"Police" is not a "race", it's a gang

3 months ago
60 in police

Recently there have been more and more attempts to make awareness of the scumwad nature of cops somehow comparable to racism, or automatic hatred of people with tattoos. Yes, really.

The story goes that you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on. It's a lie. And, it seems very racist and insulting, too.

No one wakes up one morning and decides what color skin they'll have. And even if they did, skin color means nothing about the content of the person's character.

Sure, tattoos are chosen, not inborn, but again, they mean nothing about how the person wearing them will act. Aggressors could have tattoos of bunnies and unicorns, and the best person you know could have a tattoo of a gang symbol, wormy skulls, or Bernie Sanders' face.

Police, though, wake up each and every day and make the choice to enforce harmful and arbitrary "laws" against people in exchange for money stolen from their victims. It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job". But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character.

Yes, sometimes cops do good things. So do other gangsters. It doesn't excuse the existence of the "job" in either case.

Cops are not a "race" or an expression of personal taste- they are an aggressive gang. The worst and most dangerous aggressive gang in America. Being aware of this fact doesn't make you a bad person, so don't feel guilty.

I understand some people are afraid and believe cops will protect them... you can't fix cowardice or stupidity.

Image
Not a race; a gang
.

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
Join our amazing community to comment and reward others.
Sort Order:  trending
52
  ·  3 months ago

I verily disagree with this whole stance. Not in the sense that the police are a "race", as that just doesn't make sense, and to extend that notion I don't think that your moral judgment makes much sense either.
I've had many long arguments with an-caps and libertarians to the extent of frustration, as most of them parrot the same talking point over and over without any justifiable and qualitative means.

I'll start with the function of the statement "you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on." This has nothing to do with specific parts of the statement, as it is conveying the idea that prejudice against a person because of any aspect; whether controllable or not, is something each individual or group should not do. So by trying to compare each parts of the statement against themselves, you've effectively stripped the function of the statement and your argument against it.
I'm not going to go into the whole "taxation is theft", because it doesn't play a part in this discussion. I do however think this part does "It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the 'job'. But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character." You've just demonstrated a set of double-think that the aforementioned statement had a built in warning about. Your statement is equivalent "It's not about the person, but their motives. It's also about the persons character if choosing this thing I disagree with." This, coupled with the fallacy of composition/division that your stance is based on makes for shaky ground to take this as anything other than an ad hoc against the state.

·
59
  ·  3 months ago

Police, though, wake up each and every day and make the choice to enforce harmful and arbitrary "laws" against people in exchange for money stolen from their victims. It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job". But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character.

Where do you see motives without actions?

Nowhere, so let me break down your strawman built on omitting actions:

Your statement is equivalent "It's not about the person, but their motives. It's also about the persons character if choosing this thing I disagree with."

not

Therefore the correct equivalent of that statement is
"Police chose (action) to enforce laws for money. It's not about the person, it's about their actions. But actions do speak of character"

see what you did there, couple that with your zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So by trying to compare each parts of the statement against themselves, you've effectively stripped the function of the statement and your argument against it.

The function of the statement is:

The story goes that you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on.

See what you resorted to there once more.... (ummm yeah, ... = omission)

"you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on."

Yeah, that's another omission, coupled with the previous one omitting actions it's building a certain trait of your character, a very questionable one.

Lets go back to the function of exposing a lie with a statement that begins with "The story goes that" and concludes with "It's a lie." How exactly is it that the function has been stripped? And why? Also you tie that into the argument, with another red herring.

Will await your answers, me thinks you're gonna go silent, as you already have prejudice against anarchist thought, and didn't explain exactly why or how his moral judgement doesn't make sense.

as most of them parrot the same talking point over and over without any justifiable and qualitative means.

·
·
52
  ·  3 months ago

My what a bunch of hogwash.

Where do you see motives without actions?
Nowhere, so let me break down your strawman built on omitting actions

I never said there wasn't actions. You're looking at the wrong thing sir.

it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job"

"Condition" in the sentence is what determines that it is motive, as the action of aggression is motive to keep the job. That is exactly what the statement implies.

sigh The whole "gotchya" attitude isn't very quaint.
Adding on "The story goes that " doesn't change anything other than it being a preface for his argument and it's conclusion that "it's a lie". If you pay close attention, I disagree with his assertion that "it's a lie".
All you've done is shift the focus onto something else and go "LOOK, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE WRONG". The irony hurts.

Also you tie that into the argument, with another red herring.

facepalm

.... and didn't explain exactly why or how his moral judgement doesn't make sense.

Forgive me being more so cryptic in my "outright" disagreement and explanation of why his moral judgement doesn't make sense. sigh
His moral judgment is predicated on his argument that the police aren't a race, which is a silly assertion because everyone knows they're not. The point is about prejudices against anyone being bad, and OP has demonstrated the warning built into the "Story that goes". It's a false dichotomy he's built up "They're not a race, they're a gang". No, they're the outcome of established centralized power to maintain the law and liberty. But all I ever see an-caps do is commit the fallacy of composition/division.

·
·
·
61
  ·  3 months ago

They're not a race, they're a gang". No, they're the outcome of established centralized power to maintain the law and liberty. But all I ever see an-caps do is commit the fallacy of composition/division.

You just describe it differently why is not a gang?

Defenition gang: (of a number of people) join together, typically in order to intimidate someone.

So why isn't the police not a gang?

I'm curisous now, did you ever been intimidated by police?

·
·
·
·
52
  ·  3 months ago

Ok, there's two different approaches being used here. What OP is saying is that the police force was established to be a gang. I'm saying that the police force was established to maintain law and liberty.

What you're trying to describe is an outcome of an abuse of power, and that is not equal to being a gang, as the abuse of power is not applied in principle it's only applied in context. This meaning that the police's goal is not the same as the goal of a gang, but that police can act with mannerisms of gang members in circumstances of power abuse.

And to answer your question, no I've never been intimidated by the police. I've been frightened that I'd get a ticket, 'cuz the fear of punishment runs deep in all animals, but that's about it.

·
·
·
·
·
61
  ·  3 months ago

Thanks for your reply, Im not talking about O.P. I aksed why you don't see them as gang.

This is the Dutch translation of a criminal organisation.

The association must be organized. This does not necessarily mean the existence of a hierarchy, but it has made a prior distribution of tasks and certain members specialize in areas of committing crime. This organization should also exist on a permanent basis. Casual encounters or limited agreements prior to the commission of a crime, not enough to speak of a gang.
The gang must commit crimes (attacks) to persons or property as a target. It need not be multiple crimes: one planned crime enough.

Now the thing here is what is a crime? I think police are committing crimes all day. Enough film material on youtube about bad cops commiting crimes.

Im not saying your right or wrong.

I just see them as a gang.

·
·
·
·
·
59
  ·  2 months ago

. I'm saying that the police force was established to maintain law and liberty.

Yes they were:

The birth and development of the American police can be traced to a multitude of historical, legal and political-economic conditions. The institution of slavery and the control of minorities, however, were two of the more formidable historic features of American society shaping early policing. Slave patrols and Night Watches, which later became modern police departments, were both designed to control the behaviors of minorities. For example, New England settlers appointed Indian Constables to police Native Americans (National Constable Association, 1995), the St. Louis police were founded to protect residents from Native Americans in that frontier city, and many southern police departments began as slave patrols. In 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the nation's first slave patrol. Slave patrols helped to maintain the economic order and to assist the wealthy landowners in recovering and punishing slaves who essentially were considered property.

http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing

More,
http://originalpeople.org/slave-patrols-police/

There were even private “brotherhoods” or “hermandeades” in places like Medieval Spain, but these arose because there was no real government protection, they were not government agents policing communities, they were the communities standing guard over themselves. Take any course on criminal justice or any history course addressing this period in British history and they will all unequivocally inform you that the Metropolitan Police Service was the first professional police force in human history, and it did not emerge until 1829.

But this model did not make it’s way to the United States through the same route…

Instead, inspired by this approach, the United States first adopted the community policing model for the purposes of organizing “slave patrols.” That is, the first implementation of Peel’s “community policing” model did not happen until the days of slave revolts – Nat Turner and John Brown – when more and more human beings, kept in forced captivity and labor, took the risks to run away for the freedom of the Northern states.

from
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/04/police-originated-from-slave-catching-patrols/

So much for maintaining law and liberty myth..

·
·
·
59
  ·  3 months ago

I never said there wasn't actions.

No you did not, you omitted actions on the basis that motives implies actions, it does not. Saying "the statement implies", when the statement is explicit in expressing actions determine character, is disingenuous. The statement is expressing that their actions are a consequence of their motives. Their motives are keeping their job and not action of aggression.

"Condition" in the sentence is what determines that it is motive, as the action of aggression is motive to keep the job.

The motive is getting paid, actions are not motive, motive is not actions. The statement follows:

the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job"

The condition of keeping their job is aggression and theft (action). The actions are a consequence of keeping their job, which is why the motive of keeping their job is not the point of the statement, it's their actions. The point of the statement is about the consequence of their motives, not about their motives(condition) devoid of consequence.

So then the correct equivalent of the statement is not:

"It's not about the person, but their motives. It's also about the persons character if choosing this thing I disagree with."

But:

"Police chose (action) to enforce laws for money. It's not about the person, it's about their actions. But actions do speak of character"

Moving on.

Adding on "The story goes that " doesn't change anything other than it being a preface for his argument and it's conclusion that "it's a lie". If you pay close attention, I disagree with his assertion that "it's a lie".

Adding what you omitted changes the whole premise of your previous argument:

I'll start with the function of the statement "you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on." This has nothing to do with specific parts of the statement, as it is conveying the idea that prejudice against a person because of any aspect; whether controllable or not, is something each individual or group should not do. So by trying to compare each parts of the statement against themselves, you've effectively stripped the function of the statement and your argument against it.

So it goes from your original argument that the statement's function is invalidated by contrasting parts of it against themselves into:

Adding on "The story goes that " doesn't change anything other than it being a preface for his argument and it's conclusion that "it's a lie".

To now asserting that you disagreed with his assertion, not that his assertion is invalidated or the function of the statement.

If you pay close attention, I disagree with his assertion that "it's a lie".

Why or how do you disagree, you didn't provide reasons (why) or rhetoric (how), and it's not implied in your previous argument that the function is invalidated, as the function is to expose a misconception, that we should not have prejudice against anyone, period, but that there is such a thing as a correct or just prejudice, based on the actions they(group) engage in every single day.

His moral judgment is predicated on his argument that the police aren't a race, which is a silly assertion because everyone knows they're not.

His argument isn't they they are a race, but a gang.

The point is about prejudices against anyone being bad, and OP has demonstrated the warning built into the "Story that goes".

The point is not that prejudice against anyone is bad.

It's a false dichotomy he's built up "They're not a race, they're a gang".

The black or white fallacy is predicated by only two options being available, where/what is the either they are a race or a gang premise for a false dichotomy? Why is it a false dichotomy, and how?

No, they're the outcome of established centralized power to maintain the law and liberty.

The gang is the outcome of established centralized power.

But all I ever see an-caps do is commit the fallacy of composition/division.

Why and how does the fallacy of composition/division apply here and to what?

·
60
  ·  2 months ago

So, you believe there can be good rapists? Because that is also not about the person, but about the choice he makes. If you believe there can be "good cops", in spite of what they do as a condition of keeping the "job" which earns them the label "police officer", then you must also believe there can be "good rapists" in spite of what they do to qualify for the label "rapists".

46
  ·  3 months ago

Spot on, you cannot fix Cowardice or Stupid.

·
61
  ·  3 months ago

I'm really curious, because I'm learning Enlish.. But didn't you mean stupidity?'