied to those without power.
    - 6y ago