this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
22 points (84.4% liked)

Casual Conversation

2045 readers
161 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So over thanksgiving my brother-in-law was talking about how he's currently going through the training to become a cop (being fast tracked for reason below) and I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. On one hand, I'm firmly in the ACAB camp. On the other hand, if somebody is going to be hired a cop, he seems like the kind of person that would do the least harm.

Frist off, he is an MP in the army and has been for several years so he already has more and better training/dicipline than most cops out there. He has actual training in conflict deescalation and proper restraint methods that don't kill people. Unlike most cops he actually has real firearm training so he can be trusted not to shoot at falling acorns or blow an infants head off in an altercation. He has actual medical training, which most cops aren't required to have.

Outside of training he also does seem like a decent guy. He's not an agressive macho shitbag like most cops and he does what he can to help people. He does strike me as leaning slightly conservative but he also lives in a rural area of a red state so that's to be expected. I don't think he's a trump supporter but if he is then he's smart enough to keep his mouth completely shut about it even after the election (which trump supporters usually aren't).

So I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, our current policing system is rotten to the core and he's someone looking to be a part of that. On the other hand, even though the current system needs to be burned down and rebuilt, we do need some form of police force and he seems like someone who would do the least harm in that roll.

So yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I would be interested to hear what y'all think though. Have any other lemmings experienced similar or have family members who are cops?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The point of ACAB isn't to take it literally. It's a reminder that a whole fucking lot of cops, particularly in the USA, are bad. And the problem is that when you're dealing with an individual cop at an individual interaction, you don't know which you're dealing with. And you won't until it's too late.

So the smartest thing to do is, with any interaction with police, clam up and lawyer up. No matter what. Because you don't know if they're asking questions because they're investigating someone else or investigating you. And when the latter, the bad cops (and remember, you don't know which kind you've got!) will cheerfully lie and cheat and distort and generally railroad you to fit their theory.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

It's meant literally. Even the best cop you can think of is at a minimum looking the other way when it comes to misconduct of fellow officers.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

But people do take it literally. If the phrase doesn't match the intended meaning a different phrase is needed

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's one HELL of a can of worms to be opening. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush isn't about birds, nor hands, for example.

Perhaps people should just learn?

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Oh so it's all metaphors not blanket statements, I see.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 month ago

Yes. That's exactly what I said.

🙄

I guess this is what happens when people grow up with video games instead of people.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Think about it this way; you meet a cop in an unexpected situation. You do not know this cop. Should you trust that this cop has your best interest at heart, and treat them as a fellow comrade? Certainly not if you want to live!

ACAB because if you do not make that assumption, you will get killed by one of the bastards and they will get away with it. If you want to get deeper into philosophy, we can talk about how all cops are complicit in a system that grants them limitless freedom to terrorize the populace, making even the nice ones inherent class traitors, but the simplest truth is ACAB is a motto that keeps people alive.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"Don't trust strangers" is just as well then. Still a generalization but people need a reminder because sometimes terrible things happen. Doesn't sound as cool though.

"All strangers are stranglers" is overkill but it has a nice punch to it and grabs attention. But then you have to explain in long comments how it's not really ALL strangers and they're not REALLY stranglers every time we just want people to be very cautious when interacting with strangers just to make sure they can avoid being strangled if they are indeed dealing with one. It's not meant to be literal there is truth in there if you ignore parts of it.

Isn't that exhausting?

I want police reform and an end to shitty cultures in bad police departments. And I want unjustified killings to end as much as you do, truly I do. But I can't get behind the phrase ACAB even though alternatives don't sound as bold in a protest.