I’m honored that someone even bothers to read my walls of text, but to hear they got something out of it too means a lot. Thanks for sharing.
My two main issues with comments like that are the lack of added value to the discussion as I stated above, but also that the claims on those messages are quite often absolute and thus very likely to be wrong. Maybe it’s just my autism and tendency to take claims literally, but I really take issue with absolute statements. To say something like ‘All Cops Are Bad’ means (to me atleast) literally every single one of them without an exception. That simply isn’t true. All it takes is one good cop to nullify the statement. What they meant to say is ‘there are a huge number of bad cops’ or just ‘boo cops’ but it’s not what they’re actually saying and that’s not as catchy either.
To me this leaves two options; either refrain from posting at all, or explain yourself and introduce nuance. This challenges yourself and what often happens to me atleast is that I’m half way writing a message when I realize I have no idea what I’m talking about and I then just eraise it all and move on. It’s kind of like the difference of thinking you know something and having to teach it to someone else and only then realizing you don’t know how.
That simply isn’t true. All it takes is one good cop to nullify the statement.
So ACAB is true, when you look at the philosophy of it and you separate the identity of the individuals from the job they do.
An individual can commit good acts, that’s not in dispute. An individual police officer can be fair to people and do a good job. That doesn’t make them a good cop, because of the things they aid and abbett through inaction. Holding bad actors accountable is required for justice, and those acts are impossible to perform or are penalized within the structure of policing. An individual officer can’t decline mandatory training that supports a militarization mindset. An individual officer is punished by leadership and the organization if they do try to create internal accountability.
So the structure of it means the only way to be good, is to decline to aid and abbett, which means stop being a cop. If the only way to be good is to not be a cop, that means all cops are bad.
For other absolutes I agree with you, just not this specific one I think it’s a bad example.
Hahaha, I’m overjoyed that you’re joyful! Net positive.
You aren’t alone on the absolutivity thing, autism or not. Absolute blanket statements have always made me uncomfortable. With stuff like
Leftists are all self-righteous.
American Republicans are all backwards.
Christians are cultists.
and the obvious accompanying internet convoy of
Clicks -> discussion -> algorithm promotion -> pipeline -> opinions upgrade from “bad cases of” to “lots of them” to “all of them”
not only sacrifice nuance and make it easy to Just Stay Agreeable, but discourage any questioning of the status quo.
Of course, one can argue that this is an online thing, an archetype of Reddit and Tumblr and Twitter spaces, but now I don’t even question these things aloud in real life. I don’t want to be seen as
The “see-from-all-sides” guy is obviously a closeted bigot lmao.
in a place where reputation actually matters, but it’d be easy to lump me in like that. Nuancelessness is simple, kneejerk, catchy…
Now, my point. I don’t think I’m making this up, and maybe I’ll get downvoted for this diatribe but I feel like disagreeing in real life has become much riskier. Am I sounding cynical again? As a solution (solutions aren’t cynical right?), optimally I’d want a way to discuss across views in an educated, “I’ll hear you out” way, but the real-life risk outweighs reward, and online spaces bubble-up really easily. Counterpoint: r/changemyview has put up promising resistance.
The other day I saw this business school complaint discussion. It’s on a kind of out-of-touch subreddit, but what do you think of its survivalistic smile-and-wave message?
I’m honored that someone even bothers to read my walls of text, but to hear they got something out of it too means a lot. Thanks for sharing.
My two main issues with comments like that are the lack of added value to the discussion as I stated above, but also that the claims on those messages are quite often absolute and thus very likely to be wrong. Maybe it’s just my autism and tendency to take claims literally, but I really take issue with absolute statements. To say something like ‘All Cops Are Bad’ means (to me atleast) literally every single one of them without an exception. That simply isn’t true. All it takes is one good cop to nullify the statement. What they meant to say is ‘there are a huge number of bad cops’ or just ‘boo cops’ but it’s not what they’re actually saying and that’s not as catchy either.
To me this leaves two options; either refrain from posting at all, or explain yourself and introduce nuance. This challenges yourself and what often happens to me atleast is that I’m half way writing a message when I realize I have no idea what I’m talking about and I then just eraise it all and move on. It’s kind of like the difference of thinking you know something and having to teach it to someone else and only then realizing you don’t know how.
So ACAB is true, when you look at the philosophy of it and you separate the identity of the individuals from the job they do.
An individual can commit good acts, that’s not in dispute. An individual police officer can be fair to people and do a good job. That doesn’t make them a good cop, because of the things they aid and abbett through inaction. Holding bad actors accountable is required for justice, and those acts are impossible to perform or are penalized within the structure of policing. An individual officer can’t decline mandatory training that supports a militarization mindset. An individual officer is punished by leadership and the organization if they do try to create internal accountability.
So the structure of it means the only way to be good, is to decline to aid and abbett, which means stop being a cop. If the only way to be good is to not be a cop, that means all cops are bad.
For other absolutes I agree with you, just not this specific one I think it’s a bad example.
Hahaha, I’m overjoyed that you’re joyful! Net positive.
You aren’t alone on the absolutivity thing, autism or not. Absolute blanket statements have always made me uncomfortable. With stuff like
and the obvious accompanying internet convoy of
not only sacrifice nuance and make it easy to Just Stay Agreeable, but discourage any questioning of the status quo.
Of course, one can argue that this is an online thing, an archetype of Reddit and Tumblr and Twitter spaces, but now I don’t even question these things aloud in real life. I don’t want to be seen as
in a place where reputation actually matters, but it’d be easy to lump me in like that. Nuancelessness is simple, kneejerk, catchy…
Now, my point. I don’t think I’m making this up, and maybe I’ll get downvoted for this diatribe but I feel like disagreeing in real life has become much riskier. Am I sounding cynical again? As a solution (solutions aren’t cynical right?), optimally I’d want a way to discuss across views in an educated, “I’ll hear you out” way, but the real-life risk outweighs reward, and online spaces bubble-up really easily. Counterpoint: r/changemyview has put up promising resistance.
The other day I saw this business school complaint discussion. It’s on a kind of out-of-touch subreddit, but what do you think of its survivalistic smile-and-wave message?
Sorry for being so negative =.=