4 ms·

why do you consider "the police" a single unified group (aside from some "individual officers")? "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??)), so it seem

why do you consider "the police" a single unified group (aside from some "individual officers")? "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??)), so it seems at the very least disingenuous, but also possibly dangerous, to lump tens of thousands of people from disparate cities and counties and states into a single amorphous group, and then generate a slogan that "makes it clear you have to pick a side" on how you feel about them. has anything good come from this pattern of overgeneralizing and then generating purposefully disingenuous propagandistic terms to force people to "pick a side"?

ruined 5y ago
the police see themselves as a single unified group. this is actualized through culture (thin blue line, sheepdogs), organization (80% unionized, literally the state), and informal local agreements (gangs, corruption, coverups)
geofft 5y ago
Because every police department is organized in the same general way and has the same incentives. It's not at all about the individual officers - it's that organizing the police in this way has a corrupting influence. (Or, at best, it attracts people who wish to abuse power in various ways.) As mentioned upthread, this story of the small town that has turned into a front organization for a police force that, were they not operating under the label "police," would be a gang of highwaymen, is a pattern that repeats itself a lot! When you see something that happens repeatedly from many different individuals who all happen to be in the same circumstance, Occam's Razor demands you at least consider investigating the circumstance and not the people. There are almost certainly a large number of genuinely good and kindhearted and well-intentioned people in the employ of various police departments. They should leave their jobs, lest they stop being good and kindhearted and well-intentioned and become dangerous to society. Ideally, they would do that of their own free will; alternatively, we can defund their payroll. I have no problem with the individual former police officer merely by virtue of their former employment, and I am more than happy to judge them as an individual on their own merits.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  might it be possible that entire police/county sheriff departments are actually generally good people who don't do anything wrong? when you frame things as "'the police' are bad, except for some individuals," you are implicitly discounting this possibility, instead choosing to make broad sweeping statements about tens of thousands of people spread across millions of square miles, in wildly differing settings, with wildly differing local circumstances. (I will refrain from commenting on your last paragraph so as to not get into an ideological flamewar.)
  - geofft 5y ago
    Well, I am not actually framing things as "'the police' are bad, except for some individuals." Sorry if that was unclear. I really don't think it is either well-defined or relevant whether the individuals are "good" or "bad." As an analogy that is hopefully clear at the risk of being a little inflammatory: almost all of the 18-year-old conscripts of any random country you might be at war with have absolutely zero influence over the political direction of that country. But that doesn't change the fact that people handed them a gun and told them (even, perhaps, forced them) to shoot at you. They can be utterly kind and friendly individuals (see e.g. the World War I Christmas truce), but if they're about to shoot at you, that's a problem regardless of whether they're kind. When someone says "The XYZ army is about to invade us," it makes no sense to say "Well most of the XYZ soldiers are good people!" And no, the distinction is not whether they're actually shooting at you. If they're lined up on the border ready to invade, if they're in training camps practicing shooting, if they're not assigned to be a footsoldier but they are assigned to build infrastructure and implement logistics for the invasion, etc., they're contributing to the invasion, and you'd still say that the entire invading army needs to be stopped. Saying that most of the invading army hasn't seen active combat yet and therefore isn't personally culpable is also nonsensical. Or put another way - in gang-ridden territories or in post-war countries ruled by warlords, it's often the case that gang members or soldiers will do things to genuinely benefit the people who live there, running essential food and medicines across blockades, keeping people safe from other gangs or warlords, etc. That hardly justifies the gang or the warlord as a good government, though! Every single person who works for a police department, without exception, works for an organization that is doing bad things. If, somehow, the specific things they do as individuals are good, when they do them on behalf of the organization, it serves to increase the legitimacy of that organization to gain more power and do more bad things in the future. If they are good people who haven't incurred personal moral culpability for doing anything wrong, great! I'm not in the business of judging souls for heaven or hell. I'm in the business of having opinions, as a citizen of a republic, about how that republic should be constituted.
peterangular 5y ago
> why do you consider "the police" a single unified group Police unions are strong in this country. The police are definitely on an organized and unified front in regards to this. Saying "the police" referring to a "single unified group" is normal in every-day conversation in this country. > "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??)) We have police that are federal in this country. "Federal police officer" is an actual term. > it seems at the very least disingenuous [...] to lump [...] thousands of people [...] into a single amorphous group, and then generate a slogan that "makes it clear you have to pick a side" on how you feel about them. The police are an organized force in this country protected and backed by local and federal governments. I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group. I think we should both address the individualistic issues happening, as well as address the systemic issues that police are facing as an organized group. Also - who cares if someone picks a side? In regards to the police I have been held at gunpoint for holding my wallet up in a dark car to see if I had my bank card. They thought it was a weapon I was brandishing toward them - it was not. My point here is that if/when the police suspect you of wrongdoing they will immediately be "picking a side" so why shouldn't I be able to pick a side?
- adamrezich 5y ago
  > We have police that are federal in this country. of course we have federal officers, but "the police" are not federalized, and hopefully that distinction and the reason for making it are clear. there is a huge difference between the current state of affairs vs. a world where our nation's police force was actually federalized & centrally managed. we don't live in that world, and pretending that we do, when we don't, but we easily could, isn't a very good idea. > I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group. I never said that. where did I say that? > Also - who cares if someone picks a side? the problem isn't so much picking a side as it is in presenting any sort of political rhetoric in black-and-white, zero-or-one, left-or-right binaries—especially when distortionary, obfuscating memes/slogans are used to do so. this is literally the single biggest problem in contemporary politics. all nuanced discussion on an issue is lost when you frame things in terms of, "pick a side, you're either with us, or you're with the Nazis/etc. etc." ("well actually I take issue with this one aspect of what you're saying." "you would, Nazi! I knew you weren't really on Our Side.") overgeneralizing issues and using propagandistic slogans literally designed to inflame and polarize, specifically in order to bifurcate the perception of reality among the general populace, has yet to be proven to actually solve anything—it really just seems like it makes people feel good for joining Team A or Team B, feeling righteous about being on The Correct Side Of The Issue, and vitriolic toward The Other Side. it's a great way to lead a country into a downward spiral nosedive toward destruction, and it's been highly effective so far—maybe we should stop and take notice of this phenomenon and take steps to rectify it!

ruined 5y ago

the police see themselves as a single unified group. this is actualized through culture (thin blue line, sheepdogs), organization (80% unionized, literally the state), and informal local agreements (gangs, corruption, coverups)

geofft 5y ago

Because every police department is organized in the same general way and has the same incentives. It's not at all about the individual officers - it's that organizing the police in this way has a corrupting influence. (Or, at best, it attracts people who wish to abuse power in various ways.) As mentioned upthread, this story of the small town that has turned into a front organization for a police force that, were they not operating under the label "police," would be a gang of highwaymen, is a pattern that repeats itself a lot! When you see something that happens repeatedly from many different individuals who all happen to be in the same circumstance, Occam's Razor demands you at least consider investigating the circumstance and not the people. There are almost certainly a large number of genuinely good and kindhearted and well-intentioned people in the employ of various police departments. They should leave their jobs, lest they stop being good and kindhearted and well-intentioned and become dangerous to society. Ideally, they would do that of their own free will; alternatively, we can defund their payroll. I have no problem with the individual former police officer merely by virtue of their former employment, and I am more than happy to judge them as an individual on their own merits.

adamrezich 5y ago
might it be possible that entire police/county sheriff departments are actually generally good people who don't do anything wrong? when you frame things as "'the police' are bad, except for some individuals," you are implicitly discounting this possibility, instead choosing to make broad sweeping statements about tens of thousands of people spread across millions of square miles, in wildly differing settings, with wildly differing local circumstances. (I will refrain from commenting on your last paragraph so as to not get into an ideological flamewar.)
- geofft 5y ago
  Well, I am not actually framing things as "'the police' are bad, except for some individuals." Sorry if that was unclear. I really don't think it is either well-defined or relevant whether the individuals are "good" or "bad." As an analogy that is hopefully clear at the risk of being a little inflammatory: almost all of the 18-year-old conscripts of any random country you might be at war with have absolutely zero influence over the political direction of that country. But that doesn't change the fact that people handed them a gun and told them (even, perhaps, forced them) to shoot at you. They can be utterly kind and friendly individuals (see e.g. the World War I Christmas truce), but if they're about to shoot at you, that's a problem regardless of whether they're kind. When someone says "The XYZ army is about to invade us," it makes no sense to say "Well most of the XYZ soldiers are good people!" And no, the distinction is not whether they're actually shooting at you. If they're lined up on the border ready to invade, if they're in training camps practicing shooting, if they're not assigned to be a footsoldier but they are assigned to build infrastructure and implement logistics for the invasion, etc., they're contributing to the invasion, and you'd still say that the entire invading army needs to be stopped. Saying that most of the invading army hasn't seen active combat yet and therefore isn't personally culpable is also nonsensical. Or put another way - in gang-ridden territories or in post-war countries ruled by warlords, it's often the case that gang members or soldiers will do things to genuinely benefit the people who live there, running essential food and medicines across blockades, keeping people safe from other gangs or warlords, etc. That hardly justifies the gang or the warlord as a good government, though! Every single person who works for a police department, without exception, works for an organization that is doing bad things. If, somehow, the specific things they do as individuals are good, when they do them on behalf of the organization, it serves to increase the legitimacy of that organization to gain more power and do more bad things in the future. If they are good people who haven't incurred personal moral culpability for doing anything wrong, great! I'm not in the business of judging souls for heaven or hell. I'm in the business of having opinions, as a citizen of a republic, about how that republic should be constituted.

peterangular 5y ago

> why do you consider "the police" a single unified group Police unions are strong in this country. The police are definitely on an organized and unified front in regards to this. Saying "the police" referring to a "single unified group" is normal in every-day conversation in this country. > "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??)) We have police that are federal in this country. "Federal police officer" is an actual term. > it seems at the very least disingenuous [...] to lump [...] thousands of people [...] into a single amorphous group, and then generate a slogan that "makes it clear you have to pick a side" on how you feel about them. The police are an organized force in this country protected and backed by local and federal governments. I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group. I think we should both address the individualistic issues happening, as well as address the systemic issues that police are facing as an organized group. Also - who cares if someone picks a side? In regards to the police I have been held at gunpoint for holding my wallet up in a dark car to see if I had my bank card. They thought it was a weapon I was brandishing toward them - it was not. My point here is that if/when the police suspect you of wrongdoing they will immediately be "picking a side" so why shouldn't I be able to pick a side?

adamrezich 5y ago
> We have police that are federal in this country. of course we have federal officers, but "the police" are not federalized, and hopefully that distinction and the reason for making it are clear. there is a huge difference between the current state of affairs vs. a world where our nation's police force was actually federalized & centrally managed. we don't live in that world, and pretending that we do, when we don't, but we easily could, isn't a very good idea. > I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group. I never said that. where did I say that? > Also - who cares if someone picks a side? the problem isn't so much picking a side as it is in presenting any sort of political rhetoric in black-and-white, zero-or-one, left-or-right binaries—especially when distortionary, obfuscating memes/slogans are used to do so. this is literally the single biggest problem in contemporary politics. all nuanced discussion on an issue is lost when you frame things in terms of, "pick a side, you're either with us, or you're with the Nazis/etc. etc." ("well actually I take issue with this one aspect of what you're saying." "you would, Nazi! I knew you weren't really on Our Side.") overgeneralizing issues and using propagandistic slogans literally designed to inflame and polarize, specifically in order to bifurcate the perception of reality among the general populace, has yet to be proven to actually solve anything—it really just seems like it makes people feel good for joining Team A or Team B, feeling righteous about being on The Correct Side Of The Issue, and vitriolic toward The Other Side. it's a great way to lead a country into a downward spiral nosedive toward destruction, and it's been highly effective so far—maybe we should stop and take notice of this phenomenon and take steps to rectify it!