131–140 of 465 posts
I am confused. Are they mandating a backdoor, or is there already a backdoor, or are they allowing the police to exploit zero days? If it is the latter, it is sad that the authorities assume weak security as a given.
I'm sure this will stop the rioting.
it's not exactly the bill we needed in the middle a crisis of confidence in the police.
it's just conservatives shrugging off what is happening, and making their point
this law doesn't make sense otherwise
Meanwhile China is bad.
I haven't seen "reeducation camps" in the west in a few decades
Are our prisons meaningfully different from "reeducation camps"? Are they any less biased, brutal, or damaging?
You can argue that prisoners in the US are "criminals", but states can call whoever they want a criminal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. It's a profession, every cop out there can just... not be a cop. Comparing that to skin color or someone's ethnicity is absolutely ridiculous.
> It's a profession, every cop out there can just... not be a cop. Yeah, and every coal miner can just stop complaining about tough working conditions and decreasing number of jobs in their field, and instead learn how to code. It is that simple[0]. 0. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/47...
[flagged]
I think my biggest pet peeve with this line of thinking is that it's not a reform slogan and it's not productive. If someone actually thinks that, then where do you go from there.
[flagged]
It's the institution, and its functional role in society, that's the structural problem. There are many well-intentioned, conscientious individuals in the police force. It is somewhat similar to the question of the attribution of moral blame for unjust wars. It is almost universally recognized that unjust wars are the fault of the aggressor country's leadership, and not the fault of the soldiers who fight them. Those soldiers tend to be poor, subject to indoctrination, and are often simply trying to dutifully help their country. In the same way that I don't think we should try and prosecute every Russian soldier fighting in Ukraine, or every American soldier to fight in Iraq, as war criminals - except for where they violate jus in bello - I don't think we should charge all police with responsibility for the injustices of the institution for which they work. Going back to where I began, Emma Goldman, one of the things I always found most powerful in the anarchist tradition is their belief in the basic goodness of most ordinary people - even when they are caught up in a fundamentally obscene system. I think I find the phrase ACAB grating for precisely that reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying all cops are anything is exactly the same thing as saying all blacks are thieves, all Jews are greedy, or any of the other blanket statements that can never apply to any large group of people. It’s disgusting.
It's okay to dislike people for the bad things that they do. It's not okay to dislike people for the circumstances they were born into. Every cop, at least in the US, made the conscious decision to join a broken system where they would be rewarded for greed and corruption, and be allowed to dehumanize any group they decide they don't like. People who sign up to be cops who try to change any of this end up not being c…
This seems rather incompatible with:
> Every cop, at least in the US, made the conscious decision to join a broken system
If you believe the system is broken, and if you believe police are necessary at least in some form, how is extending your dislike to every cop not similar structurally to disliking people for the circumstances they were born into? (I'm not making a claim of equivalence in terms of the impact - racism is clearly worse - but of a similarly fallacious generalization).
In other words, if prospective cops could join a different system, they would, but no such system exists. Many join thinking they can influence/change the system, and I don't doubt that they try, but clearly this doesn't work well. This is not the same as joining a system for the purpose of benefiting from its rottenness.
Don't get me wrong: the system is clearly broken. But it seems deeply problematic to throw out all nuance and embrace a binary position here. Categorical statements like "joining automatically means you plan to dehumanize people you don't like and reap the rewards of corruption" does not withstand rational scrutiny.