401
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
401 points (99.0% liked)
News
37832 readers
627 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So one set of cops who are all cops, and an unrelated set of people where the only defining factor is race.
Right. Its a racist, nonsensical argument from the start, that isn't remotely comparable.
Nope. Only one does. Modern policing is the root of the problem, from the way they were formed and structured.
Negative, only one is fallacious, the racist argument. As modern policing is the root of the problem, all police are complicit in its continuation.
Your argument is a total crock.
I'll ask you to try again and re-analyze and consider more from my perspective what you believe I'm actually trying to say as opposed to crafting a straw-man. At the moment, it seems you're intentionally trying. I'm hoping your comprehension is not this poor, because if it is then there is no point in progressing further.
Clearly dismissive, but not from a position of substance. Awfully bad-faith, and the lack of substantive rebuttal reinforces that I'm making a good albeit uncomfortable point.
There is nothing to consider. The premise is either racism, or a complete misunderstanding of the issue, for either "gang violence" or "cops" respectively.
So no, I won't consider from your perspective, because the basis is flawed. There is nothing for me to comment on about a completely incorrect comparison.
Exactly. Both examples utilize the same fallacy that racists use. Thank you for proving my point.
Since you're just making straw-men in bad faith, I figure I might as well do the same. See how this works?
No, you're misunderstanding. One applies (in-group - cops. Unified group by nature of policing). Other group, unrelated, only way to relate them is racism.
Listen, your lack of understanding here is not my problem. If you're being honest and don't understand the issue, then I'd recommend you look at the history of policing, how its shaped modern policing, the current methods of policing being employed and how they are used to target racial groups (including and especially gang laws, like three strikes laws), and then you should understand the difference and can shut racists down.
If all you're going to do is keep repeating that you think its valid as an argument, then there isn't much point since you're just ignoring everything I say anyway.
Enjoy your day.
No, clearly you're misunderstanding. Clearly we related that entire group by where they lived and the cultural community from which they reside: the inner-city. Many statistics identify this population of, "the inner-city."
You're utilizing a classic example of profiling and stereotyping by judging all based on a grouping of... Ethnicity, religion, region, profession -- It doesn't matter the what, what matters is the statistical fallacy you employ to advance your prejudice.
So are all cops bastards? No. It's a simple question with a simple answer. Even MCAB would make far more sense.
I have a sneaking suspicion I understand the issue more throughly than you do, so let's just put aside that condescension-card pissing-contest, shall we? How about we just begin with resorting to less obvious logical fallacies?
And thank you. You as well.
Profession is chosen, race is not.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding that can't be passed until you recognize your mistake.
You think discrimination and stereotyping only applies to race? People choose their identity by name and gender — does that make it okay to cast prejudice against those?
You have a demonstrable case of cognitive dissonance if you don't recognize the double-standard above.
By the way, I thought you were finished?
Your misunderstanding remains, this discussion is pointless.
You already said that. Your deflections suggest I have you in perpetual check.
No, as I said there is simply no point until you recognize your fundamental misunderstanding.
You've chosen to ignore that, misinterpret what I said, then make outrageous claims.
So now, I will actually say that this discussion is over. I hope you recognize your mistake in the future.
Alright then.