• vzq
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      2 months ago

      The underlying point is the same. Bootleggers were providing what the people wanted and cops were in the way because ACAB. That’s the core of it.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well some people want kiddie porn and cops are in the way of that too, so probably not the best line of reasoning there.

          • kameecoding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            It’s not false equivalence, it’s negation of your logic, but different.

            I might have put down, some people want to get drunk and beat you up, and the police is in the way of that too, now unless you are into that you provably don’t want to get beaten up by drunks.

            The crime doesn’t matter, I choose extreme example to get the point across that your reasoning as to why ACAB is flawed and meaningless point farming.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              36
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              It’s not false equivalence

              It very much is. You’re equivocating alcohol and child abuse.

              it’s negation of your logic

              Nope. Just because cops arrest child abusers doesn’t mean that they’re the only answer. In fact, a well-funded social safety net is much better at discovering and stopping it and most if not all other societal, psychological and psychiatric problems than cops will ever be.

              but different.

              Well, at least you got that part right 🤷

              I might have put down, some people want to get drunk and beat you up, and the police is in the way of that too, now unless you are into that you provably don’t want to get beaten up by drunks

              Another case of giving cops credit for something that they do by default even though their way of dealing with it is much WORSE than alternative ways less focused on use of force and punishment as a deterrent.

              The crime doesn’t matter

              It very much does, as treating every societal problem with the same blunt tool is an awful idea

              get the point across that your reasoning as to why ACAB is flawed

              Overly simplified for the sake of brevity, maybe, but otherwise nope, wrong again.

              meaningless point farming

              This might be difficult to understand to someone whose opinions are unpopular because they’re bad, but sometimes people express honest opinions that other people agree with, rather than playing pretend for points.

                • Masterbaexunn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The “good” cops stand up for the same system that shelters, protects, and encourages the bad cops. There’s no nuance. It is what it is. Therefore ACAB.

                  • frezik@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Right, the nuance is that there are bad cops and worse cops. It’s not a system that’s capable of change from the inside, and will actively fight anyone who tries until they give up, get shuttled away to a place that doesn’t matter with no hope of promotion, or even end up dead.

                  • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    So when I pull on a gun on you and take your money, your car, you will definitely not call those goddamn bastards, right? You swear?

                • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Haha welcome to Lemmy m8. I’ve gotten into this exact argument before. I’m all for police reform and I was out there in the George Floyd protests but the hatred of police officers on this platform is absolutely rabid.

                  Imo, the argument that ACAB because the good ones don’t stop the bad ones can be applied to virtually any group of people. So we’re all bastards I guess.

                  • Masterbaexunn@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    No it can’t be applied evenly. Cops have legal authority to use force, including lethal force. Name another group of people with that right.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll remind you that prohibition required a Constitutional amendment, the idea was very popular.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          2 months ago

          Popular amongst Protestant busybodies with more zeal than sense and outsized influence on politicians, sure, but not necessarily the population in general.

          I’ll in turn remind you that it became so unpopular that they passed a new amendment to get rid of it, the only time that ever happened.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            2 months ago

            It was popular for a reason people don’t understand now: women were getting the shit beaten out of them by their drunken husbands. So a huge number of people, especially women, thought prohibition would stop that. Unfortunately, it just created a whole new kind of violence without reducing the domestic violence.

            But the cause was a lot more noble than people give it credit for.

            • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              A lot of people don’t know that Abraham Lincoln was a big proponent of prohibition. It was seen by progressives as an important step to move society forward.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              women were getting the shit beaten out of them by their drunken husbands. So a huge number of people, especially women, thought prohibition would stop that

              They thought wrong. Typical of conservatives to blame something external and simple for a societal problem rooted in toxic gender roles and family structures.

              the cause was a lot more noble than people give it credit for.

              Except for the fact that there’s nothing noble about jumping to conclusions and trying to solve the only tangentially related problems of some by depriving everyone else of something that most of them enjoyed more or less responsibly.

              a reason people don’t understand now

              On the contrary: we still understand that domestic violence is awful and we now also understand that alcohol doesn’t in itself cause it.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 months ago

                Dude, it was the 1920s. People did not understand that the problem was not alcohol-related. Also, many people, mostly men, did not think there was a domestic violence problem because they thought it was an okay thing to do. You are looking back on it with 2024 knowledge and values.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  People did not understand

                  That’s actually my point: they passed major legislation based on a guess not supported by knowledge. People knew THAT is a bad idea in the 1920s (and 1919 when the law was passed), though it seems to have been forgotten in the century since…

                  Also, many people, mostly men, did not think there was a domestic violence problem because they thought it was an okay thing to do

                  I’m fully aware of that. My point is that the people who didn’t agree that it was ok was wrong to pass law based on an unproven assumption as to the underlying reasons.

                  You are looking back on it with 2024 knowledge and values.

                  More like 1990s values at the latest. Demagoguery and scapegoat politics haven’t gotten the bad rap it deserves in the wider population for a LONG time…

              • dreugeworst@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                are you seriously blaming conservatives for something that the progressives of the time championed?

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The “progressives” of the time were quite conservative, yes.

                  Scapegoating a chemical compound for problems caused by toxic gender roles and social ills wasn’t progressive and legislating based on such a colossal misunderstanding of cause and effect rooted in religion, moral panic, and othering is textbook conservatism.

    • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Actually, there was a big culture in rural areas to just fuck with cops for fun, and the best way to avoid being arrested is to be faster than the cops.