Copsuckers can be funny

in #police4 years ago

The other day I accidentally ended up in an online conversation centered around the fact that ALL cops are bad guys and gang members.

The other person in the conversation disagreed strongly. Even though she's always posting about her own illegal (but ethical) activities, and apparently ignoring who puts her in danger. She posted all the tired old justifications and apologetics-- it was like she had her own copy of The Copsucker's Handbook (I should write that!), and had memorized it. I responded to a couple of her points, but she was flooding the thread faster than I could write. I even tried to call a truce and drop the subject a couple of times, but she wouldn't let it go. Copsuckers are so sensitive!

Finally she asked me to explain how I can hold that opinion about cops, and how I can say they are a gang. I said "OK". (It's easy to do, and not difficult to lay out clearly enough that anyone who isn't blinded by their religion can see.) But before I could post even the first bit I was writing, she told me to go to a different group to post my response-- which seems counterproductive since that's not where all the lead-up had occurred. So I asked "why?"

Instead of answering that question, she started proclaiming how angry she was with me. Finally she squeezed out this gem:

Writers are gang members! And I hate them all and wish they would shoot each other and die! The world would be a better place!
(She also told me I think I'm "so smart", but I'm stupid, and said she would never talk to me again, but that's not relevant.)

Well, shall we compare the claims?

Show me the writer gang. Go on, show me.
(I can show you the cop gang-- I can drive you past their clubhouse-- I can show you their gang signs, symbols, and tattoos-- I can translate some of their street talk-- and I can show you how their gang membership drives their loyalties and behavior.)

Writers are all over the place as far as their beliefs, ethics, and principles go. Not unified in anything but that they write. Some are even so low that they defend and promote government and enforcers! Perhaps you could make the claim that writers belong to many different opposing gangs, but even that is a shaky claim. But, lets just pretend the claim has merit. Writers are still better than cops.

Writers, by the act of writing, don't violate anyone. I can't force you to read anything I write-- nor would I ever consider trying to do so. I can't force you to shell out money so that I can afford to keep writing-- again, why would I do such a disgusting thing? I don't believe that by writing, I have any "authority" over you. I don't believe that I am entitled, by virtue of writing, to molest you or use force against those who aren't violating anyone. If I do violate you, I don't believe I am immune to consequences just because I write. I expect that if I murder someone because I'm scared of them, my status as a writer won't protect me from a murder conviction. Again, writers are better than any cop.

I would say the pro-cop/anti-writer rant says more about the person who wrote it (wait... does that make her a "writer"?!) than about other writers. What do you think?

Anyway, it is a reminder just how delusional most of the people around me continue to be. They are "why we can't have nice things"... they love their chains and bullies too much to admit they have been duped. They are cowards. And they are growing more hostile every day.

This is totally me!

Thank you for helping support Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated! Thank you.


I think you missed another important difference between writers and cops. Writers, by writing, create. They create a product that may actually be very beneficial to certain people in terms of education, entertainment, or enlightenment. Cops, on the other hand, mostly destroy. They destroy families by abducting mothers and fathers; they destroy minds by cramming people into concrete boxes; they destroy bodies with their weapons and their prerogative to use them. They destroy by acting as agents of the state, itself a massive black hole of destruction.

I myself have a pet theory that any action anyone undertakes can be viewed along this sort of spectrum of creation and destruction. One should live their lives trying to keep themselves as deep on the creation side of the spectrum as possible, and society as a whole benefits when we have more creators and fewer destroyers.

And even the good, creative things cops sometimes do aren't exclusive to cops. But when cops do them, the world acts as though Superman has swooped in and saved the day as only he is able. It's ridiculous in the extreme.

i upvote :)

"That's a terrifying conclusion, so I'm going to avoid it, no matter how obviously true."
Intellectual cowardice.

Concluding that an entire group of people (without exception) are "bad guys" or "not good" seems rather reductionistic of you. It seems like you enjoy using labels to reduce people to the ideas you've attached to them.

I agree with the points 'in theory,' but I would never make the leap to concluding that a single person (let alone all people in a group) is "good" or "bad" based on association and career choice. I think that seeing people as fixed good guys and bad guys is the kind of thinking that keeps us tangled up in fruitless arguments and general division.

Building an argument on factual statements about a group of people then following it up with a black-and-white generalization as a conclusion is like baking a delicious cake and frosting it with shit.

P.S. I'm not trying to start anything, just giving you my honest unfiltered reaction because I respect you.

The "but not all cops are bad" argument is addressed in the copsucker article dullhawk linked to above.

I saw that, but it didn't address the idea of labeling people as "good" and "bad." It also makes way too many assumptions about people for me to follow.

He also admits he can't understand why anyone would join the police force in its current state. That doesn't mean there are absolutely no reasonable good intentions that would lead a person to willingly join the force. For example, some people believe they can be the change they want to see in the world, and they might apply this to the police.

I guess what I'm saying is if we're talking about good and bad people, we need to define what we mean by this. I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a good or bad person.

If joining a specific group is committing to attacking strangers on the orders of other strangers, then you've chosen to do a bad thing.
I don't think it makes you evil, necessarily, you might think you're a good guy, but intentions aren't outcomes.

We're not taking the person's perspective into account when we insist on the perspective in which police are legalized bullies. If we're going to judge an entire group of people, we should at least realize they all have different beliefs and perspectives and intentions, at least some of which are benevolent.

Also, the way we're talking about it makes it seem like there is no yang to the yin of the current system. Is it 100% bully/mob/evil? Are there 0% situations handled well? 0% citizens effectively protected?

What exactly are we asking for when talking about how bad the current system is? What solutions are we proposing?

I wish he was wrong, but I don't have the luxury of deciding what's true.

Yes, you do choose what is true to the degree that you choose your perspective. If you're not choosing your perspective, whose perspective are you using? Whose perspectives are you ignoring?

Points 1, 2, and 3 are sound. The conclusion, "there are no good cops," is a large leap to a generalized opinion. It disregards other perspectives and possibilities. It is a useless conclusion, too. It serves only to divide people further. It also seems to depend on a concept of a "good person." Otherwise, any cop who plays well the role of a cop is a "good cop."

I believe truth is objective and knowable.
The premises support the conclusion.
I'm very fond of several cops, but I refuse to be wrong or silent just because the truth is unpalatable.

I agree, truth is objective, but it is only knowable via perspectives. Perspectives are subjective. We tend to stick to one perspective, but the more perspectives you can understand, the larger the foundation of understanding you can build for yourself. This network of perspectives provides a form of error correction. It allows for a more complete view of the truth than a single perspective.

The claim "there are no good cops" is not objective because "good cops" is not objective, just as "good person" is not objective. Therefore, the conclusion is an opinion and cannot possibly be a statement of fact.

Do you believe there can be good rapists? Rapists are, after all, just a group. A group based on one common behavior. Just as are cops.

I don't believe we can objectively, accurately label people as "good" or "bad," so your question has as little meaning as the conclusion I'm challenging.

People can certainly be objectively, accurately, labeled as "good" or "bad" based solely on their actions.

Person A rapes Person B. Person A is a BAD PERSON.

extension: used for explaining that a particular person or thing is affected by something only because they are connected to what you have just mentioned

By extension Person A is bad because they raped.
Therefore Rapists are bad. Rapists by extension of their acts are bad people.

Can "good people" do "bad" actions? Does that make them "bad people"?

Can "bad people" do "good" actions? Does that make them "good people"?

Can "good people" become "bad people"? Can "bad people" become "good people"? If so, what is the purpose of putting these labels on people?

"Good people" and "bad people" are not objective concepts, so no argument built on them can be objectively decided.

People are people. Actions are actions. We may decide any person or action is "good" or "bad," but the claim that these are objective concepts that can be proven logically is the fallacy I'm trying to expose.

The argument is that Rapist are bad people by extension of their bad acts and that's not subjective or interpretive, it's truth.

Can good people rape? Yes, but then they aren't good people anymore, the act of raping makes them a bad person. So yes, by extension of their actions, solely because of their actions that makes them bad people

Can bad people do good? Yes, but that doesn't mean they are good people because they have already been labeled bad and good acts no matter how grand or how many don't invalidate bad acts. People chose, they chose to redeem themselves, so by their actions they can become good people again, a rapist can redeem himself by seeking forgiveness. Without seeking forgiveness, it doesn't matter if they do good, by extension of their not seeking to correct their bad acts, they are bad. Because good actions don't need correcting, because they are correct to begin with good people are people that chose correct actions.

The purpose of putting these labels to people is to express that they chose to be bad. The purpose is to express their choices. If a person chooses to dig a trench he is a trench digger. If a person chose to cut a tree down he is a lumberjack, if a person chooses to build a wooden frame house he is a carpenter, should he chose to build a stone house he is a mason, a brick house makes him a brick layer, and a person that chose to rape other is labeled a rapist. Labels of all kinds come with the actions of the people, not their motivations, no label will exist to express motivations, or good intention, only outcome or actions. Should the trench digger chose to dig a trench that helps drain a flooded area for others, he's a good person, should he chose to dig a trench to flood an area that others live in, he is a bad person. Should he chose to dig a trench for himself he's simply a trench digger. Should a carpenter chose to skimp on material or labor while he's building a house for someone else, he chose to do bad because of negligence. He is a bad person. Should he chose to do the same when he's building a house for himself, he's simply a negligent person. Should other suffer because they visit his shoddy house and it collapses on them, he is a bad person. Should a lumberjack chose to cut a tree that destroys other's property or worse, he is a bad person. Should he destroy his own property or his own well being, he is a negligent person. Labels distinguish good from bad, negligent from diligent. That's why we label actions and people based on their actions, as there aren't actions without people, there's only nature. At the end, actions worthy of labels such as diligent, good, excellent, great, awesome, impressive, are labeled to express acceptance, approval and in turn inspire others to chose such things.
Equally bad actions and by extension bad people are necessary to express undesirable and shunned, behavior derision.

"Good people" and "bad people" are not objective concepts, so no argument built on them can be objectively decided.

I disagree. First actions define the character. Also, actions like truth are objective. The color black is black, because this helps us communicate ideas and facts, and so a good act is correct,a bad act is wrong, negligence is wrong, these things are agreed upon constructs and because of that they help us communicate objectively and express objective truth.

Also, actions like truth are objective.

They themselves may be objective. What is subjective are our interpretations of actions and perspectives of truth. Therefore, any label applied to a person ("good" or "bad") is applied subjectively.

Labels are applied objectively because actions in their outcomes are objective and don't require interpretation, as such a good action denotes correct behavior, or ethical, moral behavior, and in contrast a bad action (lying, cheating, stealing, initiating violence, rape, murder) denotes wrong behavior. Where (why and how) does interpretation play a part in labeling people based on their behavior?

That's a moot point, what's the point that things can be interpreted and misconstrued in whichever direction? Is that why we should not label people? Because these things can be interpreted? That's hardly an argument, or refuting the logic of: Bad actions define Bad character.

Well, if you are willing to consider that some rapists are good, I can see why you can't conclude all cops are bad.


But, it's not so much about the person as the acts they engage in. If the preponderance of a person's acts are evil (involve violating people who don't deserve to be violated at this moment) then I will call the person out. They can change instantly by refusing to engage in those acts one moment longer. If they won't do that...

Well, if you are willing to consider that some rapists are good...

To conclude that from what I said, you must have misunderstood.

My premise is that there are no "good people" or "bad people." I have tried to say it differently every reply in this whole thread, but I'm running out of ways to say it. No one has yet addressed that point.

We are in agreement that the "bad" actions are indeed "bad" or undesirable to us.

What we seem to disagree about is whether or not people should be considered "good" and "bad" people.

The concept seems deeply flawed to me, and it seems to lead to a powerless mindset in which people are trapped in their flaws, unable to rise above them or improve themselves. This mindset is also known as "being judgemental."

Practicing this tends to inwardly blind people to the very things they outwardly judge other people for. This tends to lead to hypocrisy. It's a downward spiral into a tangle of minutiae.

If you're self-aware enough to recognize your hypocrisy when it occurs, you'll still end up fighting yourself until you learn to to let it go. Only when you stop hating will you stop reflecting what you hate.

If we regard our similarities as primary and our differences as secondary, we can eliminate the "us vs. them" way of interacting with each other. When we get to the point where we all know we're all connected and are essentially one organism, we can start acting like one, even while maintaining our individual uniqueness of perspective and personality.

OK, yes, I agree that "good" and "bad" are actions or behaviors, not people.

Where I differ is that I believe that if a person has a habit of committing bad actions, that person becomes tainted by their behavior and can be said to be a bad person. Just a few bad acts, committed repeatedly, or even one bad act which is bad enough, can make any good acts irrelevant.

A person who continues to rape or police is a bad person.

BUT, as I said before, he can change that in a heartbeat by turning from committing those bad acts and refusing to act that way ever again.

If he won't do that, he is still a bad person. A person you can expect more violating behavior from. A person you would be foolish to trust. You may not want to call him a bad person, but you better adjust your behavior toward him, or you will regret it.