4 ms·

I think that the time may come in the near future where "proper" white collar Americans will have an obligation to flagrantly violate new laws and be arrested o

I think that the time may come in the near future where "proper" white collar Americans will have an obligation to flagrantly violate new laws and be arrested on purpose in order to create a critical mass of people who both have experienced the excesses of the regime and also are motivated enough to do something about it. This would have to be paired with colossally well-funded lawsuits, as during the Civil Rights movement. Closely related to this, I have been continually frustrated with the insistence of the left wing that it borders on immoral to take a job as a soldier, police officer, prison guard, or bailiff, and that there's no reason to raise any of their pay. That leaves the various armed forces around the country staffed with individuals who feel very little opposition to rote authoritarianism, corruption, and rule-by-force. There are relatively few individuals working in day-to-day policing or intelligence work that spend a lot of time thinking about the duty of agents of the state to follow its laws.

cess11 1y ago
[flagged]
- gruez 1y ago
  >And yes, it's immoral to become a cop Absolute wild take. Do you think every police department in the US oppresses minorities and infringes on civil rights or something? >just as it was immoral to become a european camp guard in the forties Even for the Allies? Given the prior sentence, I can't tell whether you're trying to allude to Nazi concentration camp guards, or actually think all camp guards are immoral.
  - quacked 1y ago
    > Do you think every police department in the US oppresses minorities and infringes on civil rights or something? There are some people who not only believe this but can make very compelling cases that this is the case. It's a dead-end rhetorical argument; yes, it is actually possible for literally every precinct in the US to violate people's civil rights. The difference is that some people, like (I suspect) the person you're responding to, seem to think that the position itself--armed law enforcement officer--is archetypically immoral and should not exist as a function or profession in a civilization. This is naive to to the point of absurdity and underwrites most of the idiocy that's widely abound in anti-policing movements. In one breath they claim that "police" are as a class immoral, and in the next they proclaim that their political opponents must be "brought to justice" by armed people following a set of written laws. It's absurd!
    - cess11 1y ago
      That strawman isn't particularly pretty, maybe you could put some effort in next time you make one? To me civilisation isn't an inherently good term, and I'm not a believer in natural or god given hierarchies, or even the state as necessary. On the contrary, I consider the state to be a crime in itself, founded on the threat of violence and by necessity it destroys cooperative forms of social life as a survival tactic.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >To me civilisation isn't an inherently good term, and I'm not a believer in natural or god given hierarchies, or even the state as necessary. You're right. The universe doesn't need us to be living in cities, with indoor plumbing, modern medical care, and iPads, but most people would prefer that to living in the savannah without any of that and a life expectancy of 30 years. >by necessity it destroys cooperative forms of social life as a survival tactic. ???
        cess11 1y ago
        Who taught you to believe in this false dichotomy?
      - quacked 1y ago
        Using your principles, the only societies possible are pre-industrial, pre-legal societies residing in areas not desired by neighboring states or bands of raiding warriors.
  - cess11 1y ago
    "Absolute wild take. Do you think every police department in the US oppresses minorities and infringes on civil rights or something?" Yes. There is some variation but cops as an institution generally grew out of previous phenomena like state employed executioners and anti-union militias, and its purpose is to protect capital owners from the threat of popular mobilisation against injustice and inequality. Functions like sometimes acting against entrism in the state or integration with insurance industry are kind of bolted on. "Even for the Allies? Given the prior sentence, I can't tell whether you're trying to allude to Nazi concentration camp guards, or actually think all camp guards are immoral." Yeah, sure, forced labour camps aren't a nice thing and you aren't a nice person if you participate in enabling them, even if they're populated with germans or gays or whatever.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Yes. There is some variation but cops as an institution generally grew out of previous phenomena like state employed executioners and anti-union militias, It really isn't, unless you're willing to ignore all the origins of policing prior to the founding of the US. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol... Moreover the idea that some institution "grew out of" something shameful, and therefore it's irredeemable to this day is absurd. The Nazis created the autobahn, and even though it's pretty benign today, at least part of the motivation for creating it was for military conquest. Does that mean it's immoral to be an autobahn maintenance worker, or that the institution is irredeemably evil today? > and its purpose is to protect capital owners from the threat of popular mobilisation against injustice and inequality. It seems to be doing a pretty poor job at that, given how stores and even trains can be looted with impunity. Moreover how do you objectively define what a "purpose" of an institution is? Some right-wingers might say the "purpose" of the education system is to indoctrinate kids with liberal ideology or whatever. What makes that your claim about cops more valid than right winger's claim about the education system? >Yeah, sure, forced labour camps aren't a nice thing and you aren't a nice person if you participate in enabling them, even if they're populated with germans or gays or whatever. No, you said "camps". Now you're trying to pull a motte and bailey and retreating to "forced labour camps". I don't see the problem with POW camps that abides by international law, for instance. Being confined to a POW camp isn't anyone's idea of a good time, but war is hell, and there's far worse things that can happen.
try_the_bass 1y ago
> Closely related to this, I have been continually frustrated with the insistence of the left wing that it borders on immoral to take a job as a soldier, police officer, prison guard, or bailiff, and that there's no reason to raise any of their pay. I've been thinking a lot about this same thing. I've seen a marked rise in the number of complaints about how "everyone in law enforcement is MAGA" and the like, and can't help but think: "this is what you wanted, right?" There have been a lot of people trying really hard to make law enforcement (and adjacent roles) entirely unpalatable, and it appears they've been largely successful! I think what they failed to take into account is that they were only making those roles unpalatable tothose who already think like them in other ways, and forgot that there are a lot of people out there with fundamentally different beliefs who are not dissuaded by ACAB-adjacent arguments. Or, worse yet, are actively attracted to the way the role is being portrayed! So in the end, it seems like they achieved their goals, but perhaps overlooked how those goals might have some unintended consequences. I never really understood the argument, either. If you think policing is rife with prejudice and abuse of power, why are you trying to demonize the whole job? Why wouldn't you be signing up for it, instead? After all, if you think it's being done wrong, the best way to right that wrong is by doing it yourself and setting a better example. I think the fact that people prefer to publicly demonize an entire thing, instead of doing the hard work of making it right, is one of the most insidious features of modern social media.

cess11 1y ago

[flagged]

gruez 1y ago
>And yes, it's immoral to become a cop Absolute wild take. Do you think every police department in the US oppresses minorities and infringes on civil rights or something? >just as it was immoral to become a european camp guard in the forties Even for the Allies? Given the prior sentence, I can't tell whether you're trying to allude to Nazi concentration camp guards, or actually think all camp guards are immoral.
- quacked 1y ago
  > Do you think every police department in the US oppresses minorities and infringes on civil rights or something? There are some people who not only believe this but can make very compelling cases that this is the case. It's a dead-end rhetorical argument; yes, it is actually possible for literally every precinct in the US to violate people's civil rights. The difference is that some people, like (I suspect) the person you're responding to, seem to think that the position itself--armed law enforcement officer--is archetypically immoral and should not exist as a function or profession in a civilization. This is naive to to the point of absurdity and underwrites most of the idiocy that's widely abound in anti-policing movements. In one breath they claim that "police" are as a class immoral, and in the next they proclaim that their political opponents must be "brought to justice" by armed people following a set of written laws. It's absurd!
  - cess11 1y ago
    That strawman isn't particularly pretty, maybe you could put some effort in next time you make one? To me civilisation isn't an inherently good term, and I'm not a believer in natural or god given hierarchies, or even the state as necessary. On the contrary, I consider the state to be a crime in itself, founded on the threat of violence and by necessity it destroys cooperative forms of social life as a survival tactic.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >To me civilisation isn't an inherently good term, and I'm not a believer in natural or god given hierarchies, or even the state as necessary. You're right. The universe doesn't need us to be living in cities, with indoor plumbing, modern medical care, and iPads, but most people would prefer that to living in the savannah without any of that and a life expectancy of 30 years. >by necessity it destroys cooperative forms of social life as a survival tactic. ???
      - cess11 1y ago
        Who taught you to believe in this false dichotomy?
    - quacked 1y ago
      Using your principles, the only societies possible are pre-industrial, pre-legal societies residing in areas not desired by neighboring states or bands of raiding warriors.
- cess11 1y ago
  "Absolute wild take. Do you think every police department in the US oppresses minorities and infringes on civil rights or something?" Yes. There is some variation but cops as an institution generally grew out of previous phenomena like state employed executioners and anti-union militias, and its purpose is to protect capital owners from the threat of popular mobilisation against injustice and inequality. Functions like sometimes acting against entrism in the state or integration with insurance industry are kind of bolted on. "Even for the Allies? Given the prior sentence, I can't tell whether you're trying to allude to Nazi concentration camp guards, or actually think all camp guards are immoral." Yeah, sure, forced labour camps aren't a nice thing and you aren't a nice person if you participate in enabling them, even if they're populated with germans or gays or whatever.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Yes. There is some variation but cops as an institution generally grew out of previous phenomena like state employed executioners and anti-union militias, It really isn't, unless you're willing to ignore all the origins of policing prior to the founding of the US. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol... Moreover the idea that some institution "grew out of" something shameful, and therefore it's irredeemable to this day is absurd. The Nazis created the autobahn, and even though it's pretty benign today, at least part of the motivation for creating it was for military conquest. Does that mean it's immoral to be an autobahn maintenance worker, or that the institution is irredeemably evil today? > and its purpose is to protect capital owners from the threat of popular mobilisation against injustice and inequality. It seems to be doing a pretty poor job at that, given how stores and even trains can be looted with impunity. Moreover how do you objectively define what a "purpose" of an institution is? Some right-wingers might say the "purpose" of the education system is to indoctrinate kids with liberal ideology or whatever. What makes that your claim about cops more valid than right winger's claim about the education system? >Yeah, sure, forced labour camps aren't a nice thing and you aren't a nice person if you participate in enabling them, even if they're populated with germans or gays or whatever. No, you said "camps". Now you're trying to pull a motte and bailey and retreating to "forced labour camps". I don't see the problem with POW camps that abides by international law, for instance. Being confined to a POW camp isn't anyone's idea of a good time, but war is hell, and there's far worse things that can happen.

try_the_bass 1y ago

> Closely related to this, I have been continually frustrated with the insistence of the left wing that it borders on immoral to take a job as a soldier, police officer, prison guard, or bailiff, and that there's no reason to raise any of their pay. I've been thinking a lot about this same thing. I've seen a marked rise in the number of complaints about how "everyone in law enforcement is MAGA" and the like, and can't help but think: "this is what you wanted, right?" There have been a lot of people trying really hard to make law enforcement (and adjacent roles) entirely unpalatable, and it appears they've been largely successful! I think what they failed to take into account is that they were only making those roles unpalatable tothose who already think like them in other ways, and forgot that there are a lot of people out there with fundamentally different beliefs who are not dissuaded by ACAB-adjacent arguments. Or, worse yet, are actively attracted to the way the role is being portrayed! So in the end, it seems like they achieved their goals, but perhaps overlooked how those goals might have some unintended consequences. I never really understood the argument, either. If you think policing is rife with prejudice and abuse of power, why are you trying to demonize the whole job? Why wouldn't you be signing up for it, instead? After all, if you think it's being done wrong, the best way to right that wrong is by doing it yourself and setting a better example. I think the fact that people prefer to publicly demonize an entire thing, instead of doing the hard work of making it right, is one of the most insidious features of modern social media.