Ookami38

@Ookami38@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

Ookami38 ,

As much as ACAB, I can admit that sometimes an armed response is necessary. It sounds like you danes have a well trained force, rather than some 6 week academy psychos with a hard-on for violence.

Ookami38 ,

Gid is gud

Ookami38 ,

Man, guy behind us has a beautiful garden. Just a little plot, probably a quarter acre, but it looks so much nicer than the plots on either side. More functional, too.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

ALL cops are bastards, yes. It's in the title.

Each and every cop could have chosen not to be a bastard. Some of them weren't bastards when they started, but by the time they've been in it long enough to identify as a "cop" they're a bastard. They are either actively participating in the system that the state uses to violently enforce their whims, or are complicit by virtue of continuing to perpetuate the establishment. Some of them, a vanishingly small minority, have the moral character to go back to not being a bastard, of they quit the police force, but until then, they cop, they bastard.

Ookami38 ,

Sure, let's start with not making armed thugs the first line of defense. Your average traffic cop, contrary to what the bastards will say, doesn't need a gun. The presence of one only intensifies the situation.

Easy counterpoint: traffic stops are dangerous!

Counter to the counterpoint: they're only dangerous because cops are jumpy. A person being pulled over for a traffic stop is being interrupted - UNDER THREAT OF STATE SANCTIONED VIOLENCE for what most likely boils down to either a speeding ticket or an excuse to ID the driver. Naturally someone in that situation may do something rash.

Wellness checks. Those are a big one, too. Glen's suicidal, got his gun to his head? What should we do? Call 911 obviously! They'll send out someone with some mental health training. A paramedic at least! What do you mean they sent out a jacked up jackboot who won't stop shouting "drop your weapon"? He's already got a gun pointing at his own head, what's another gun do to help this situation?

I'm not a legal scholar. I don't claim to have all of the answers, and honestly yes - an armed protection force is probably a necessity, from a societal safety standpoint, but they absolutely do not need to be the first line.

Ookami38 ,

Hardly a tangent. If a cop is otherwise good, his simple existence within the establishment of "cop" is enabling the continued existence of that establishment, while also providing obfuscation for the shitbags, letting people like you say not all cops are bastards. In the famous words of Tim minchin, "if you cover for another mother fucker who's a kiddy fucker the fuck you mother fucker you're no better than the rapist" - replace "kiddy fucker" with any of the atrocities police are regularly known for.

The establishment is corrupt, you cannot be party to it and be innocent, period.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

Sure as fuck did.

Ookami38 ,

Nope. The moment they've self identified as cop, they become bastard.

The slogan isn't incorrect, you simply choose to look at the individual actions, which yes, CAN be good actions, whereas others apply it to the institution that is the police force. If you are a part of that force, you are complicit in being a bastard.

Were all the gestapo bastards? Or did some of them do a few good things while participating in MASSIVE amounts of state sanctioned violence?

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

The institution that is The Police is too large to change with any action other than collectively deciding it's not one we need. Other industries, I'll give you. That's why, for instance, not all, idk.. dentists? Are bastards.

Cops have one thing that other industries do not - the explicit right by the state to use violent force against its citizens with no, or next to no, legal repercussions. This closeness and uniqueness means that we can't really CHANGE them, the state is too invested in their continuation. The only thing to do is to seek to eliminate it.

As far as whistleblowers, they're whistleblowers, not cops. They put the badge down (most likely, you don't often get to continue serving after blowing the whistle), and they did something good. They were still a bastard before tho.

Ookami38 ,

Mate the community events I frequent tend to run contrary to the police. ACAB, and I will continue to have fun.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

The institution is being changed, by us. By people forcing changes. The police didn't just decide to include mental health professionals randomly, we put pressure on them and our elected officials.

I can get behind someone saying that some form of policing may be necessary. This is where I cut out caveats for things such as the idealized version of a sheriff. Someone elected by the community they're policing, who is a member of the community they're policing, and with rather limited power in excess of the average citizen.

As far as the BLM protests go, honestly yeah - if they're marching in uniform they're bastards. Most likely their MO is to show some of these people that "not all cops!". If they want to support the cause, they can, not as cops though. That's tone deaf at best.

Is a cop getting a rape victim help a bastard? Yup. They're doing a good thing, as a bastard. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe they should change their career into something a bit more geared towards helping people, like social worker or similar.

Ookami38 ,

The simplest explanation for society feeling more unsafe despite objectively being safer now than any other time period is information. Throughout humanitys development, we basically only knew of the bad things that happened in our little slices of the world. Our village, maybe a community in a city, maybe your nation going to war.

You don't see all the other daily violence. Three villages over? Murder. The other way? Rape. But to you, they don't exist, and so you don't feel more unsafe.

Compare to today. We know exactly how many people are victimized daily. We are all of the wars, all of the killings. Of COURSE the world feels more dangerous now than it ever has. This is why we HAVE statistics. Feelings aren't a good metric for reality. We don't need more policing because we feel less safe. We need to critically examine why we actually feel unsafe.

Feeling unsafe is definitely not worse than being unsafe. I'm not going to go down that route, it's frankly asinine. I would, every time, take a situation where I feel unsafe but am, in fact, perfectly okay, compared to living in some kind of blissful ignorance with a gun to my head.

Ookami38 ,

I dismissed houses because they're inanimate objects that we can literally break down and turn into something else. That thing would no longer be a house. And, if I DID think all houses were inherently safe, then that change would mean that I no longer think it's a fundamentally safe thing. There's no gotcha here.

I'm tired of the rest of this conversation, we're clearly at foundational differences in our world views.

Ookami38 ,

Nope. I think cops are bastards. They did a thing that makes them a bastard. They stop being a bastard when they stop being a cop. They can be bastards for other reasons, but if they don't do those things they also aren't bastards.

I... Didn't take personal credit for anything, any more than I do for public schools or our road system. I'm part of the society that helped create those things, enact that change. I didn't personally do them, but I did have a hand (more like voice) in their creation.

I deny, however, any credit to the institution that is police. They did not change by choice. They routinely refuse to change by choice, it is only by our (society's, again - not me personally) hand that they ever change.

Ookami38 ,

You know what would be better in each of those situations? The offending party not existing in the first place.

Don't have to save the Jews if the Gestapo doesn't exist.

No need to change the HOA if you don't have a HOA.

I could tackle the IRS Example as well, except I actually believe in (some degree of) taxes. Good on the people for finally twisting the IRS's arm on free file options though, they've been vastly limited until lately.

Ookami38 ,

Seems to be working out for me well. Have a good life, bud.

Ookami38 ,

Same to you, bud.

Ookami38 ,

Way to miss the point like you have this whole thread.

Ookami38 ,

Not doing this anymore. You clearly only intend to twist the words I'm saying, rather than apply a bit of logic and argumentative integrity. Have a good life.

Ookami38 ,

It doesn't even engage with what I said, it dismisses it out of turn.

To break it down for anyone else bothering to read this:

The natural conclusion to the points about HOAs and Gestapo is thus:

You don't have to change the police system if it doesn't exist. Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don't need, and rebuild something else in its place.

This point has been entirely ignored. I didn't think I had to spell it out entirely, but there we go. I'm done with this entirely. Good day.

Ookami38 ,

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.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/us-crime-rates-and-trends-analysis-fbi-crime-statistics

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.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

It's a quote from a kid. Kids talk exactly like that sometimes.

Ookami38 , (edited )

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.

Ookami38 ,

Can you elaborate on what makes you disagree with those points? Just for clarity, were talking the defunding and the disarming?

Ookami38 ,

At least vigilantes aren't above the law. We don't reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.

Ookami38 ,

Cool. Now give real actionable examples of this stuff happening. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm fairly sure it does. People keep prodding you for SPECIFIC EXAMPLES though, not just a definition.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

The quote is from a child. It's almost like children speak that way sometimes.

Ookami38 ,

The quote is from a child. It's almost like children speak that way sometimes.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

It was a peaceful protest. The only danger was from the -checks notes- boys in blue sworn to protect them? That CANT be right.

Ookami38 ,

Cases where this has happened. Articles detailing actual, specific, times that these things have happened.

To be clear - I agree with you. I'm merely trying to point out why people seem to be talking past you, and you past them.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

Not in any way resembling what we have today. Good straw man tho.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

I'm not going to keep going on this rhetoric treadmill with you. Once again, I agree in bulk with what you're saying, I'm merely trying to point out why you're not really having an impact with the words you're saying.
Im reasonably sure you know exactly what kinds of examples people want to see. Both refusing to supply them or acting ignorant to the request degrade your argument and make it feel like you aren't arguing in good faith, you're just shouting talking points.

Ookami38 ,

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.

Ookami38 ,

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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •