7 ms·
Cops are scum.
by alex_lav 3y ago
Cops are scum.
- mrangle 3y ago[flagged]
- alex_lav 3y agoTomato tomato :) I would also assert that it's in fact _worse_ to be employed to protect and serve and instead do...whatever they claim they're doing...I have no expectation any random person on the street will be safe or lawful. I pay the salaries of police in exchange for the expectation that they'll be safe and lawful. And yet, they sure aren't. So nope, I would definitely say cops are worse than criminals in this regard.
- swagasaurus-rex 3y agoThe bill in question would increase police accountability. Calling them bad names doesn’t.
- alex_lav 3y agoFalse dichotomy. I can call them bad names _and also_ demand increased accountability. Stop defending abusers.
- swagasaurus-rex 3y agoYou're actually just lumping all police into a single category of "abusers". It's similar to lumping people by their ethnicity or their religion and at its core is prejudiced. Some people love saying "All cops are bad", but that sort of rhetoric is a lie and alienates the good cops, do which exist, and whose help you ought to be enlisting. Also, calling people bad names isn't something to be proud of. Society isn't better for you doing so.
- alex_lav 3y ago> You're actually just lumping all police into a single category of "abusers". All police are either active abusers or complicit in systems that condone/absolve abuse, so yes. I know exactly what I said and why I said it. > It's similar to lumping people by their ethnicity or their religion and at its core is prejudiced. Nope. > Some people love saying "All cops are bad", I sure do. > but that sort of rhetoric is a lie Nope. > alienates the good cops See point 1. There are no "good" cops. > and whose help you ought to be enlisting When I get to choose which cop pulls me over I'll change my language. Until then, all cops are unsafe and should be treated as such. > Also, calling people bad names isn't something to be proud of Never take criticism from people you wouldn't go to for advice.
- swagasaurus-rex 3y agoYour rhetoric is hate-fueled, unconvincing and harmful to the movement
- alex_lav 3y agoDuly noted that a person on the opposite end of a debate disagrees with my position.
- swagasaurus-rex 3y agoI’ll consider it a debate when your arguments consist of more than “Nope”
- alex_lav 3y agoAh yes, if you don't read my posts I can certainly see how you might not understand my position. When you're ready, it's all still there. Until then I'll skip the rest of this interaction. Enjoy!
- swagasaurus-rex 3y ago
- swasheck 3y agoboth statements are nets cast far too broadly.
- bdcravens 3y agoThe moment a police officer breaks the law, he's a "criminal". The moment you have that third beer and drive home a bit sooner than you should, you're a "criminal". Perhaps we should get away from using "criminal" as a dehumanizing term like it's a career path, like it's an us vs them. There are indeed "career criminals", but the majority of people who have ever broken the law have the same sets of motivation and desires and choices as those who haven't.
- oglop 3y agoLol, as if the name is the problem. "but the majority of people who have ever broken the law have the same sets of motivation and desires and choices as those who haven't. " So what? What is your point here? If you break the law, you are a criminal, because that's the definition, someone that broke the law. It's not dehumanizing, it's just saying "a person that was convicted of breaking the law". Good lord, any type of statement, even about eye color, technically comes out as "us vs them". So you're point is shallow and pedantic.
- bdcravens 3y agoRevisit the original comment, saying that "criminals" are worse than cops. Surely someone who drives 61 in a 55 isn't worse than the type of cops being discussed, even though that person, by definition, is a "criminal". Even a comparison of cops and criminals is odd, since by definition, any cop can be a criminal by violating the law. The only reasonable explanation is the overloading of the word to mean something more.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhen you start judging the entire group of "criminals" is when the problems start. It does make it sound like a career path, rather than a thing that happened one time. And conviction is not needed.
- mrangle 3y agoThis is a bad reply that seeks to compare all cops, of which very few are arrest-level criminals as a percentage, to the level of the hardcore criminals that they exist to police. The answer makes no sense in the context of the statement to which I am replying nor in the context of my reply. Its a trollish answer that is seeking to argue for the sake of arguing, because we can't allow that law enforcement are are preferrable to criminals. The extremists on this forum are something else. I didn't asky you for a pedantic debate on parsing criminal value. I won't join you in not seeing it as "us vs them" because you are choosing to blend low level and high level crime into a single category. Yes, the guy who was arrested for drunk-in-public isn't "them". Yes, the person who was arrested for street robbery is "them", and who almost always has a long rap sheet. Your last phrase is indecipherable.
- ceejayoz 3y agoPerhaps our standard for cops should be somewhat higher than "not a criminal"?