4 ms·

just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/pro

just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property

bpt3 1y ago
Just to make this explicit, you are incorrect. There are plenty of instances where you would be correct, such as the origin of police forces in the American South (which were initially slave patrols), but that doesn't mean you are correct in all instances. I'm not sure what joy you derive from spreading misinformation, but you should probably reconsider it.
- pyth0 1y ago
  You didn't refute anything in the comment, other than saying one part of it was correct. This comment would be more useful if you actually made an argument.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    A cursory internet search would back up my statement. Feel free to do that if you're interested. I note that you aren't asking the parent poster for any citations for their claim, which I would say is quite extraordinary. And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.
    - hitarpetar 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - bpt3 1y ago
        [flagged]
        hitarpetar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        bpt3 1y ago
        [flagged]
        hitarpetar 1y ago
        God forbids I engage in bad faith arguments with trolls who put words in my mouth
        bpt3 1y ago
        Exactly what words did I put in your mouth? This is your statement: "just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property" That statement is incorrect, no matter what your definition of "modern police force" is. That's it. It's not complicated, despite your attempts to deflect from the invalidity of that statement.
        hitarpetar 1y ago
        it's so incorrect that you knew exactly what I was talking about and agreed with me before you accused me of spreading misinformation :)
        bpt3 1y ago
        Yes, I knew exactly how you were stretching the truth to suit your viewpoints. Thanks for confirming you knew exactly what you were doing as well. As I said at the start of this, I don't understand what you get out of intentionally making inaccurate statements, but I don't expect you to explain that.
- pear01 1y ago
  Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself. So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"? I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    > Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself. It's not funny, it's accurate. Spending seconds looking into the history of policing worldwide, or in the US, would back up my claim. Had the parent poster bothered to post evidence backing up their comment, I probably would have made the effort to post citations refuting it. > So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"? When you say that something is correct in all cases, yes. > I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it. Nice try, but there is no "element of veracity" to an absolute statement that is objectively false.

just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property

bpt3 1y ago

Just to make this explicit, you are incorrect. There are plenty of instances where you would be correct, such as the origin of police forces in the American South (which were initially slave patrols), but that doesn't mean you are correct in all instances. I'm not sure what joy you derive from spreading misinformation, but you should probably reconsider it.

pyth0 1y ago
You didn't refute anything in the comment, other than saying one part of it was correct. This comment would be more useful if you actually made an argument.
- bpt3 1y ago
  A cursory internet search would back up my statement. Feel free to do that if you're interested. I note that you aren't asking the parent poster for any citations for their claim, which I would say is quite extraordinary. And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.
  - hitarpetar 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - bpt3 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - hitarpetar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        bpt3 1y ago
        [flagged]
        hitarpetar 1y ago
        God forbids I engage in bad faith arguments with trolls who put words in my mouth
        bpt3 1y ago
        Exactly what words did I put in your mouth? This is your statement: "just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property" That statement is incorrect, no matter what your definition of "modern police force" is. That's it. It's not complicated, despite your attempts to deflect from the invalidity of that statement.
        hitarpetar 1y ago
        it's so incorrect that you knew exactly what I was talking about and agreed with me before you accused me of spreading misinformation :)
        bpt3 1y ago
        Yes, I knew exactly how you were stretching the truth to suit your viewpoints. Thanks for confirming you knew exactly what you were doing as well. As I said at the start of this, I don't understand what you get out of intentionally making inaccurate statements, but I don't expect you to explain that.
pear01 1y ago
Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself. So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"? I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.
- bpt3 1y ago
  > Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself. It's not funny, it's accurate. Spending seconds looking into the history of policing worldwide, or in the US, would back up my claim. Had the parent poster bothered to post evidence backing up their comment, I probably would have made the effort to post citations refuting it. > So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"? When you say that something is correct in all cases, yes. > I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it. Nice try, but there is no "element of veracity" to an absolute statement that is objectively false.