Pppffbbbthhh haha thanks.

Guess I’ll just sit in this, I guess.

Update: thank you for pointing out to me which community this was posted on.

I’m going to leave this post up as a cautionary tale for people like me who don’t pay enough attention!

But Linux is cool cuz it’s so fast and it doesn’t break.

Long as I’ve been using it anyway.

So now linux is going to be much slower, going to break and be more susceptible to security breaches?

I’m not a programmer, is the upside supposed to be that with so many more programmers able to work on the kernel, those issues will be able to be fixed by the extra programmers?

It’s not like there’s anything wrong with Linux right now.

I don’t remember claiming that good cops weren’t being pushed out of the USA police, do you have a source for that?

And then you agreeing with me that not acab.

Great, I agree.

Questions? Or me directly addressing what you’re talking about?

You seem very confused about both

Don’t feel too bad. You literally just have to pay attention, it’s a pretty simple fix.

I love it that you think finally explaining your actual argument is tantamount to “spelling it out”.

“You don’t have to change the police system if it doesn’t exist”.

Yeah, and if qualified immunity didn’t exist then it would be easier to prosecute police officers.

Unfortunately, that dreamscape, along with your own, is currently irrelevant since qualified immunity is still a reality.

Hardly seems worth bringing up, wouldn’t you agree?

So let’s get to what you’ve been trying to say by tiptoeing around the tulips this whole time:

“Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don’t need, and rebuild something else in its place.”

Because we know how to fix it. Because there is evidence and historical precedent that fixing it works. Because what suggestions I have heard so far for a rebuilt law enforcement, amounts to “fixing” The system now by adding more support services and increasing regulations and training. Because tearing it down takes a lot of time, and how long do you want there to be no law enforcement? Do you do it in stages?

Because, you saccharine dreamer, fixing broken windows is a heck of a lot easier and more responsible than burning your house down and starting from scratch.

So you’ve already forgotten the facts, but your argument as that those facts that you can’t remember don’t have any reasoning?

Unconvinciiing.

Some police officers are corrupt and sadists.

Some bakers are corrupt and sadists as well.

Don’t worry. Although you appear confused and defensive about these statements, nobody is saying otherwise.

I’m using your literal quotes and then directly and succinctly pointing out their errors.

It must be difficult for you that direct analytical critique of your perspective related to the topic we are discussing confounds you so.

Way to pretend I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying and am effectively countering your avoidance techniques so that you can avoid addressing the flaws in your arguments I pointed out and don’t have to admit you don’t have a leg to stand on here.

Did the Chappelle thing go anywhere? I thought it was DOA, although I’m not familiar with the controversy at all.

He made trans jokes? Or jokes about how he didn’t understand transsexuals?

At least with Nestle. There’s a lot of actual corporate litigation going after the itself for utilizing child slavery.

Hasn’t worked yet in legal forums, but there’s definitely a concerted effort to place the blame on the bad actor itself, whether an individual or in this case, the company itself.

But the protestors identified Chappelle as the bad actor in his case right, so they didn’t want to penalize the entire platform for one bad actor?

Boycotting all of YouTube instead of protesting the specific offensive YouTuber responsible for his own words doesn’t make sense to me.

Like Nestle should be held accountable because The company is actively fighting for the retention of child slavery in their cocoa plantations to support their business operations.

I don’t know what Netflix"s culpability would have been related to Dave Chappelle, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their content and business model.

Didn’t Peterson get his fame from his YouTube channel?

I don’t follow him much at all.

I see what you’re saying though.

You have to call people out on their shit, also.

There has to be some happy medium between calling people out when they’re being awful, which seems necessary to advance society, and hounding them relentlessly.

I feel like I draw that line exactly where too many other people agree with you.

If you take the initiative to report that woman for using a racial slur, that’s at least as valid(I’d argue more valid) an action as that woman semantically broadening a racial slur.

But if you read a report about how she got fired for using a racial slur, and is being condemned, and then decide to go after her, then you’re just wasting time, discrediting your perspective, and kicking a horse while it’s shot.

Problem is that people like to fight battles after they’re already won, because they’re easier to be a part of then.

If everybody is agreeing with you, you probably don’t need to keep saying what you’re saying.

Yes, if everything we’re talking about was different and behaved in a completely different manner than it does in the reality everybody lives in(that’s right, you too!), then there would be a way to support your worldview.

It’s merciful that you think of your self-Imposed limitations that way, but try to bear in mind for the future that with your eyes closed, you can’t really tell what’s going on around you.

I see, so you don’t consider yourself part of society.

“They can be bastards for other reasons, but if they don’t do those things they also aren’t bastards.”

Not much of an argument, that what you do and are doesn’t determine what you do or are.

“I deny, however, any credit to the institution that is police.”

Good thing no one gave credit to that institution then!

“They did not change by choice.”

According to you, it doesn’t matter if they change by choice or not. All humans are immutably defined in perpetuity.

“They routinely refuse to change by choice”

Again, apparently choice doesn’t matter in your eyes.

This whole previous comment. It’s just you either agreeing with me or contradicting yourself.

But high five! I’ll take it.

Are you tired of thinking of all of the synonyms for a house that prove your first paragraph incorrect?

Our “foundational difference” relies on you actively ignoring the world around you and insisting that all humans are the same no matter what, and if they get a tattoo or hold open a door then they are no longer a human.

Not a strong or defensible foundation for your worldview.

Nope, I’m looking at individual people, not actions.

No, you don’t become complicit in being a bastard simply by becoming part of a corrupt institution.

The Jewish sympathizers that were part of the Reich who saved Holocaust victims?

HOA participants who change the laws to be more fair and beneficial to everyone?

IRS agents offering free file programs and tax benefits for low-income individuals?

You are blind to how systems of the world actually work and what creates change.

You can keep throwing a tantrum and calling names, eventually you’ll realize you’re not changing anything.

It’s just going to take a lot longer than if you open your eyes.

By your logic, you are a rapist and a murderer because you live in a society within which rape and murder occurs.

If that’s how you like to see yourself, that is your choice.

It isba false, narcissistic and deluded perspective to ascribe total immutable personal responsibility for the actions of others by virtue of association.

You’re taking personal credit for the changes I was talking about after agreeing with me.

Strange opening.

Okay so you define good and people as bastards, so for you, APAB. All people are bastards.

You think everybody is a bastard. That’s your own problem, and further clear evidence that people who use the phrase acab don’t understand the world around them

Because if you look at the legal experts, the cops, the civil Rights groups making those changes? They aren’t screaming illogical, false slogans across the table at police unions without understanding what they’re saying.

They know that doesn’t effect change.

They’re negotiating changes within a flawed system.

And they’re changing the system from within and without successfully whether or not you hurl inaccurate epithets into the void of the internet or scrunch your eyes up tight so you can’t see what’s going on around you.

Interesting that at the exact point your examples break down, the contradicting evidence to your point becomes fundamentally “different” and you just dismiss it.

Besides, don’t you know the animorphs? Birds can change into humans, andalites, tons of stuff.

Back to your point: a slogan does not gain validity or credibility by being false; it loses its validity and credibility by being fundamentally false.

You see that slogan as particularly important because you’ve used it before and because it’s popular.

That does not make it a good or correct slogan.

It just makes the person saying it look like they’re spouting gibberish since there are so many simple examples that prove it incorrect, many of those examples displayed in these threads given by the people myopically chanting that acab is valid.

I agree these discussions are important, but what hope do you have of influencing other perspective when your argument is, at its foundation, flawed and clearly incorrect.

Black Lives Matter? Undeniable.

Of course they matter.

All Cops Are Bastards?

Objectively false schoolyard taunt.

That backfiring banner is working against your point and against your credibility.

Yes, you are saying that:

“Except in America it seems that’s the exact case”

Please elaborate on what axe I’m grinding.

Logically explaining the truth and repeating basic facts?

How devious.

Some states are already switching out police for mental health professionals and civilian law enforcement.

That shows that you can change the system.

It’s difficult, but with as giant an institution as law enforcement already having been changed fairly rapidly just in the last hundred years, it doesn’t make any sense not to expect further change.

Especially when so many legal groups and victim advocacy groups are demanding change and changes are literally occurring currently.

And yea, saying all dentists are bad is about as absurd as saying all cops are bad.

As far as whistleblowers go, I was referring to all whistleblowers anywhere, but yes whistleblowers are cops and that’s a good point.

You can pretend that a cop who reports or fights against corruption or supports the rights of minorities isn’t a cop, but that’s factually and objectively inaccurate.

Is a cop marching in BLM rallies a bastard? Is a cop getting a rape victim, proper health and mental support even if it isn’t warranted by their department a bastard?

Of course not, you have to ridiculous myopic mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that acab when it’s clearly not true.