5 ms·

Generally agree with what you said, but "Cops are known to be abusive, violent thugs" is a terrible thing to say completely unqualified like that. If you don't

Generally agree with what you said, but "Cops are known to be abusive, violent thugs" is a terrible thing to say completely unqualified like that. If you don't understand why, consider that crime rates are known to be higher among the black population in the US but generalizing that to "black people are known to be abusive, violent thugs" would be equally wrong and hateful. You can make a point about the potential for abuse without name-calling an entire group of people like that.

93po 2y ago
this is a really poor comparison. mentioning crime rates by race is considered highly racist because it's a dog-whistle to frame it as "this person is more likely to do this because of their race" instead of framed in a socioeconomic context and the result of long-term systemic racism and oppression. cops are not a race. cops have extremely high levels of problematic behavior across all ages, races, etc. it's a good thing to call out the problematic nature of cops as a group since they have a literal monopoly on violence and are massively unaccountable for the use of that violence. the argument "you can't call black people violent, therefore you also can't call cops violent" makes absolutely no sense to me
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  There's a difference between "black people in x city are y% more likely per capita to commit violent crime" and "black people are violent thugs". One is a statistical reality that can be used in a constructive context. ("Okay, so what can we do to reduce this crime rate? Better education? Community outreach? Etc.") the other is probably just bigotry. The same goes for the difference between "Police departments in the US have y% higher rate of excessive use of force than other countries" and "police are violent thugs".
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    No you are yet again missing the point. No black person chooses to be born black. Casting judgement on any individual black person for the actions of other black people is unethical for that reason. Every single cop chose to be there, chooses to continue being a cop every day despite constant and repeated examples of blatant corruption, bad behavior, literal thuggery, planting evidence, and the Good Ol' Boys network endemic to the institution. They are culpable for that choice. Continuing to be a cop in this environment (specifically where there is zero chance to "reform it from the inside" due to structural problems). Ask any ex-cop why they left. The system is completely broken and designed to empower cops to be thugs without consequence. "Good cops" don't stay cops because they get bullied by literal cop gangs to either become a bad cop and do thuggery or to get the fuck out. There are no Good cops.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      > No black person chooses to be born black. Casting judgement on any individual black person for the actions of other black people is unethical for that reason. Casting judgement on any individual for the actions of other individuals who share characteristics with them is generally unethical, period. The individual's ability to choose the particular identifying characteristics shouldn't be relevant. I'm pretty sure you don't want to be making the argument that it's ethical to judge people based on elements of their identity, so long as those elements have been selected by that person's choice!
      - kelnos 2y ago
        > I'm pretty sure you don't want to be making the argument that it's ethical to judge people based on elements of their identity, so long as those elements have been selected by that person's choice! That's a strange argument to make. If the chosen identity element is associated with negative characteristics, then it stands to reason that it's, well, reasonable to judge them based on those characteristics. If it quacks, it's probably a duck. If it wears a police uniform it probably a) does bad stuff, b) enables cover-ups of that bad stuff, or c) lacks the courage to speak out against the bad stuff. This isn't because of their identity, it's because this is a characteristic that is widely documented to be incredibly common among cops. People can choose to not adopt identity elements that have bad reputations. People can't choose not to be black.
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        So, someone who chooses to undergo gender reassignment therapy can be judged based on the characteristics of all people who have made the same choice? Someone who chooses to wear heavy makeup and revealing clothing while standing on the street waiting for their Uber can be fairly judged to be a prostitute? I don't think this is the argument you're making, but this is how the standard you are setting can be applied. I don't think the element of choice in identity elements makes a difference either way. I think you should just avoid overgeneralizing, period. Instead of, you know, inventing reasons why is fine to overgeneralize when you want to, but not when you don't want others to. > If it wears a police uniform it probably a) does bad stuff, b) enables cover-ups of that bad stuff, or c) lacks the courage to speak out against the bad stuff. "Probably"? Based on what prevalence rate? What percentage of police officers engage in each of these behaviors? You're making a wild assumption here, likely with nothing more than your own anecdotal understanding of these issues. I think it's more likely you just have a media diet that is high in examples of these behaviors happening, but without the context that explains exactly how often they're actually happening. I'm not denying that these things happen, and happen frequently! But there are a lot of police officers in the US alone, and even 1% of them doing each of these things is a large number of absolute cases. But a rate of 1% isn't sufficient to generalize to the entire population. At a rate of 10%, I would probably still refrain from extrapolating to the whole, but would start to question individual interactions, and would start to be sympathetic to this kind of generalization. But due to the lack of evidence around prevalence of bad behavior, I'm skeptical of anyone who generalizes to this degree, especially given the poor quality of information anecdotally collected from the Internet. > People can choose to not adopt identity elements that have bad reputations. People can't choose not to be black. If people never adopt identity elements that have bad reputations, how can those reputations ever be improved? If you want the quality of policing to improve, the last thing your want to do is convince everyone who wants to make a difference that they shouldn't even try. If you want policing to improve, you should be encouraging the best people you know to join up and to force out the bad behavior through reform. People cannot choose to be black, but they can choose to make an effort to destroy the negative stereotypes associated with their race. You seem to be arguing that generalizations are always externally imposed and immutable, neither of which is true. Your argument is actively damaging to any efforts to improve the perceptions of both groups.
itishappy 2y ago
Is the phrase "cartel members are violent, abusive thugs" also equally bad in your book? Being black is not a choice...
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  Okay, so if it was "democrats are abusive violent thugs" instead of "black people" then that would be acceptable discourse?
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Switch that for "MAGA Republicans" and we might be on to something
    - Ajedi32 2y ago
      That's exactly why I didn't use Republicans as an example; because I know there's lots of people on the Democrat side who consider that perfectly acceptable rhetoric as long as it's not targeting them. I maintain that this sort of vitriolic language is unacceptable no matter what group it's targeting, unless your goal is to start a flame war (or a real war) rather than actually solve problems.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        So your position is that it's also unacceptable to say "cartel members are violent, abusive thugs"? I don't think I agree with that. I do think it's a bit strong to say police are all violent, abusive thugs. But there are many police officers who share unfortunate characteristics with violent, abusive thugs, and nearly all of their fellow supposedly-good officers are unwilling to call them out and enforce any sort of consequences for being violent, abusive thugs. That's nearly as bad, in my book. So maybe let's stop policing (heh) people's specific language, and instead talk about the actual issues.
        Ajedi32 2y ago
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Generally agree with what you said, but "Cops are known to be abusive, violent thugs" is a terrible thing to say completely unqualified like that. That's true, it should be qualified “within a subculture of violent thuggery, in organizations which lack any unifying focus other than the application of force, and which both protect them from and are themselves insulated from effective accountability for abuses.”
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  "Black people are abusive, violent thugs, within a subculture of violent thuggery, in cities which lack..." Maybe a bit better, but you're still overgeneralizing in order to demonize an entire group of people. If you want to talk about systemic issues in our policing system, then talk about those issues. Calling people groups derogatory names isn't constructive.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Cops aren't a marginalized group.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      Why is being a "marginalized group" relevant? And honestly, given the struggles police forces in the US are having with staffing, it does appear that cops are becoming increasingly marginalized. Especially since the primary driver behind the decline in recruitment seems to be the risk of social stigmatization.
      - genewitch 2y ago
        > the risk of social stigmatization. and who's fault is that?
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        > and who's fault is that? I suspect people who overgeneralize in order to demonize an entire population have a hand in this. You didn't answer my question, either.

93po 2y ago

this is a really poor comparison. mentioning crime rates by race is considered highly racist because it's a dog-whistle to frame it as "this person is more likely to do this because of their race" instead of framed in a socioeconomic context and the result of long-term systemic racism and oppression. cops are not a race. cops have extremely high levels of problematic behavior across all ages, races, etc. it's a good thing to call out the problematic nature of cops as a group since they have a literal monopoly on violence and are massively unaccountable for the use of that violence. the argument "you can't call black people violent, therefore you also can't call cops violent" makes absolutely no sense to me

Ajedi32 2y ago
There's a difference between "black people in x city are y% more likely per capita to commit violent crime" and "black people are violent thugs". One is a statistical reality that can be used in a constructive context. ("Okay, so what can we do to reduce this crime rate? Better education? Community outreach? Etc.") the other is probably just bigotry. The same goes for the difference between "Police departments in the US have y% higher rate of excessive use of force than other countries" and "police are violent thugs".
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  No you are yet again missing the point. No black person chooses to be born black. Casting judgement on any individual black person for the actions of other black people is unethical for that reason. Every single cop chose to be there, chooses to continue being a cop every day despite constant and repeated examples of blatant corruption, bad behavior, literal thuggery, planting evidence, and the Good Ol' Boys network endemic to the institution. They are culpable for that choice. Continuing to be a cop in this environment (specifically where there is zero chance to "reform it from the inside" due to structural problems). Ask any ex-cop why they left. The system is completely broken and designed to empower cops to be thugs without consequence. "Good cops" don't stay cops because they get bullied by literal cop gangs to either become a bad cop and do thuggery or to get the fuck out. There are no Good cops.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    > No black person chooses to be born black. Casting judgement on any individual black person for the actions of other black people is unethical for that reason. Casting judgement on any individual for the actions of other individuals who share characteristics with them is generally unethical, period. The individual's ability to choose the particular identifying characteristics shouldn't be relevant. I'm pretty sure you don't want to be making the argument that it's ethical to judge people based on elements of their identity, so long as those elements have been selected by that person's choice!
    - kelnos 2y ago
      > I'm pretty sure you don't want to be making the argument that it's ethical to judge people based on elements of their identity, so long as those elements have been selected by that person's choice! That's a strange argument to make. If the chosen identity element is associated with negative characteristics, then it stands to reason that it's, well, reasonable to judge them based on those characteristics. If it quacks, it's probably a duck. If it wears a police uniform it probably a) does bad stuff, b) enables cover-ups of that bad stuff, or c) lacks the courage to speak out against the bad stuff. This isn't because of their identity, it's because this is a characteristic that is widely documented to be incredibly common among cops. People can choose to not adopt identity elements that have bad reputations. People can't choose not to be black.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        So, someone who chooses to undergo gender reassignment therapy can be judged based on the characteristics of all people who have made the same choice? Someone who chooses to wear heavy makeup and revealing clothing while standing on the street waiting for their Uber can be fairly judged to be a prostitute? I don't think this is the argument you're making, but this is how the standard you are setting can be applied. I don't think the element of choice in identity elements makes a difference either way. I think you should just avoid overgeneralizing, period. Instead of, you know, inventing reasons why is fine to overgeneralize when you want to, but not when you don't want others to. > If it wears a police uniform it probably a) does bad stuff, b) enables cover-ups of that bad stuff, or c) lacks the courage to speak out against the bad stuff. "Probably"? Based on what prevalence rate? What percentage of police officers engage in each of these behaviors? You're making a wild assumption here, likely with nothing more than your own anecdotal understanding of these issues. I think it's more likely you just have a media diet that is high in examples of these behaviors happening, but without the context that explains exactly how often they're actually happening. I'm not denying that these things happen, and happen frequently! But there are a lot of police officers in the US alone, and even 1% of them doing each of these things is a large number of absolute cases. But a rate of 1% isn't sufficient to generalize to the entire population. At a rate of 10%, I would probably still refrain from extrapolating to the whole, but would start to question individual interactions, and would start to be sympathetic to this kind of generalization. But due to the lack of evidence around prevalence of bad behavior, I'm skeptical of anyone who generalizes to this degree, especially given the poor quality of information anecdotally collected from the Internet. > People can choose to not adopt identity elements that have bad reputations. People can't choose not to be black. If people never adopt identity elements that have bad reputations, how can those reputations ever be improved? If you want the quality of policing to improve, the last thing your want to do is convince everyone who wants to make a difference that they shouldn't even try. If you want policing to improve, you should be encouraging the best people you know to join up and to force out the bad behavior through reform. People cannot choose to be black, but they can choose to make an effort to destroy the negative stereotypes associated with their race. You seem to be arguing that generalizations are always externally imposed and immutable, neither of which is true. Your argument is actively damaging to any efforts to improve the perceptions of both groups.

itishappy 2y ago

Is the phrase "cartel members are violent, abusive thugs" also equally bad in your book? Being black is not a choice...

Ajedi32 2y ago
Okay, so if it was "democrats are abusive violent thugs" instead of "black people" then that would be acceptable discourse?
- genewitch 2y ago
  Switch that for "MAGA Republicans" and we might be on to something
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    That's exactly why I didn't use Republicans as an example; because I know there's lots of people on the Democrat side who consider that perfectly acceptable rhetoric as long as it's not targeting them. I maintain that this sort of vitriolic language is unacceptable no matter what group it's targeting, unless your goal is to start a flame war (or a real war) rather than actually solve problems.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      So your position is that it's also unacceptable to say "cartel members are violent, abusive thugs"? I don't think I agree with that. I do think it's a bit strong to say police are all violent, abusive thugs. But there are many police officers who share unfortunate characteristics with violent, abusive thugs, and nearly all of their fellow supposedly-good officers are unwilling to call them out and enforce any sort of consequences for being violent, abusive thugs. That's nearly as bad, in my book. So maybe let's stop policing (heh) people's specific language, and instead talk about the actual issues.
      - Ajedi32 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Generally agree with what you said, but "Cops are known to be abusive, violent thugs" is a terrible thing to say completely unqualified like that. That's true, it should be qualified “within a subculture of violent thuggery, in organizations which lack any unifying focus other than the application of force, and which both protect them from and are themselves insulated from effective accountability for abuses.”

Ajedi32 2y ago
"Black people are abusive, violent thugs, within a subculture of violent thuggery, in cities which lack..." Maybe a bit better, but you're still overgeneralizing in order to demonize an entire group of people. If you want to talk about systemic issues in our policing system, then talk about those issues. Calling people groups derogatory names isn't constructive.
- genewitch 2y ago
  Cops aren't a marginalized group.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    Why is being a "marginalized group" relevant? And honestly, given the struggles police forces in the US are having with staffing, it does appear that cops are becoming increasingly marginalized. Especially since the primary driver behind the decline in recruitment seems to be the risk of social stigmatization.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      > the risk of social stigmatization. and who's fault is that?
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        > and who's fault is that? I suspect people who overgeneralize in order to demonize an entire population have a hand in this. You didn't answer my question, either.