Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.
The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H…, Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:
Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.
There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:
The study includes as ‘violent incidents’ a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn’t indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c
An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:
The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.
More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, ‘Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.’ Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862
Yet another study “indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent).” A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to ‘getting physical’ (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
TL;DR: only ~10% of police are confirmed assailants of domestic abuse!
Now go look up the incidence of domestic violence in the general population, and see if you still feel so smug in saying that, lol.
I’m not exactly sure by what standard you’re distinguishing between “survey” and “empirical study,” considering all of your cited studies also rely on surveys.
Not prepared to read through over 100 pages of unrelated stuff, perhaps you could add a page number? It sounds like this source is included only for a critique of the original study though, and I’ll accept that that study isn’t perfect.
Ninety officers returned the surveys for a response rate of 36%.
This type of sampling comes with both weaknesses and strengths. One important weakness of using this convenience sample is that the results generated on the nature of the police sub-culture and the frequency of interpersonal violence on the part of police will not necessarily be generalizable. Although these results may not be generalizable, this sample is satisfactory for testing relationships among the variables—traditional police sub-culture, police domestic violence. This sample comes entirely from Central Florida, which further limits generalizability.
This paper is focused on a link between a domestic violence and a “traditional police sub-culture,” it is not intended to be taken as a reliable, generalizable source of overall domestic violence.
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Did not investigate this one because I don’t have the means to read floppy disk .iso images readily available.
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
This one does reference the studies you mentioned, along with other studies showing much higher numbers. It then goes on to say:
The data on intimate partner abuse by police officers are both dated and potentially flawed, but in ways that make it more likely that abuse is being under—rather than over—reported.59 Most of the studies rely on self-reporting by police officers to establish prevalence of abuse. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable measure; as one study noted, “The issue of the reliability of self-reports data is problematic when considering any socially undesirable behavior.”60 Intimate partner abuse is frequently underreported,61 both by those who experience it and those who commit it. Underreporting is likely to be particularly prevalent among law enforcement officers “who fear, even when anonymity is assured, that admitting their own or their colleagues’ abusive behavior may jeopardize careers and livelihoods and break up families."
I’m gonna be that person right now, but i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat. If they get to throw around 13/50 or that trans suicide number without any care to the actual reasons I’m gonna throw around 40% self report to domestic abuse. Just like you can’t stop them, you can’t stop me. It’d be different if I had a platform of some kind, but I don’t. If someone finds out misrepresented something oh well, they’ll fine the correct info eventually and by that point they may have been swayed to our side by doing further digging. Go ahead and down vote internet numbers mean nothing to me.
BTW did you know that 40% of cops abuse their spouse?
Lying to support your position is how people lose trust in arguments. I’m used to seeing this kind of BS from the RW but it’s disappointing to see it from the left. We need to be better than this or discussion becomes completely useless
There are few things more frustrating, politics-wise, than seeing someone who you presumably fundamentally agree with on issue X, fuck everything up by exaggerating or fabricating evidence.
It’s better to get called out by someone who isn’t interested in doing anything but correcting them. Could easily be fuel to completely reject the premise if it was someone else.
Yeah, well said
If people were convinced by facts and logic we wouldn’t have had trump as president and the ADF wouldn’t have any power in Germany. Snappy soundbites are necessary. Why do you think you heard 13/50 everywhere? Because it’s easy to remember and it sounds good. Same thing with 41%. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone that’s willing to do a whole bunch of reading to understand why ACAB unless they are already predisposed to believe you. 40% is a potential gateway in, and when they are along that path and see all the problems with cops, it won’t really matter when they find out that the 40% wasn’t true.
So go ahead, be disappointed, go ahead downvote, or whatever. But if you think winning only involves playing fair and honest you have another thing coming and it’s very far right from what you want.
I don’t think that all people are convinced by facts. I do think that eventually those who CAN be swayed are swayed by honesty.
i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat.
I’m frankly not surprised. Decent, honest people do, though, hence my effort to reveal that it is, in fact, a bogus stat, so that said people will know to disregard both it, and those like you, who continue to spread it in the name of their narrative despite knowing it’s bogus.
People who care more about maintaining and propagating their biases/prejudices than about being honest and truthful, are abhorrent scum, and don’t belong in civilized society.
Like I said, I’m gonna be that person.
don’t belong in civilized society.
It’s not like we’re ever going to reach that civilized society with the way everything is sliding to the right. It’s also not like they don’t already plan on removing me, so feel free to remove me once you have your civilized society, until then I’ll be here.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance. Essentially, one group has been found to manipulate stats. However, the focus is on the other group’s manipulation rather than accuracy across the board. This ends up working as a form of oppression through bias enforcement of the social contract. Not saying you are going that, just pointing out a possible bases for the other person’s comments.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance.
lmao, no it fucking doesn’t. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That’s all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you’re spreading bullshit in support of it, that’s your own damn fault. If you’re right, you don’t have to lie to prove it.
Hmm, maybe you are right. However, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a biologist and mathematician who was considered the “Father of modern genetics”. However, he lied about his findings. We now know his numbers were fudged (sometimes heavily so) to create statistical findings that matched his assertions. This was likely done because there were other factors at play that he did not have enough information to know, but did not want to have the lingeriering unknowns destroy his support for genetics. And this is one of the reasons we now understand genetics.
If your argument is right, are you saying he was wrong? If so, how do you think the situation should have been handled? Further, why did the stratagy work so well? Are you suggesting this is an effective but immortal strategy? Was the father of genetics and a Catholic friar immortal?
Shame that the kid was such a threat to the cop that he needed to unload several magazines into him.
He wanted a vacation so he pretended he was scared
Partially because he was scared that young people understand the evils of capitalism and he fears that one day he may pay for his decades of evil. He may not be directly threatened by the kid but to him there is no greater threat than those who are willing to challenge the authority of the Capitalists.
Patrol Cop once told me a joke about how he ran over a black kids bike. When got back to the station he saw the kid at the desk trying to report the incident. He’d carried his busted up bike the entire way. The cop behind the desk called out “Hey Rob, did you run over this kid’s bike?”. “Nope”. Case closed. No report filed.
Edit: PS: This was one of the “good ones”. He voted Clinton in 2016 because the rival faction in the Union was showing up to Trump rallies in class A’s. Took him the entire Trump admin but he works retail now.
How the fuck is that a joke?
Removed by mod
It was funny to him. It was the moment he realized he could get away with crime.
Aristocrats!
That’s the sadism they are best at.
“did you used to be”
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses…
It’s a quote from a kid. Kids talk exactly like that sometimes.
Serious question: What’s the leftists position on police in the ideal but realistic socialist world? What would make ACAB irrelevant?
Probably some combination of:
- Require them to have a 4 year degree
- No qualified immunity
- Make them also liable to civil suits
- Heavily slash their budget
- Disarm all of them, save maybe for SWAT
- much, much better descalation training (pretty sure they’re trained to escalate immediately)
In the UK, the training requirements for police is still surprising to me, as I had assumed it would take years to train as police.
Either way, our police meet a lot of the criteria here. The budgets are nonexistent, they aren’t armed outside of specific circumstances, and they all go through regular de-escalation training.
It hasn’t stopped many of the issues we see that are also shared in law enforcement in the states. Our force often uses force unnecessarily, there is institutional corruption and racism, and even in instances where the police have done something bad AND there is evidence it’s very hard to find justice.
I think that a degree would help, or a training programme that takes many years and involves extensive training. It’s depressing to say, but the demand for good jobs with decent pay and employment protection would probably result in people becoming police just for the pension. I would also add that a good avenue to policing would be for it to link heavily with the law profession. Add a route for police to train part-time to be criminal lawyers, or for lawyers to join the police force.
I would add a measure of public election for every branch of LE, at minimum. If I MUST have a boot on my neck, I may as well get to choose it.
I disagree with points four and five. The rest seem accurate though. Alternatively, cut the budget to fund a seperate but collaborate group for mental health and/or non violent incedent responses. Have police provide backup but have clear rules of engagement, and procecute when the rules are violated.
Can you elaborate on what makes you disagree with those points? Just for clarity, were talking the defunding and the disarming?
Sure!
Disarming: Social studies have shown that it’s difficult to walk back changes to the social contract. We already have a society to reliant and accepting of guns to send police unarmed. Right now in the Cal Bay area you are very likely to be shot just for stopping someone who is stealing a catalytic converter. It makes no sense to have a deterent factor that can’t actually deter behavior. De-arming would need to be combined or following stricter gun laws and significant cultural shifts. That said, reviewing and revising the arming strategies is something that should occur. That is of course, unless you aren’t trying to prevent a potentially substantial rise is polics officer deaths.
Defunding: Removing funding without removing work load really just doesn’t work logistically. This has led to breakdowns in everything from the airline to the railroad industry. I’m sure there is a way to better allocate funding, but simply removing it is a problem. Alternatively, may US children had (or have) terrible times in the US school system. Should we defund it as a corrective measure? How does that help?
But I am curious, how do you believe these approaches would help the situation? How do you suggest they get implemented?
I think disarming/defending would be two sides of the same issue. I meant to add to the list for defending, splitting police’s workload with some other task force/committees like having dedicated traffic police that only deal with traffic issues/social workers for mental health crises, semi medical personnel (to help paramedics) for injured cases/domestic abuses. If force is necessary, there should be a highly trained specialized force they would call in.
Being a cop carries too many responsibilities, diverting some of those to dedicated teams/positions would create less scenarios where cops come and shoot your dog (or you) and create more jobs.
I don’t disagree. My point is the discussion should be stated in a way that is less “shocking” than defund the police. While the goal is to gain traction with the shock value, at this point the narrative needs to be switched to a more nuanced and accurate description.
Also, apologies for being pedantic, but paramedics are already semi-medical personnel. It literally means alongside medic(cal). In truth, we should be also deploying nursing and medical staff into the outside environment that are supported by paramedics. Currently, the problem is cost and public interest isn’t there.
I agree, maybe instead it should be “stop over paying police”. Then we could change the discussion to shifting some of those tax payer funds to roles/positions that deserve it.
Disarming: I don’t think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you’re going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I’ve had it happen to me, and we’ve all seen videos I’m sure. Let’s remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it’s escalated.
Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I’d rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.
Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won’t work. Again, I don’t think that’s the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it’s reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.
Your comment: “Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. "
Yeah… We fundamentally don’t agree with each other. I don’t see a point to continuing the discussion. Good chat though!
How are you gonna slash their budget if you add so many requirements and remove benefits? By default that will mean there will be less interest in being a cop, which means you’ll have to offer a quite substantial increase in pay to compensate. And in most places there already is a shortage of cops.
My apologies, I submitted a comment regarding that elsewhere. By slashing their budget, I meant to say: divert it to other positions like to social workers so issues with mental health crises wouldn’t introduce excessive force. I think police really should be focused on the Public Servant part.
They wouldn’t exist in this form under anarchism at all. However they’re still very much bastards under ML-regimes as well.
The conflict between ACAB and All Vigilantes Are Also Bastards has always been my primary concern with anarchism tbh.
I feel like people who enforce rules are necessary in any society. I note that cops in Scotland or New Zealand manage to do their job without killing lots of citizens. I dont think that being murderous unaccountable over-militarised gang is necessary to do the job.
At least vigilantes aren’t above the law. We don’t reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.
Who vigilantes the vigilante vigilantes? It seems like in the end you really just need some form of professional rule thug that just has actual public accountability.
At least they’re held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it’s better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.
I’m not an expert in this field, I don’t have all of the answers. I don’t think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as “how do we keep society safe” without trying things. I do think the thing we’ve tried for the last little bit has run its course, it’s shown us it doesn’t have much merit, and I’m ready for another system.
NGL that doesn’t seem very convincing. Lots of what ifs and hypotheticals that sounds like the Office bit.
“Just krrrrsht and then you’ll be saved.”
Socialism removes the fact that Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people, so this inherently means they aren’t class traitors.
There would be an expansion of social programs and services, better access to housing, and overall fewer crimes of desparation.
Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people
Are there common every day examples where this happens? I’ll be honest my exposure to the police is extremely limited and from a UK perspective. Do you mean like the police will prioritise responding faster to wealthy people and are more likely to put resources in solving crimes against them than your average person?
Evictions, disproportionately of those most vulnerable, due to Austerity via the Neoliberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher which very much persist today, maximizing, subsidizing the profit of fortune 500 companies while making welfare a slur.
Cops break up people who are just trying to feed the hungry.
ICE; Locking children in cages – No human is illegal. The Contras were perpetrated by the imperial core, and then the imperial family eats up the propaganda to hate the refugees fleeing those situations.
Prisons, during covid lockdowns, put prisoners in 24/7 solitary. Solitary is torture. It is so bad that is an effective motivator to force prisoners to instead labor for cents a day.
Cops illegally raid safe injection sites, and spread disinformation about People who use drugs, dehumanizing themselves in the process.
Read about the Comstock Raids, as far back as 1860s, the reason that motivated the Stonewall Uprising a century later, and dont think they up and stopped harrassing queer folks of color for doing so much as existing in public.
The origins of the police forces were to chase down runaway slaves.
It is not “a few bad eggs”. It’s not about a bug of the system, it’s the features it was designed for, through Comstocks weaponization of the Post Office to control bodies and autonomy, into modern day surveillance state and militarization.
What we are talking about is Violence. SYSTEMIC Violence.
There is no more violent beast than the Settler-Colonial White Supremacist, with all it’s manifest destiny. This Prison System’s history is well documented, and evidence of it’s violence is more apparent and accessible everyday.
Abolition is a process and it will take time, the two greatest things we can do to obsolete prisons and police are:
- encourage and popularize anti-authoritarian parenting methods and 2) build strong community groups and mutual aid networks.
We must be free from class, from heirarchies of domination. These are inherently violent
That Dang Dad on YT is a great resource, and that’s a starting point, because there is no justice unless you adress the root cause, and the truth is always on the side of the oppressed.
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights and enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo.
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights
What does this mean though? Like if someone breaks into my house then they shouldn’t be coming over to investigate?
enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo
Is this not an issue with the laws of the country rather than the police? I feel like it would be an even bigger issue if the police just became a law unto themselves and decided on their own what they should laws they should or shouldn’t enforce.
No, that’s not what I mean. I am not referring to personal home ownership, but the system of Capitalism.
The anti-poor laws and racist laws exist because of class dynamics, not vibes. The issue is Capitalism itself.
I am not arguing that police should just do whatever.
I honestly can’t figure out what point you are making. I see a lot of buzz-words like anti-poor, racist, private property rights, status quo, etc. but I don’t understand how you think this plays out practically. The person you are replying to was asking for real-world examples of the cops defending rich white people in instances they wouldnt support poor non-white people.
I’m not even saying I disagree necessarily, just that you haven’t answered the initial question.
There are systemic issues core to how Capitalist systems are set up, and the violent arm that upholds these is the police.
Does that make sense?
Ok, for one example, after the 2008 housing market drop, banks bought the debt from other banks intentionally writing bad loans, which they then resold to third parties. This buying up of the debt of the banks that collapsed during this time lead to banks pushing families out of their homes, many of which were paid-up, but the lending institution behind them had failed, in order to resell the property later, when the market prices had recovered, or use the land for other developments. This was enforced by the police. Bankers did not go around forcing people out of their houses, the police did it at their behest.
Another is laws created specifically to punish people for being homeless. Laws like not being able to camp anywhere near a place they might be able to get themselves out of homelessness, e.g. a place with jobs, and other resources, not some place way out in the forest. These are also only effective because the police use violence to enforce them. Anti-solicitation laws fall into this category. Police often don’t realize that (speaking for my country) they are not constitutional at the federal level. Police departments that know about this tell their cops to do it anyway because it’s not like homeless people will likely be able to sue them.
A third is the enforcement of petty traffic fines. Things like window tint, or minor violations in situations where the safety concern isn’t present. These fines are, often, the brunt of how they fund themselves. Petty violations, like tint, are also used to go on fishing expeditions, so they can either wrack-up more fines, or make an arrest, even if that means intentionally escalating the situation, lying about what happened, and giving false testimony in court. More arrests, more convictions, equals more money for the police, and the legal industry as a whole. If you work with, or around, police, like I have, you will hear them discuss things like testilying. Bouncing ideas off of each other as to how they can make bad arrests, and use illegal levels of force, while having a technicality to maintain their immunity, e.g. screaming quit resisting, while in a position where they know cameras can’t really see what is happening. This is just the tip of this iceberg, I would need thousands, upon thousands, of words to detail all the shit I have heard police say, and see police do.
I can go on, but I think I have made my point.
I’m late to reply but thank you for the response, this is the kind of response and examples I was looking for.
Socialism isn’t a model for policing, unless you love the secret police.
Nope, it’s an economic structure that gets rid of the largest sources of poverty in Capitalist society, and poverty is the largest factor for crime.
How your country runs economically informs what kinds of laws you hold valuable in society, informs what kind of policing you have. Socialism isn’t specifically about policing, correct, but to act like it’s not all interconnected is ludicrous.
I agree with @Cowbee@lemmy.ml . You can either try to copy the policing model used in, say, East Germany or the USSR, with it’s delightfully large secret police force, but that’s more from the authoritarian political system rather than the socialist policies. Alternately, you could try to copy the policing model used in democratic socialist countries, the nordic model, which is more influenced by their political system rather than socialist policies. Countries with socialist programs have all kinds of different police systems. There’s no policing model that always goes with socialism. I will say that socialism may or may not get rid of poverty, it really depends on the wealth of the country. If the country is poor, socialism isn’t going to make them rich. Ideally it should reduce inequality, however we see that while it can reduce economic inequality, it does not always adequately address privilege.
I didn’t say that the policing model goes away, or that we should have secret police a LA the USSR.
The words I said were: your country’s economic model informs what laws you hold valuable.
This is easily true. We currently have the system in place of “get more, more good.” An abundance of our laws, some of the ones we hold most dear, adhere to that. Protecting property is one thing that our legal system and police force does well.
Contrast to a more equality based economic model. If our society values raising people who are down up, sometimes at a mild cost to someone who’s already doing well, then our laws change. Suddenly we see a value shift in our legal system from get more/protect what we have, to let’s help the downtrodden a bit.
Second, I said that this all informs what policing you have.
Again, this pretty naturally follows from the previous point. Police exist to uphold the laws, at least ostensibly. Their interfacing with society depends on what society has said we hold valuable enough to codify into law. This is where you might get such laws as rent control, where we have determined it’s valuable to set limits to the year over year increase someone has to pay for their dwelling, at the slight cost of some profit to the owner.
All of these things are connected. Correct, socialism isn’t a method of policing, but our method of policing is born of what our society holds valuable. It’s all connected.
Socialism ends up causing all the problems you think it’s gonna solve. Name one time in history that it was successful.
What on Earth are you talking about? This is utterly vibes based.
Socialism factually does work this way.
I completely agree with you on ACAB in capitalist countries, for the same reasons you mentioned, but cops in “actually existing socialist” countries like Russian and China are no better. They still use authoritarian violence to oppress anyone who steps out of line with the will of the State. There are many, many historic and more contemporary examples of socialist countries using the [secret] police and/or troops to quell dissent from unions, anarchists, and other leftist groups, because anyone who protests the actions of the State, no matter how legitimately, is considered to be an enemy of the State, whether that State is capitalist or not.
Russia the Russian Federation, or Russia the USSR? Very different deal there.
Either way, I feel like this is vibes based analysis. Committing crime is illegal, yes. Even Anarchists like in Revolutionary Catalonia punished criminals, even putting them in labor camps. Would ACAB apply to Anarchists? No, I would argue not, just like I would say ACAB wouldn’t directly apply to a Socialist State.
The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is stark, a Socialist State is run by the Workers, rather than a Capitalist State run by the bourgeoisie. An analysis of Capitalism, it’s accumulation-based nature, and how this impacts the state, is necessary analysis.
In theory. Never works in practice.
Socialism works in theory and practice, Capitalism does not.
Capitalism works if the systems goal is to accumulate wealth to monopolies and the capitalists.
It does not, because it contains within itself the necessity of its decline due to factors like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
China, Cuba, Vietnam…
Those are your success stories? Fucking laughable how stupid you are.
All of those examples were successful in comparison to what came before. The ROC had a life expectancy in the 30’s, and made no effort to address the basic needs of the vast majority of Chinese people. Cuba had a corrupt, authoritarian gangster state under Batista. Vietnam was suffering under brutal colonial rule. Under socialism, life expectancy, literacy, food security, and medical access rose dramatically and greatly improved the lives of the people living in these places.
So yes, they are success stories, they objectively solved many of the problems they were trying to solve and improved people’s lives across a wide number of metrics.
Pertaining to this meme and subject, yes.
Despite having less than a quarter of China’s population, the U.S. also has the highest overall prison population at more than two million. China’s is approximately 1.7 million. Globally, the U.S. accounts for 4% of the population and 25% of prisoners.
Some context:
Not only does the U.S. have the highest incarceration rate in the world; every single U.S. state incarcerates more people per capita than virtually any independent democracy on earth. To be sure, states like New York and Massachusetts appear progressive in their incarceration rates compared to states like Louisiana, but compared to the rest of the world, every U.S. state relies too heavily on prisons and jails to respond to crime.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Memes are the political cartoons of the 2000s. Hopefully a bit funny, but more about the message.
Removed by mod
You got an ouchie on your feefees, bud?
The child presents as “gee whiz, aww shucks mister” and then his words are increasingly harsh and abrupt (coincidentally, they are also true). The juxtaposition in the child’s presentation is objectively funny.
If the precocious little guy was here right now, he’d probably be eating a giant novelty lollipop and asking you if you brush your teeth every time you get done licking those boots.
Oh fuck that last line is good.
Did you cum? Glad to hear it.
Sure as fuck did.
Removed by mod
Doesn’t actually seem like you think at all, just react - likely because you or someone you know is a cop and you’re either in denial of the bigger known reality of cops at scale or you simply lack the basic empathy to consider any experience outside of your own first hand account of the world.
Removed by mod
I don’t think it’s every cop’s dick, I think at the most it’s every other cop… Scary enough to give yourself a built-in breather and time to wipe up.
Sounds like a dumbass problem to me. Kid has some funny lines.
More importantly though, the space exists for both, apolitical memes and political alike. My point with the previous comment is that these kinds of small, digestible, somewhat funny but really more poignant pieces have been around since politics have. Once again, they’re called political cartoons. They’ve been co-opted into practically every form of comedy throughout history. This is nothing new to memes.
It’s funny because the (far) left vilifies the police and then goes all surprised Pikachu when they turn out to not be manned by far left people.
Idealism in all honor, but you’re not gonna change the system without being in control of the current power structures.
People who make politics their identity ain’t funny. None of them are. No exceptions.
They are bitter people living in rage. Doesn’t matter what faction.
Oh how many comments I have seen on Lemmy from lefties suggesting death or violence upon right wing people. Horse shoe theory is not a theory. Tjeu should just get together and fuck or something.
LOL
At you, not with you, so everyone is clear.
Got brigaded I guess. Went from upvoted to downvoted pretty fast. Intence community. Guess there’s some radical discord or something. Enjoy your politics.
feel better about yourself after typing all that worthless schlock?
Huh?
Oh how many comments I have seen on Lemmy from lefties suggesting death or violence upon right wing people. Horse shoe theory is not a theory. Tjeu should just get together and fuck or something.
Sniff your own farts harder.
“Everything I don’t like or understand is lefties!!! Objective, verifiable reality is lefties!!! The consequences of my own actions are lefties”
Just yesterday I had a conversation here with a self-described communist who thought the entire American middle class should be murdered by a mob for being part of a capitalist society that exploits poorer nations.
So I would categorize that as a leftist on Lemmy suggesting death or violence on people. Not only right wing, either.
I’m going to guess, reading between the lines here… “Just yesterday I had a conversation (that I didn’t have) with a real person (who doesn’t exist)”
If only that were true. But sadly, no. Here’s a link, I think: https://lemmy.world/comment/10693493
I’ll direct you to the key paragraph:
Yes [the Kulaks did deserve being killed], and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.
I’m glad you linked source. Counter to what I perceive your intentions were, it actually shed light on how dishonest you had been in your representation of that previous comment as a part of the bigger conversation you’d had in that other thread - I’m only left to assume that you had hoped that nobody would read the source conversation in full and would instead see the basic presence of the URL and accept your own POV as fact.
Frankly, I think you should be a bit ashamed that you tried to misrepresent ALL OF THAT INVOLVED CONVERSATION in the other thread with little-no larger context presented. All for an attempt at some minor “win” in this unrelated thread?
To the dishonesty, YOU are actually the one who introduced the original premise of the “middle class being murdered” and in response, this person (in a bit of a passionate response, sure) engaged to reinforce a point they had been otherwise making throughout that fuller conversation - that American “success” in capitalism is zero sum, it always thrives on the backs of a set of conveniently ignored victims (throughout the third world especially). It IS something that we in the US conveniently ignore each and every day in the perceived “success” of capitalism, like averting your eyes and stepping over a houseless person to buy an $8 coffee. On a human level, yes, that is a horrible indefensible choice many of us make consistently to preserve a higher level of personal comfort when we could choose to do otherwise. The quiet guilt that the “wonders” of capitalism rightly have is why reagan had to make that famous speech where he told yuppies something akin to, “You don’t need to feel ashamed for owning your own fancy, personal swimming pool”
I don’t agree with every position of that other poster, but there is definitely nuance here worth discussion every day - especially as the people who probably benefit the most (are a global level) from this broken system.
It is a truly rare thing that you get someone actually educated and involved enough with a counter position to engaged in meaningful debate - for you to then betray that here by trying to reduce that entire interaction to your singular misrepresentation of a flawed point that you originated yourself ONLY makes the reader walk away with a deeper consideration of your opponent’s positions and a dismissal of your own assertions.
You either agree that it’s justified to murder the entire American middle class, or you don’t. It’s pretty simple.
I don’t really care if you assessed me as being intellectually dishonest by linking someone’s answer to a question I posed. You can call that a flawed point if you want, but they were the ones who -rather shockingly- choose to embrace democide of millions of people - including presumably themselves, their family, and friends - in the name of class warfare.
So yes, the existence of people like that shapes my view of this platform, as does this interaction with you rushing to defend their position (despite the fact that you don’t seem to sold on it yourself, since I’m guessing YOU’RE not prepared to be personally murdered for the sake of global justice and eternal class warfare).
It is a truly rare thing that you get someone actually educated and involved enough with a counter position to engaged in meaningful debate - for you to then betray that here by trying to reduce that entire interaction to your singular misrepresentation of a flawed point that you originated yourself ONLY makes the reader walk away with a deeper consideration of your opponent’s positions and a dismissal of your own assertions.
I don’t consider it a meaningful debate AT ALL.
I consider it a tiresome debate with someone who is truly fucked in the head. Someone who I later identified as suffering from sociopathy, or antisocial personality disorder.
I could have (and possibly should have) dismissed them based on their earlier comments, when they engaged in genocide apologetics, and denied the existence of the Holodomer (actually claiming conditions in the 30s were somehow "pre revolutionary). Especially after that NUT JOB blamed the Holodomer on American yellow journalism, because no number of first person (primary source) statements from Ukrainians WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE are to be believed.
But I choose to see how they’d respond to my personal litmus test, which was, for me, the final nail in the coffin of communism: The killing of the kulaks. I frame it as the American middle class, because that is the local equivalent of the kulaks. Small time landowners, a few minor landlords, farmers. The American dream involves property ownership, and getting rid of the small time property owners, the somewhat successful peasants whose lives were made worse by communism, was the goal in that particular move.
It is possible to be a communist who believes that dekulikization is a step too far - Trotsky famously was. But that’s not the position “our friend” chose to take.
Personally I consider the killing of the kulaks to be a much more appropriate line than the one used to label tankies - which was the use of tanks in Hungary to quell a COMMUNIST uprising by Hungarians who simply wanted communism without the Soviet occupation. In other words, communists who reject stalinism. Personally I prefer PEOPLE who reject MASS MURDER, and communism had failed that test DECADES before the people in Hungary revolted.
Don’t talk to cops like this, they will ruin your life or end it. Use that energy to campaign for electoral reform in your state so we can break the bipartisan police state.
Removed by mod
Words may be powerful but a brick is often more efficient.
I don’t know in what shithole of a country you guys live to hate cops, but here they are just decent, helpful protectors they ought to be. Never ever met one single piece-of-shit-cop in my life. There surely are rotten apples, but that is due to being human, not being a cop. There is no field of anything where everything’s sunshine and lollipops. Maybe it’s a case of how you treat them? You know, like give respect, earn respect? That thing?
You know, I’ve also never personally had too bad of an encounter with a cop. I mean, I was falsely arrested once, but the cops were chill, only half of them had their guns pointed at me for no reason. They were just doing their job though, the others were all super chill!
No. Doesn’t matter. You see DAILY that people are victimized. Not just in the states, you can look through this very thread for accounts of other people from other countries with terrible stories.
The very system of the state giving some non-elected individuals sole legal authority to excise violence against their peers, even ostensibly to prevent crimes we all agree are crimes, creates a power dynamic that leads to all sorts of problems we see today.
There might be bad daily incidents here too. Sure. Even if it were 10, what about the tens of thousands of incidents where cops just were helpful and/or protective? Same like with plane-accidents. Millions don’t happen but the one that does makes the media.
I really don’t see the problems you do. Cops here are highly selected (a weekend full of assessments of all kind, physical, intellectual and psychological evaluation). From like 300 participants, 0-3 get chosen. Then follows 3 years of training and regular checks. Not every country is like the USA which seems to recruit nutjobs and then give them a 2 week crash course.
But, for the sake of the argument: what is the alternative? No cops at all? What do you do if you’re in need of help? Elect cops? That already seems to work great with politicians /s
I’m not an expert on any of this. Just a caveat, I’m sure anything I propose will have it’s share of flaws.
State law enforcement (men armed with guns apprehending private citizens) should be the LAST step. For in-the-moment intervention, cops are already useless - unless they happen to be on site already, whatever violence happen, will happen before they get there. There’s no good answer to stopping a determined violent individual, short of empowering people to defend themselves and others around them.
I think there’s always going to be some level of violent crime. Some people simply don’t function the same way. For these people, we clearly need some kind of active response force. It’s use should be limited, based on hard fact and actual threat to civilian life. We also clearly need some kind of (humane) separation for people who cannot or will not rehabilitate, people who cannot be reintegrated into our society. These are two of the only acceptable uses of state violence, in my opinion.
I don’t know the exact way it would look, but I’d like to see a move towards communities looking after themselves and those around them, in all aspects, and this includes safety and security.
Unfortunately, for property crimes, the only way to actually enforce property ownership is through violence, either direct threat of violence (break my shit and I’ll end you), or state violence (break my shit and the state will send armed men to apprehend you unless you reimburse me). We have to determine what level of property security versus violence we seem acceptable. I tend to fall a bit more extreme towards violence not being okay to protect property - I don’t think there’s a single piece of property worth killing or maiming an individual over. Thus, if the only way to protect property is this level of violence, I believe it is wrong to intervene. I don’t believe it is right for the individual to intervene, and I don’t believe it is right for the state to intervene. The sad truth is that most of what the police force does now is enforce these types of crimes.
A community looking after themselves? Nice in theory but
- won’t work for bigger cities where nobody gives a rats ass for others
- won’t work in countries without free guns. How else should a community defend themselves?
- organized crime will always beat local yokels with guns. Now they just can do it freely.
- who organizes it? Who votes whom? And in the end someone is doing nothing but organizing everything and cashing in. Up the point where he needs protection for his wealth and starts adapting rules. Back to square 1.
I see you’re not sure of an alternative, i wouldn’t have one to offer either. Where’s light there’s shadow. And the worst problem is always: people. Homo homini lupus est. Always has been, allways will be. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t optimize police where necessary. But personally I’m quite glad they’re 3 numbers dialed away to quickly help first, ask later. You can even call them drunk so they drive you back home for free or at least call u a cab😁
Sure they would protect my properties too. So unless you are totally against property (then you’d totally be right and we wouldn’t argue), how else should i protect it? I don’t work but I’m still sometimes not at home and glad the cops would be here in 5mins in case of an alarm.
Nuh uh, dehumanizing them works better!
Wow, such argument, many insight. Hope you’ll never need a cop (and you’re not murican) 😉
Maybe an actual cop can give insight.
I was talking about real cops in more civilised countries. Not untrained us-american gun-monkeys. For the US my statement surely isn’t valid.
Real cops don’t exist.
When you grow up some day, you might notice who’s your real enemy. As it surely ain’t the stupid cop who’s just doing another stupid job of all those stupid other jobs in a stupid society of stupid people running after stupid pieces of paper with stupid numbers on it.
Who’s the real enemy?
Maybe the billionaires running this planet? Who all just have the best of our future at heart
The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid- to late-19th century from the threat posed by that system’s offspring, the working class. source
Criminological data has told us for decades that police are irrelevant for public safety. Other data tells us a lot about what does influence safety. British researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their classic 2009 book The Spirit Level show that a large number of social problems, including violence, correlate strongly with inequality. Their work also shows different options for achieving equality: high wages by private employers (as in Japan) or high taxes and redistribution (as in Northern Europe). In the United States, every option for increased equality has been blocked by the wealthy who have—as Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page make clear in their important 2014 study—captured politics. source
I love how every acab post inevitably brings out a bunch of uninformed libs in the comments talking about how pigs are only bad in America (as though the term ACAB was invented in America…) or how a society without them is completely inconceivable. As though badges grow on trees, like police are just a natural thing that sprung out of the ground.
The primary function of the police is to protect private property and enforce eviction. They’re state agents who are allowed to use violence against working class people, and do so to prevent us from overthrowing the ruling class and redistributing wealth and the means of production. They protect class hierarchy. They attack protestors. They use state violence against the disenfranchised and the marginalized. The “just doing their job” of the police is to protect and preserve the unequal distribution of power in society. They do so by using violence against the working class. The rest of anything else they do is a small fraction of their job and entirely secondary to their primary functions.
As though badges grow on trees
True, if there is no police it’s not like cops just appear.
The mafia does.
Every post i see seems to use lib as a slur
You’re on a site made by Marxists and overwhelmingly some flavor of leftist, outside of Lemmy.world.
Because liberalism has failed.
The book argues that liberalism has exhausted itself, leading to income inequality, cultural decline, atomization, nihilism, the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies.
Liberalism hasn’t failed as long as I’m around
John Locke would be proud.
I mean, it’s not a slur, but an insult? Sure. Liberals are not allies to leftists, and actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.
Liberals are not allies to leftists
They can be. Using traditional definitions, the Liberal / Authoritarian axis is orthogonal to the left / right axis
actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.
Who are we? Poor non cops?
What are we putting in place of the dismantled system? Anarchy? Different cops? Something else?
Socialist cops. Because state violence doesn’t matter when the state is leftist.
No, I’m an anarchist and a police abolitionist.
It’s a nice idea, but doesn’t it really only work if everyone is cooperative? How do you deal with the John Wayne Gacys of the world without police? Mob violence?
How do we deal with them now? Is dealing with serial killers the day to day of the police? Is that their primary function? Do they even really do anything about it without constant prompting from victims and the community?
I’ve been a victim of physical and sexual violence. Nearly every woman I know has been at some point. None of us have ever had any positive experience with the police. At most they hand wave us away, at worst we are accused of being liars and of wasting their time. Police don’t prevent anything. They don’t solve anything. They don’t address anything. They are only occasionally turned towards a specific person who has done something wrong and used a means of state violence against that person. That is an exceptionally rare occurrence. They are the perpetrators of violence many times more than they are the defenders of victims.
Essentially, what is being currently done about the john Wayne Gaceys of the world? What is currently being done about the Bill Cosby’s, about rapists and pedophiles? What are the police currently doing that actually prevents those things from happening? Nothing. They only do anything after something has already happened. And they don’t do anything to prevent those things happening again. Their daily job has literally nothing to do with the John Wayne Gaceys of the world. It is in the things I listed in another comment. In rent enforcement and eviction, in enforcing private property and means of production, in collecting menial tax from the impoverished, in defending the interests of the rich and of the state, and in harassing minorities while enforcing hierarchies of gender race and class.
Lemmy is a bit further left than center. And most liberals tend to fall around the center to center right.
Most people on the left don’t like liberals because in their desire to be “the adult in the room” by dismissing anything more radical than the status quo, they get in the way of people trying to bring forth important change. As an activist, it’s not very fun to see someone take a milquetoast centrist position and call you radical while continuing to uphold the status quo that we are peotesting against while claiming to despise the status quo. These liberals, though often well meaning, end up being the great stumbling block to freedom MLK was talking about.
From the perspective of the left, if you see someone who is making it harder to make necessary change (ex: ending the war on gaza, stopping police violence/police abolition, being a cop, etc) is a pretty nasty sight.
Is lib a slur? No, but it’s certainly an insult, and it’s aimed at people who aren’t used to being called out for their political positions by someone who isn’t conservative.
Also, as an anarchist, I find it fun to lib bash every once in a while :3
The rich love to make liberal a slur. Because to be liberal means you’re against tyrants. So now with more divided factions their minions can exert more power
I’m an anarchist, and seeing someone say “to be liberal means you’re against tyrants” is pretty humorous. It’s a self-aggrandizing tale that doesn’t reflect reality.
Liberals do not oppose tyranny. Liberals opposition to tyrants is done by keeping the offices clean, and the seats of power warm, be it in the oval office, judge’s bench, or chairs in the chambers. Liberals vote for the lesser tyrant as an anti-tyranny measure. They oppose tyranny by increasing funding for the police, and giving bombs to fascists the world over while continuing to fund the biggest military budget in the world while giving the district of defense a thumbs-up to defend American interests by invading countries and slaughtering millions.
The so called United States is a liberal democracy. It always has been. And yet this structure is the cause of some of the most violent tyranny the entire world over. Even if you consider the fact that there have been some terrible presidents who might have been the cause for some of the most tyrannical acts of the state, the very act of saying “all men are created free and equal” is tyrannic when said by a slave owner trying to create a government that considers life to be property. And that was said before there were even presidents.
Under a liberal democracy, even with a liberal leader of it, being minoritized is a sentence to feel the tyranny of the state. It doesn’t matter if you are a holding a minority political stance and using the liberal-approved mechanisms to oppose the state. It doesn’t matter if you are a minority based on religion, sexuality, gender identity, race, or ethnicity trying to peacefully oppose the extermination of their group, or the systematic oppression of it. You will feel the force of a police officer’s boot on your back and knee on your neck, tools of the liberal democracy being used to “keep the peace” or maintain “law and order”.
Liberals will uphold the fundamental tyrannies of capitalism. Liberals will uphold the fundamental tyrannies of property ownership.
To be a liberal doesn’t mean you are against tyrants. It means you are the lesser one.
When there’s a power vacuum, gangs even worse than the police tend to fill it. Don’t get me wrong, the entire U.S. criminal justice system is rotten to the core, and causes large amounts of pointless suffering. BUT, there needs to be some sort of “police” to enforce the laws of society (and ideally, all those laws would be just). Even the Zapitistas had a form of police.
Also, I find “ACAB” cringe inducing. Sounds like something an edgy 14 year old came up with. And I’m not sure focusing on individuals (cops) instead of the institution itself is helpful.
Real life isn’t the movies. Reality isn’t so easy.
mentions IQ
very cool, very normal. Youre right, cops arent smart, or they wouldnt be cops! On unsmart people are cops, because unsmart people are evil!
acab includes people policing other peoples intellect
It’s a thing,
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Do you really think all cops are bastards or is it like a easy thing to type instead of “corrupt cops are bad” or something?
All. Because the ones who aren’t corrupt fucks either look the other way, or try to report the bad ones and get bullied off the force.
Woo, I disagree. I mean, statistically that can’t be true.
Do you have a proposed alternative to law enforcement?
Not my job to convince you of anything.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Read again but actually try to understand
Which part are you confused about?
See this is what I’m talking about
Enabling the corrupt ones is almost as bad being corrupt.
Sure. Taaangent?
Taaangent?
You asked about ACAB and got an answer about ACAB. This feels like a cope.
Oh.
I see
If you think you can only come up with ax partial answer, it’s usually an indication you don’t understand the concept as well as you think and a good idea to just skip trying to come up with an answer.
Your talk if you want to! I’m just saying it might confuse the situation unless you have a complete answer.
I thought you did that deliberately so I was wondering why you were explaining what a slice was when I asked about making a pizza.
I’m not the same guy, it’s just obvious to everyone else here what he was saying since we don’t need our hands held through every implication.
If bad cops can just get rid of others who call out bad behavior, what is left but the corrupt and the complicit? Hence, complacency is bad too so ACAB.
First it was “tangent”, then it was, “ax partial answer”, so now what is your excuse?
Making assumptions and looking for excuses is the reason you Don’t understand.
“If bad cops can just get rid of others who call out bad behavior, what is left but the corrupt and the complicit…”
If that were true, you would have a case.
Since that is not true, you don’t.
Since that is not true, you don’t.
Except in America it seems that’s the exact case. Maybe not in other countries.
These people have such an oversimplified view of the world that there’s no reasoning with them. They can’t comprehend that people would join law enforcement for any other reason than denying people civil rights.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be a police officer out of truly caring about and wanting to improve your community. Sadly what happens is those good meaning people are the minority and there are countless cases of them being harassed and outed, sometimes even assassinated, by the bad cops who are the majority.
When you have an entire occupation, in every state, doing shady shit, killing bystanders, killing innocents, even killing the people they were sent to help, it is a huge problem that can not be ignored. They act without consequences and it needs to stop.
Good cops are awesome. I love good cops. I wish them the best and hope they make it home safe.
If you want to truly care and help people, be a firefighter. Be a medic. Get into the mental health industry. Feed people. Teach. Build. There are near infinite ways to help people, that don’t involve walking around the city dressed, literally, to kill.
Violent crimes consistently trend down. We actually don’t have too many people randomly killing others. When we do, it’s a big fucking event, that could have probably been avoided entirely with some more of those mental health people I mentioned before. BEST case, a cop does something after blood has been spilled.
At best a cop thinks they want to help people, and thinks the best way to do that is with violence.
Seems like you are trying to oversimplify their world view so you don’t have to question your own.
Bizarre.
The fact that anyone can say “all” this is that speaks to such a misunderstanding of their reality.
It’s like choosing to refuse certain lengths of the spectrum. How many years are they going to force themselves to live colorblind?
Who are you referring to?
anyone that can say “all” this is that about a non- identical group of anything “all” of them obviously cannot be the same.
“All dogs are dangerous”
“All houses are safe”
“All birds are real”
Using “all blah are bloo” to describe a complex group of anything and their necessarily complex associations between and outside of each other belies such a fundamental misunderstanding and incomprehension of the world you live in and the topic you’re talking about.
An important thing to remember with something like ACAB is, even if it’s not literally ALL cops are bastards, it loses its bite if it’s anything else. When we say ALL cops are bastards, we serve to remind the people who already at least partially buy into this belief that it doesn’t really matter about the individual. It’s about the institution. Anyone party to that institution is part of the problem, even if they’re a generally decent person who, in a particular situation, did something commendable.
As far as getting the people who don’t already buy in to buy in? Well,that’s what these kinds of discussions are for. No motto easy to turn into a soundbyte is going to change too many minds, they’re more rallying calls.
Further, unlike the other examples, “cop” isn’t a fundamental aspect of their existence. Any cop, right now, can stop being a cop. I have no problem throwing shade at something someone can change. Dogs can’t not be dogs. Birds can’t not be birds. Houses… well, they could be something else with a lot of effort, but it’s fundamentally different.
Interesting that at the exact point your examples break down, the contradicting evidence to your point becomes fundamentally “different” and you just dismiss it.
Besides, don’t you know the animorphs? Birds can change into humans, andalites, tons of stuff.
Back to your point: a slogan does not gain validity or credibility by being false; it loses its validity and credibility by being fundamentally false.
You see that slogan as particularly important because you’ve used it before and because it’s popular.
That does not make it a good or correct slogan.
It just makes the person saying it look like they’re spouting gibberish since there are so many simple examples that prove it incorrect, many of those examples displayed in these threads given by the people myopically chanting that acab is valid.
I agree these discussions are important, but what hope do you have of influencing other perspective when your argument is, at its foundation, flawed and clearly incorrect.
Black Lives Matter? Undeniable.
Of course they matter.
All Cops Are Bastards?
Objectively false schoolyard taunt.
That backfiring banner is working against your point and against your credibility.
That kid’s getting punted across the street the next second lol
Hell yeah brother, no guns no police!! Hold up someone just stole my car and is extorting my family… Someone help plz :(
yeah, if there’s no cops around who’s gonna show up 4 hours late and shoot my dog after I report a robbery??
Is your dog on a leash or put in a kennel? Why are you reporting a robbery? You don’t need the police man!
Because cops routinely get anywhere in time to stop a crime. That’s one of the biggest flaws with the ‘cops make safe’ argument. They only work as a deterrent to crime if they’re actually there right when the crime happens. The only time they show up with any expediency is when there’s money to be protected.
Also, victim blame more.
We don’t need cops or prison man
Not in any way resembling what we have today. Good straw man tho.
Wat
Police are largely a gang of thugs, they serve Capital, not people.
Solving root causes makes police far less important.
So what do you propose for solving root causes and enforcing regulations? You have a Disney movie I could watch?
I mean, most individual crime comes from poor socioeconomic conditions. People don’t feel the need to steal shit, for instance, if they aren’t starving. Scarcity (be it real, physical scarcity of goods, or a perceived scarcity in, say, opportunity) creates motive for crime. Reduce scarcity, reduce crime.
More Zach Snyder;
Marxists argue that the economic system of capitalism itself causes crime. The whole system is based on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class, leading to the ever-increasing wealth of one class and ever-increasing poverty of the other. source
Kewl article. So your fantasy societies have no crime therefore no need for police. I’ll make sure to bookmark that laterz
Unlike the fantasy we live in now, where the police are not obligated to protect you?
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005’sCastle Rock v. Gonzales*, *a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.
You are right, both of those cases were directly related to crimes caused by capitalist societies. Police were never intended to protect you, only to enforce laws and arrest those who break those laws, they aren’t hired bodyguards or private investigators.
Expanding social programs and employing social workers instead of police for mental health crisis events.
Crime happens because of poverty and desparation for the most part, not because some people are born evil.
Socialism would eliminate the biggest sources of poverty.
What type crime are you talking about? Petty theft? 🤣 Social workers, projects and food stamps?? This movie sucks ass
Hold up someone just stole my car and is extorting my family
Someone like the police
You are right, we should go somewhere where there is no police.
No we should make it so that there’s no police where we’re at.
You are damn right! I can take what I want and kill whoever…I don’t even have to bury the bodies…No one around to stop me from changing towns every couple days and rinse/repeat. Not because I’m struggling but I enjoy killing…Less people means less carbon emissions, amirite?
You sound disturbed, mate.
I’ve been a lot of different places including prison and I know the way people act when there is no law. Maybe I am considered disturbed because I can’t unsee things that I’ve seen.Decent people, including you, would do the same or become prey. People are animals after all. 😇
Sounds wild. One wonders how humanity survived for thousands of years until police forces were created last century…
Removed by mod
I don’t know in what country you live. I live in The Netherlands, one of the richest countries, with police which is very mild compared to other countries. They are ‘trained’ to de-escalate, to use the least amount of violence, to try to talk first. A force they ‘try’ to be inclusive, with a reasonably high percentage of women and different ethnicities, promoting to be open to LGBTQ+.
I can tell you with certainty, they are biased and racist as fuck, corrupt, abusive, above the law.
I assume you view the world through (male) white glasses from a rich country within the EU? The cops are there to protect your rich white privilege, you don’t have a clue what it is like for poor people and people of color. Police is not what it is supposed to be in an ideal world. They should be abiding the law, enforcing the law, protect ALL citizens, be unbiased, treat everyone the same whether they are rich, poor, whatever their religion or ethnicity, whatever gender, political view, etc. They fail on all these points. Even in progressive countries like The Netherlands or Germany.
Next to that, the far right is on the rise. They love to enable and use the police to enforce their will.
Look at all the protests. The protests by the left are struck down with brute force and loads of arrests. Protests of the right are mostly left alone, with maybe one or two arrests if any. Here in the Netherlands farmers were left alone to lock down the entire infrastructure of the country, for many days, with loads of destruction (including driving a tractor into a municipality building) with barely any arrests or consequences. The cop who opened fire on a tractor which drove at him fast and refused to stop got into trouble, not the guy driving the tractor.
A hand full of climate activists blocking a single road were beaten and arrested with brute force, after which they got hefty fines.
So fuck the police.
I was at a peaceful rally a week ago, police showed up and acted as intimidating as possible. We stood around and listened to some very powerful speeches from Palestinians, the police left momentarily so that they could come and assualt the crowd from the side.
They pepper sprayed children. Fuck every cop who ever did their job.
Removed by mod
You have no idea and are choosing to assume the protesters did something bad. It’s also possible (and likely) that the cops just abused their power and attempted to break up the protest illegally since they do stuff like that all the time.
Removed by mod
yeah, thoughts & prayers to the cops for turning another peaceful protest violent.
maybe approach the subject again once you’re done slobbering on pig pp.
Demanding an intifada is neither wrong nor illegal (at least not in the US). Palestinians have the right to resist their oppressors.
You think, so it must be. Who cares about facts and statistics. You know best, oh very wise one. By the way, what makes you come to this conclusion? Do you go to protests a lot, are you with the police, do you read a lot on Facebook on shady right wing pages, did Qanon tell you this,… I’d love to hear your support to your claim.
By the way, intervening a peaceful protest which includes children has a very very low probability of risk for police. They would think twice when the protesters are violent, but when they are peaceful they won’t hit back that hard so it’s rather safe to escalate. The cops in the task forces for breaking up protests are generally people who love to fight, filled with adrenaline and testosterone. Cops who are less eager to fight usually have desk jobs or are regular street officers.
I don’t know in what country you live, but in countries with freedom of speech you’re free to demand whatever you like, as long as you do not turn violent (except when you’re police of course).
Please stop spreading unsupported bullshit arguments based on “I think” and “looks like” when you clearly have zero knowledge of how police operate (which I do) and clearly have no clue about this protest (as you make very wrong assumptions)
Wow, what an awful thing to assume. No, we listened to people talk about losing their families and the villages they grew up in.
No one was violent, no one called for violence and there was nothing for the police to stop. We walked through a street and then stood still peacefully.
Removed by mod
What’s the age limit when a child is allowed to learn from an adult’s example about peaceful activism
Removed by mod
Police violence is something different then peaceful protesting. It turns into non-peaceful as soon as the police starts to use force without a proper cause. It’s called “abuse of power”. Cops love to get violent, especially when the protesters do not (so they won’t hit back).
“If it was peaceful, why did the police show up?”
“If you were innocent, then why were you arrested?”
Bad arguments are bad.
Yes, it was completely peaceful as it has been for the past 30 something weeks that these rallies have been held.
If you’ve ever been to a demonstration you’d understand that all the police do is show up and cause violence. No one needed protecting from us, we walked down a goddamn street. Last time I checked that wasn’t exactly a violent act. But people sure needed protecting from the police…
Children came to support a peaceful rally, they weren’t in danger until the police showed up.
There are many young people who care about things and want to help, many are refugees themselves and have just as much of a right to be there as anyone else. People are there to share stories, raise money for relief funds and to show our goddamn solidarity for people being murdered in their homes.
These rallies have been running for months now and no one at them has caused any issues, but the cops sure fucking have.
It’s irresponsible for the police to abuse their power and use pepper spray on children at a peaceful protest.
Going outside has a risk of getting hit by a car. So now it’s irresponsible to take your kids outside? It’s not normal to get hit by a car, but it’s also not normal for police to use violence on non-violent protes… Oh wait, yes that indeed IS normal now, depending on the religion, ethnicity, political statement of the protesters.
Imo it’s irresponsible to have kids in the first place by the way, it’s not irresponsible though to bring your kids to a peaceful protest as no one expect police to pepper spray your kids without cause. Or at least, that is how it should be. When you claim it’s irresponsible to bring your kids because you can expect police to use violence without cause, to abuse their power even though you are there because of your constitutional right, you acknowledge the police violence without condemning it.
You are victim blaming.
It was a peaceful protest. The only danger was from the -checks notes- boys in blue sworn to protect them? That CANT be right.
Society has objectively gotten less violent. Morality and ethics are subjective, so I’m not going to touch on those. Every violent crime metric is, year over year, decreasing, and it’s not because of the boot on our collective necks.
We’d all be better off without armed thugs whose only job is to protect the property of the ruling class. State-sanctioned violence just waiting to be dispensed by the waiting batons of the blue mafia.
Removed by mod
This looks like survey results? Lines like “Worries being mugged or robbed” indicate to me these data points are for what people FEEL, not what actually exists. If I’m mistaken my bad.
If not - frankly I don’t care what people FEEL. I care about actual incidents of violent crime occurring. Not gonna lie, it’s 3am, I’ve got a stomach bug, and I work in 3 hours - I’m not gonna find you a source, but if you find another one showing a marked uptick in ACTUAL INCIDENTS OF VIOLENT CRIME, please feel free to share.
Removed by mod
TFW you don’t vet your sources before claiming they support your point.
Below the results, on the page:
These data are based on perceptions of visitors of this website in the past 5 years.
If the value is 0, it means it is perceived as very low, and if the value is 100, it means it is perceived as very high.
Our data for each country are based on all entries from all cities in that country.
I do not see anything indicating that those are only for the *safety" category - it seems like " safety" is intended as an aggregate of the above opinions.
Either way, without any information on how these numbers are collected and how exactly the bars are to be interpreted, I HAVE to assume it’s a collection of opinions.
Edit: assumptions cleared up. Clicking the information button on the page confirms it’s a survey result, and not based on reported incidents.
Removed by mod
No problem on the digging.
Define what exactly you mean.
Are you saying that it’s subjectively correct in that it’s reporting a subjective belief, and thus tautologically correct? Or are you saying that if people feel crime must be higher, crime must be higher? One of these I’m okay with, the other not hah.
Removed by mod
So, I don’t want to be accused of moving goal posts. That’s not my intention here in the slightest.
This article and organization specifically look at organized crime - things like terrorist cells, cartels, mafia, etc. - no doubt a big concern, but also not the bulk of the crime that happens. That number going up isn’t a good thing, but it’s also entirely possible for that number to be going up for one reason, while the general crime levels are going down, faster, for other reasons.
Looking at this article (first thing I found searching ‘violent crimes trend over years’) we can see a much different picture thatln we’d expect looking just at organized crime. The trend is MARKEDLY down from 1990 to today. The only period there even shows an increase, really, was during that little global pandemic we had.
THIS is the number that matters when someone says that the world is objectively safer today than it was in any other period of history. That, per 100k people, the number of them having violent things done to them is going down, steadily, and regularly.
Removed by mod
Finn here. this is & always has been straight up misinformation. all cops are, in fact, bastards, so our cops too are committing heinous acts, albeit on a smaller scale than in the US. the system isn’t magically not rotten elsewhere.
also, lol.
I don’t think you can have an institution whose purpose is violently policing your peers, either directly or implicitly, without attracting the least desirable of your population. Hell, describing them like that, they really do sound more like a gang.
we literally had a high-ranking cop running a criminal empire on the side.
Removed by mod
don’t give a shit. look up Jari Aarnio. you know, just for starters.
but i do love how you found your thoughts substantial enough to be added nearly a month after the fact.
I got a down vote button. I’m not sure why I’d be afraid to have it used on me though? Oh no, someone online thinks I’m WRONG?
Anyway, enjoy the downvote. Or don’t I guess.
Removed by mod
Mate what the fuck are you talking about? Cops only shut down parties. They never support them unless its a white robe party.
Mate the community events I frequent tend to run contrary to the police. ACAB, and I will continue to have fun.
