8 ms·

You did say that, or rather implied it. You claimed this person must know every single cop, but you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know

You did say that, or rather implied it. You claimed this person must know every single cop, but you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system. So it's sort of self proving, or proven by definition. By definition of what cops are and what they are allowed to do, all cops must be bastards. If they weren't, they wouldn't be cops!

rationalist 4mo ago
> you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system. ??? No, that is not a logical at all. Nor did I admit that. Please stop. You keep assuming things that are not true about what I've clearly written.
- array_key_first 4mo ago
  Yes, you did admit that, by implication. To replay what exactly happened in this conversation. Person A: It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime". Reduced: "you do not understand that covering up a crime is also a crime". You: I did not say or imply that. Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise. Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal. I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. So, if what I'm saying sounds stupid or obvious... uh, okay, reflect on that. Regardless, you're missing the forest for the trees here. You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier. The ACAB viewpoint comes from the preposition that policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice. Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice. It's sort of how all jesters are silly. To be a jester, you must be silly, so by definition of a jester all jesters are silly.
  - rationalist 4mo ago
    Sorry, I rarely look at usernames and assumed you were the same person as earlier. > Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise. > Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal. The first implication is reasonable. It also assumes facts not in evidence, however I will say this: I do understand that covering up a crime is criminal in places where I am familiar with the law. I am not familiar with laws everywhere. I will also say this: a cop covering up a crime of another cop is bad, thus that person would be considered a bad cop. I think we can both agree on that last statement. The second implication is a bad take. That assumes that all cops are covering up crimes. I posit that not every cop has done that, but an unknown percentage somewhere better 0 and 100, have. > I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. Based on your second implication, I believe that statement to be incorrect. > What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. I would say that is more applicable to you. > You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier. Please reread the HN Guidelines. > policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice I am open to agreeing with this, because some percentage greater than 0 but less than 100, is. > Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice. Again, no, please stop. Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships. It is impossible to have a reasonable argument with a person who cannot reason, therefore I will not continue this discussion with you (with someone else, sure).
    - array_key_first 4mo ago
      If the system itself is set up such that it covers up the crimes of cops, which I would argue it is, then yes - simply by knowing that information and choosing to participate in the system, you have just helped cover up crimes, which is a crime. Consider: is it possible to be an ethical member of the mafia? > Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships. I don't think you even believe this is true, you're just short circuiting like a poorly built robot. You can't respond to what I'm actually saying so it's just "uhhh uhhh you're not logical! I can't respond to illogical people!" But think about it, for like longer than 5 seconds. If you know the police do bad things, and you want to join anyway, doesn't that mean that you must want to do bad things? And, if you're in the forced, doesn't that mean that you're helping and abetting said bad things? If your brain really can't comprehend why that doesn't compute, then okay remove the world police. Replace it with mafia, or pirates, or gang, or Nazis. The concept itself makes sense, no? I think the problem is that you intrinsicly view the police as good guys, they fight crime. But that's not really true, one because good guys and bad guys don't exist, that's comic book stuff, but also because the police are systemicly, institutionally, evil. Like, from their conception as slave catchers in the south. You might view the police as good guys who sometimes do bad things. Others view them as essentially a gang. Except a state-sponsored gang, which is much much worse. In that light, do you understand how ACAB might come to be? Even if you don't agree with it?

rationalist 4mo ago

> you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system. ??? No, that is not a logical at all. Nor did I admit that. Please stop. You keep assuming things that are not true about what I've clearly written.

array_key_first 4mo ago
Yes, you did admit that, by implication. To replay what exactly happened in this conversation. Person A: It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime". Reduced: "you do not understand that covering up a crime is also a crime". You: I did not say or imply that. Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise. Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal. I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. So, if what I'm saying sounds stupid or obvious... uh, okay, reflect on that. Regardless, you're missing the forest for the trees here. You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier. The ACAB viewpoint comes from the preposition that policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice. Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice. It's sort of how all jesters are silly. To be a jester, you must be silly, so by definition of a jester all jesters are silly.
- rationalist 4mo ago
  Sorry, I rarely look at usernames and assumed you were the same person as earlier. > Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise. > Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal. The first implication is reasonable. It also assumes facts not in evidence, however I will say this: I do understand that covering up a crime is criminal in places where I am familiar with the law. I am not familiar with laws everywhere. I will also say this: a cop covering up a crime of another cop is bad, thus that person would be considered a bad cop. I think we can both agree on that last statement. The second implication is a bad take. That assumes that all cops are covering up crimes. I posit that not every cop has done that, but an unknown percentage somewhere better 0 and 100, have. > I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. Based on your second implication, I believe that statement to be incorrect. > What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. I would say that is more applicable to you. > You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier. Please reread the HN Guidelines. > policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice I am open to agreeing with this, because some percentage greater than 0 but less than 100, is. > Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice. Again, no, please stop. Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships. It is impossible to have a reasonable argument with a person who cannot reason, therefore I will not continue this discussion with you (with someone else, sure).
  - array_key_first 4mo ago
    If the system itself is set up such that it covers up the crimes of cops, which I would argue it is, then yes - simply by knowing that information and choosing to participate in the system, you have just helped cover up crimes, which is a crime. Consider: is it possible to be an ethical member of the mafia? > Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships. I don't think you even believe this is true, you're just short circuiting like a poorly built robot. You can't respond to what I'm actually saying so it's just "uhhh uhhh you're not logical! I can't respond to illogical people!" But think about it, for like longer than 5 seconds. If you know the police do bad things, and you want to join anyway, doesn't that mean that you must want to do bad things? And, if you're in the forced, doesn't that mean that you're helping and abetting said bad things? If your brain really can't comprehend why that doesn't compute, then okay remove the world police. Replace it with mafia, or pirates, or gang, or Nazis. The concept itself makes sense, no? I think the problem is that you intrinsicly view the police as good guys, they fight crime. But that's not really true, one because good guys and bad guys don't exist, that's comic book stuff, but also because the police are systemicly, institutionally, evil. Like, from their conception as slave catchers in the south. You might view the police as good guys who sometimes do bad things. Others view them as essentially a gang. Except a state-sponsored gang, which is much much worse. In that light, do you understand how ACAB might come to be? Even if you don't agree with it?