This is exactly where the 2nd amendment and the Blue Lives Matter movements collide. If both civilians and police have the legal right to arm and defend themselves with lethal force, and neither has a responsibility to show restraint or demonstrate cause, then you have created a situation where an innocent civilian and a good cop could kill each other in self defense and neither would have done anything wrong.
Edit: I’m not going to respond to each comment saying there are no good cops. My point is that the cop does not have to be a bad cop for the civilian to have reasonable fear for their life, nor does the civilian need to be a criminal for the cop to have a reasonable fear for their life. Both are legally justified in killing the other person, and both are legally entitled to own a weapon capable of killing the other. That’s not a society, that’s a war. Ir we didn’t already have a police force, and you described their function in their current state to a peaceful society, they would think you were mad.
It makes sense if you remember that conservativism doesn’t actually exist, and all people claiming to be conservatives are just narcissists who pick and choose what they care about in any given situation.
Eh. Conservatism does exist but, it’s never been what it’s claimed to be. It’s all about establishing and enforcing hierarchical power structures in society by any means necessary. Almost universally, the adherents desire to have power over others, so, even if they’re not at the top, they get to be cruel towards their “lessers” and that makes them feel better about themselves. Through the lens of their philosophy, things like hypocrisy are privileges of those higher in the hierarchy with which to taunt their “lessers”.
Additionally, they do not believe in objective reality but, subjective reality that bends to their will (when it doesn’t, they deny the delta and pretend that it does). This applies to morality as well; moral correctness is relative to one’s place in the hierarchy, not their actions (ie supporting a convicted felon, rapist and pedophile is ok because he’s rich and supports hierarchy).
The reason, I think, that the belief system has been able to stick around so long (beyond the propaganda) is that its followers do gain some mental health benefits. They are able to reduce their cognitive load through deference to their rulers and reduce potential for anxiety and depression by avoiding self-reflection and embracing the Just World Fallacy.
Isn’t narcissism a likely root cause behind needing to have lessers to dominate, and to have hierarchical structures throughout society? If you know in your heart that you are a higher tier of human being than <random “other”>, or even if you are just desperate to prove to yourself and others that it’s true, then the correct society must obviously reflect that hierarchy of human worth.
Conservatism does sort of exist, but it’s all about conserving the social, economic, and power structures of the present. Honestly most so-called conservatives are actually reactionaries - they want to bring back the social, economic, and power structures of the recent past, i.e. reverse the past couple of decades of development. Mostly, of course, because they believe they were better off back then.
Bull crap. There is not now, nor has there ever been an inherently conservative value. Conservatives define their values based on their identity, and decide to conserve the social, economic, and power structures that benefit themselves. Any social, economic, and power structures that are not beneficial are evil and must be destroyed. Any position a conservative needs to take, any idea the conservative needs to spread, any argument a conservative needs to make, any action a conservative needs to take, all are justified because it is in the conservative’s best interests. It’s how they can say one thing today, and then attack the same idea tomorrow. To a rational person, this looks like hypocrisy, but a conservative is no more capable of hypocrisy than a scorpion. “How can they support this, but believe that?” “How can they say they believe X and vote for Y?” Conservatives are not tethered to any ideological foundations, so they can say or do whatever they think will help them most in the moment.
I think the problem arises when you project a view of treating people equally onto someone who does not have such a view.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
The Gadsden flag expresses support for the freedom of the in-group and the Back the Blue flag expresses support for the oppression of the out-group.
A cop doesn’t need to be a bad cop to create a situation where the civilian has a reasonable fear for their life. I’m a believer that ACAB, but even if I’m wrong, it’s still an untenable situation.
I’m not disagreeing with you. My point was that neither person needs to be a criminal to create a situation where both have a legal justification for deadly force in self defense. Like how fucked up is that?
Do people actually believe this stuff? There have been many tv shows for decades where they literally follow police around with a camera. And anyone who tries this “give me your badge number, you need a warrant, you don’t have probable cause” gets arrested. They don’t even make a secret about it.
I 2nd this. If you stop me or my wife the first thing I need to see if a badge, id, and warrant. Not one or the other. 2out of three at least.
This is exactly where the 2nd amendment and the Blue Lives Matter movements collide. If both civilians and police have the legal right to arm and defend themselves with lethal force, and neither has a responsibility to show restraint or demonstrate cause, then you have created a situation where an innocent civilian and a good cop could kill each other in self defense and neither would have done anything wrong.
Edit: I’m not going to respond to each comment saying there are no good cops. My point is that the cop does not have to be a bad cop for the civilian to have reasonable fear for their life, nor does the civilian need to be a criminal for the cop to have a reasonable fear for their life. Both are legally justified in killing the other person, and both are legally entitled to own a weapon capable of killing the other. That’s not a society, that’s a war. Ir we didn’t already have a police force, and you described their function in their current state to a peaceful society, they would think you were mad.
It always blows my mind when I see Back the Blue flags next to Gadsden flags. Who do they think is doing the treading?!
It makes sense if you remember that conservativism doesn’t actually exist, and all people claiming to be conservatives are just narcissists who pick and choose what they care about in any given situation.
Eh. Conservatism does exist but, it’s never been what it’s claimed to be. It’s all about establishing and enforcing hierarchical power structures in society by any means necessary. Almost universally, the adherents desire to have power over others, so, even if they’re not at the top, they get to be cruel towards their “lessers” and that makes them feel better about themselves. Through the lens of their philosophy, things like hypocrisy are privileges of those higher in the hierarchy with which to taunt their “lessers”.
Additionally, they do not believe in objective reality but, subjective reality that bends to their will (when it doesn’t, they deny the delta and pretend that it does). This applies to morality as well; moral correctness is relative to one’s place in the hierarchy, not their actions (ie supporting a convicted felon, rapist and pedophile is ok because he’s rich and supports hierarchy).
The reason, I think, that the belief system has been able to stick around so long (beyond the propaganda) is that its followers do gain some mental health benefits. They are able to reduce their cognitive load through deference to their rulers and reduce potential for anxiety and depression by avoiding self-reflection and embracing the Just World Fallacy.
You’re describing shared narcissism.
To a degree, yes, but there are more defining features, like zero-sum thinking that aren’t necessarily for narcissism.
Isn’t narcissism a likely root cause behind needing to have lessers to dominate, and to have hierarchical structures throughout society? If you know in your heart that you are a higher tier of human being than <random “other”>, or even if you are just desperate to prove to yourself and others that it’s true, then the correct society must obviously reflect that hierarchy of human worth.
Possibly. There does seen to be a strong correlation.
Conservatism does sort of exist, but it’s all about conserving the social, economic, and power structures of the present. Honestly most so-called conservatives are actually reactionaries - they want to bring back the social, economic, and power structures of the recent past, i.e. reverse the past couple of decades of development. Mostly, of course, because they believe they were better off back then.
Bull crap. There is not now, nor has there ever been an inherently conservative value. Conservatives define their values based on their identity, and decide to conserve the social, economic, and power structures that benefit themselves. Any social, economic, and power structures that are not beneficial are evil and must be destroyed. Any position a conservative needs to take, any idea the conservative needs to spread, any argument a conservative needs to make, any action a conservative needs to take, all are justified because it is in the conservative’s best interests. It’s how they can say one thing today, and then attack the same idea tomorrow. To a rational person, this looks like hypocrisy, but a conservative is no more capable of hypocrisy than a scorpion. “How can they support this, but believe that?” “How can they say they believe X and vote for Y?” Conservatives are not tethered to any ideological foundations, so they can say or do whatever they think will help them most in the moment.
I think the problem arises when you project a view of treating people equally onto someone who does not have such a view.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
The Gadsden flag expresses support for the freedom of the in-group and the Back the Blue flag expresses support for the oppression of the out-group.
You nailed it. Well put!
Woke leftists. Duh.
A good cop won’t create a situation where an innocent civilian will feel the need to use lethal force.
Too bad there is no such thing as a good cop
A cop doesn’t need to be a bad cop to create a situation where the civilian has a reasonable fear for their life. I’m a believer that ACAB, but even if I’m wrong, it’s still an untenable situation.
There are no good cops.
I’m not disagreeing with you. My point was that neither person needs to be a criminal to create a situation where both have a legal justification for deadly force in self defense. Like how fucked up is that?
Lol
deleted by creator
Well now you just blew the argument by making an impossible scenario =^)
I wonder how many people who support both movements would consider themselves “pro-life.”
the venn diagram is practically a circle.
Do people actually believe this stuff? There have been many tv shows for decades where they literally follow police around with a camera. And anyone who tries this “give me your badge number, you need a warrant, you don’t have probable cause” gets arrested. They don’t even make a secret about it.