If a police officer does something wrong. It does not matter what the evidence shows or what happens. All police everywhere stand firmly together and protect their brethren. We literally have police offers who have undeniably murdered people and yet other police still stand with their class and demand better treatment.
If workers had that level of solidarity things would be so much better. Instead we cheer when someone gets fired who “deserved” it.
But people who suck at their jobs deserve to get fired, whether they’re cops or not. Keeping them in that job just because they’re “one of us” is irrational.
Im sure pretty much all gangs do.
Gang life looks cool, and sounds cool online or in music. In reality isn’t far from it. Members often snitch, cheat, lie, steal, snake. Turns out people… People.
We have a massive, well funded and organized operation working 24/7 to keep us divided. It’s purpose is to remove solidarity and it’s doing a fantastic job at it. I don’t know how to counter it :(
I disagree with this take, so take your upvote. I’m all for unions, and I agree that more unions would help improve the world for more people. But if the police unions teach us anything, it’s the dangers of an overly powerful union.
But if the police unions teach us anything, it’s the dangers of an overly powerful union.
Yes and No.
-
The FOP has tremendous political pull (because Ds and Rs both generally are pro-police, whether at literal or metaphorical gunpoint or not).
-
Not every agency has a union, let alone one that’s affiliated with the FOP.
It’s kinda like saying the guy who does your plumbing has a stupidly overpowered union because some plumbers are affiliated with the Teamsters.
Ok, but there’s plenty of evidence in the news of objectively bad police officers either escaping punishment for crimes or simply moving to a department in a different state. Between the unions and the “brotherhood mentality,” police in the US have become almost untouchable. That’s definitely a Bad Thing, and the union certainly plays a part in that. I never said it was only the union. I was simply replying to the OP.
That’s got little to nothing to do with the power of police unions and everything to do with the power of unions and defense attorneys.
Either an employee should or should not have a defense against an accusation of wrongdoing from their employer.
Either a defendant should or should not have a defense against an accusation of wrongdoing from the state.
If you answer “should not” to both, I would argue you are authoritarian, including if your excuse is, “Well, we should be able to peel back certain legal protections for certain groups I don’t like.”
-
The police aren’t working class…
They aren’t “management,” either. If you’re argument is that they’re employed by the municipality, so are teachers. What about their union? I would argue my point still stands.
“All police everywhere…”
One single exception is all it takes to debunk an absolute claim.
The Police Union is the only union the Right likes.
Unions are quite common in trades and that field is heavily populated by right-leaning people who are very much for those unions.
Which is crazy, since they vote for people who want to dissolve unions.
yup, and theres is a reason why its mostly white people in trades, thats why telling people to get into trades is rarely appropiate when its dominated by these people.
What does that have to do with whether right-leaning people are for or against unions?
It helps that they have a stupidly overpowered union.
which technically isnt a true union, just a gang/mafia that browbeats the govt to give what it wants, or they dont enforce any laws.
… What do you think a union is? It’s collective action to get your demands or they don’t get what they want
A union protects labor from power. A police union is power that needs to be protected from. It’s just like if all the corporate bosses started calling themselves unionized… and yeah, they all work together for their own personal interests. But that’s not what a union is.
Yes and No.
-
The FOP has tremendous political pull (because Ds and Rs both generally are pro-police, whether at literal or metaphorical gunpoint or not).
-
Not every agency has a union, let alone one that’s affiliated with the FOP.
It’s kinda like saying the guy who does your plumbing has a stupidly overpowered union because some plumbers are affiliated with the Teamsters.
-
It is easy to gather in solidarity when A) You are literally trained in pack tactics, backing up your fellow officer, and the culture instills an us vs them mentality by default, B) the solidarity you have is specifically in self-preservation from consequences for violent crimes that would otherwise destroy your life, and C) you are in a position of authority that gives you protection, preference, deference, and priority in all legal matters.
Because they’re a violent gang.
The bloods and the crips are pretty tight, too.
The police are used to keep workers in line… That’s why they get it easy.
It’s not solidarity. It’s that rulers and local leaders rely on police enforcement to keep the whole thing going.
The police are used to keep workers in line
Of the nearly ten years of patrol I did, I did 0 union-busting and maybe 2 Employee Theft cases? 3?
If 99.99999% of their time is spent elsewhere, is it really their purpose?
Or you just didn’t work somewhere with a lot of protests.
What you’re doing is using anecdotal evidence, as if it’s statistical.
What’s more the past is more important to how things got this way than today. The government, all governments fear riots and uprisings. That’s the nature of government globally.
Most protests that get anywhere remotely near riotous have a police presence. You can look at various french riots for that, or the Watts riots, or the Rodney King riots, or what happened after the death of George Floyd, ect ect…
Or look at how closely groups like the Pinkertons were with the state. The police are the state’s enforcement arm… And I’m not about to have your Copaganda try to bring that into question.
The notion that “police are good boys and never used violence” is fucking idiotic. You can take that lie and fucking puke it out somewhere else, and pretend it’s an argument/evidence.
“A cop lying about evidence? Well I never”.
Awww and you even included a made up percentage about yourself.
…and does the comment you’re replying to even say it’s a matter of “allocations of time” and how police time is spent day to day? NO! No it doesnt. So you’re lying there too with your Copaganda bullshit.
“The state would never overpay for a way to enforce violence or repress protest”.
…what a dumb argument to present.
Also, a lot of police union deals are done around election time. Hell, head lf corruption Donald Trump promised the police a bunch of stuff when running. Most political figures do.
You get a Zero out of 10 for your trying to make this about how you spent your time personally.
Or you just didn’t work somewhere with a lot of protests.
Tampa, so I’d say middle of the road in that sense - at least for the US. We have occasional protests but they’re pretty lackluster. A more Republican area would have none and a more Democrat area would have more - and more busy/big/effective/etc.
What you’re doing is using anecdotal evidence, as if it’s statistical.
Yeah it’s all I have to draw on, but all you need to disprove a blanket statement is a single contradictory anecdote.
What’s more the past is more important to how things got this way than today.
Yes and No. You didn’t say “Police (and military) used to be used to keep workers in line,” nor did you qualify what you meant by “keep workers in line.” I’m plenty familiar with Blair Mountain and similar historic incidents. Frankly your entire reply here could’ve been better served at the top, if your desire is to be rational about the issue; with the asterisks you present, I have nothing to say because a lot of what you have moved the goalposts to is completely true.
The government, all governments fear riots and uprisings. That the nature of government globally. Most protests that get anywhere remotely riotous have a police presence.
Sure, but that’s in the realm of “[government] exists to keep workers in line” which is at least a lot closer to the heart of the issue, even if I don’t categorically agree with it; it’s definitely an increasingly central function of our increasingly auth-right state.
The notion that “police are good boys and never used violence” is fucking idiotic.
Then thank fuck I never said that, but I appreciate your straw-man.
The rest of your comment is kinda you tooting your own horn and getting giddy about said straw-man and other nonsense, so let me know when you’re ready to be an adult again and I’ll respond accordingly.
Hey fuck off dumb ass, you haven’t said anything worthwhile and I don’t need you here. No situation is improved with an aggressive rightwing “debate me bro”. So fuck off.
The comment wasn’t about your personal experiences. You egomaniac.
I don’t need you here either, so you’re free to take your own advice.
If you don’t want to talk to me, perhaps don’t talk to me? It ain’t rocket science.
P.S. Funny that you’re calling me ‘aggressive’ and ‘right wing,’ though.
No one requested a “debate me bro” right winger here, or an egomaniac who wants to “not all men” the general topic, which goes beyond you.
Chill.
People disagree on the internet. It’s not your internet and it’s not my internet. You can make up whatever names you want for me, but it makes no difference. If you talk to me, I’ll often respond.
You say you want me to shut up and leave, but here you are continuing to talk to me. You say nobody requested me here, but I didn’t request you either.
If you don’t want to debate, don’t debate. It’s that simple. You just want to check out and pivot to ad hominem now because your arguments generally fell flat on their faces.
Whether you come to the table for a discussion like a civilized adult or throw your mashed potatoes all over the floor in a tantrum, both are interesting as well as entertaining and I’ll keep replying to your responses.
It’s a product of their inherent selfishness and sociopathy. They don’t care about others, they care about themselves and they want to be protected when they inevitably rape and/or murder someone. Same thing happens in powerful circles in the West (remember Epstein and everyone before him?). This wouldn’t work for society, we actually need people who “love their neighbour as much as they love themselves”… but we’re at a high point for vanity and self-centeredness so it’s gonna take at least a couple hundred years in the West to veer into that direction, probably.
Am I in the right community? How is this an unpopular opinion?
How is it even an opinion??
It’s an Opinion rather than a Fact because:
-
It’s impossible to objectively measure solidarity.
-
As a result, it’s a subjective opinion whether or not Group A has more vs. less solidarity than Group B.
To your other point, OP wants to circle-jerk for clout and doesn’t care that their post doesn’t fit. Evidently, the vast majority of people are on board with that.
-
My dad was part of the police union as part of the DoC of our city, whenever we would discuss unionization efforts elsewhere he would go all against the idea, and then defend his union status, but then again without hypocrisy my dad probably wouldn’t have much at all, and being almost 70, he’ll never change, just another Fox News MAGA casualty.
You don’t need anything else when you’ve got hypocrisy.
I’m one of those rare ducks that is pro-union no matter the circumstance.
Or at least I can’t think of one where I’d be against a union.
They kind of have to have solidarity because they are willing to die for their job. Every shift could be their last one.
Pizza delivery drivers are more likely to die on the job and they won’t cover up someone beating their wife (like cops do way more than average)
You’re right. Pizza drivers and police officers experience exactly the same dangers.
No no no, you’re going to back up and fix your first statement. You’re saying police have solidarity because they could die on the job, and there’s jobs way more dangerous than theirs that aren’t known for solidarity. So the that of death isn’t related to solidarity.
So you were wrong.
Once again you’re right. You won.
Glad you recognize that. I suggest you privately assess your stances.
Will do
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it’s something that’s widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
