Police Cadets Urged to cause PTSD

[Kamakazie Sith]

And KS, you're an apologist. It's not enough for a police officer to be able to show that he's no worse than the average "hur hur can't youze take a joke" thuggish dumb-shit who hung around the parking lot in high school. There are more than enough stories of police corruption and brutality to indicate that police officers need to be held to a higher standard of ethics than they've been accustomed to. Police officers have a clubbish, "circle the wagons" mentality. I know someone who blew the whistle on police corruption and was promptly ostracized by all his so-called friends. So much for upholding the law ... police departments should be squeaky-fucking clean, not allowed to maintain this bullshit clubbish atmosphere that encourages and enables this kind of behaviour.

You're right. I am an apologist in this thread, but that alone doesn't make me wrong.

To be clear I'm not saying this officer should be sent off with a pat on the back. He should be strongly disciplined, but fired? No. His mistake isn't grave enough to warrant him losing his job. Police officers certainly should be held to a higher standard, but this standard still needs to be reasonable.

I completely agree with you about the blue wall thing, but I don't feel I'm being unreasonable here. I take firing anybody seriously, and there should be a damn good reason to do so. A poorly thought out slogan just isn't one of those.

[Flagg]

HemlockGrey, you did distort Nitram's original argument into a strawman by pretending that he's said the class was full of psychopaths when he didn't.

Wait, what? My original post was responding to Flagg, not Nitram.

Yeah, because I used the term "psycho police". Not that I actually called this class president (or any of his partners in coming up with it) a psychopath or sociopath (not there's much, if any difference between the 2 terms) for coming up with the slogan.
I just said that we can take this statement as a joke, or we could take it as a statement of intent by the people who came up with it. I think choosing to take it as a joke would pose far more harm to far more people if the latter was the case. Because if it was a statement of intent, then these guys are going to be running around brutalizing people and destroying lives.

Anyway, the terms "psycho", "psychopath", and "sociopath" are thrown around this board like "commie" at a GOP rally. It has lost it's real meaning and become slang for "deplorable shitstains". So take that whole "Raarr clinical diagnosis shit" (all of you who used it) and shove it right up your asses where it came from.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Fine if its colloquial or overwrought. But if someone replies that they are, in fact, not sociopaths because of the evidence presented, you don't run around bitching trying to hold up that "colloquialism."

Nevertheless, this guys are obviously assholes I don't want to have authority over common people.

[Flagg]

Fine if its colloquial or overwrought. But if someone replies that they are, in fact, not sociopaths because of the evidence presented, you don't run around bitching trying to hold up that "colloquialism."

Nevertheless, this guys are obviously assholes I don't want to have authority over common people.

I agree, you tell them to fuck off and take their red herring with them.

[HemlockGrey]

Anyway, the terms "psycho", "psychopath", and "sociopath" are thrown around this board like "commie" at a GOP rally. It has lost it's real meaning and become slang for "deplorable shitstains". So take that whole "Raarr clinical diagnosis shit" (all of you who used it) and shove it right up your asses where it came from.

Oh, well excuse me for not reading your fucking mind and divining that when you say something like "psychopaths" and "psychological issues" you actually meant something completely different from the actual meaning of those words. I apparently didn't correctly divine the actual intent, which is why I made a fairly mellow reply disputing what I thought, based on, you know, what you actually wrote, was your contention. Then Nitram started in for some reason and that's when we went off to clinical diagnosis.

Perhaps you should lend me your Little Red Book of SD.Net words so I can be aware in the future when a phrase doesn't actually mean anything close to what it means to the rest of the English-speaking world.

[Flagg]

Anyway, the terms "psycho", "psychopath", and "sociopath" are thrown around this board like "commie" at a GOP rally. It has lost it's real meaning and become slang for "deplorable shitstains". So take that whole "Raarr clinical diagnosis shit" (all of you who used it) and shove it right up your asses where it came from.

Oh, well excuse me for not reading your fucking mind and divining that when you say something like "psychopaths" and "psychological issues" you actually meant something completely different from the actual meaning of those words. I apparently didn't correctly divine the actual intent, which is why I made a fairly mellow reply disputing what I thought, based on, you know, what you actually wrote, was your contention. Then Nitram started in for some reason and that's when we went off to clinical diagnosis.

Perhaps you should lend me your Little Red Book of SD.Net words so I can be aware in the future when a phrase doesn't actually mean anything close to what it means to the rest of the English-speaking world.

Oh, blow it out your ass, dipshit. Or do you think me calling you a "motherfucker" (like I'm doing right now, motherfucker), is me actually saying that you fuck your mother? Do I need to present evidence of you fucking your mother? Would witness testimony suffice, or do I need to provide pictures and/or video?

[Death from the Sea]

When faced with a graduating class having a ridiculously offensive slogan advocating causing trauma, do you..

A) Suggest there should be some action taken against the asshat or asshats responsible.

B) Assume it was a stupid joke because some people find trauma funny,

Or C) Perform a flying leap to the defense of the person responsible, pretending it doesn't matter that an ex-military police officer openly wants to cause trauma, and suggesting anyone proposing disciplinary action is wanting to 'Ruin the career of someone for saying something stupid', as if a class' slogan was an off-the-cuff remark taken out of context.

If it were disciplinary action that we were talking about then I'd be 100% behind you. Unless I'm mistaken we're talking about refusing graduation, and effectively firing the person responsible for a moment of stupidity for a fucking slogan.

And of course the alarmists are out in full force asking for something that if turned around on them they would think it was unfair.

not to mention that it probably had to be approved by the academy staff, so sole responsibility cannot really be put upon one cadet. And most people in police work have a very different and what most people would consider an "inappropriate" sense of humor, but it is often needed to cope with the job.

One "slogan" that an instructor at my academy told us was "Be polite. Be professional. Have a plan to kill every one you meet."

[Illuminatus Primus]

I agree, you tell them to fuck off and take their red herring with them.

Or, you can accept you were just trying to grab attention and agitate tempers with language that could not be justified. This isn't the same as calling someone a "fucking idiot" when they make a completely absurd argument - you'd be actually describing their behavior, if coarsely. You're just substituting intelligence for loudmouth rhetorical bullshit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, blow it out your ass, dipshit. Or do you think me calling you a "motherfucker" (like I'm doing right now, motherfucker), is me actually saying that you fuck your mother? Do I need to present evidence of you fucking your mother? Would witness testimony suffice, or do I need to provide pictures and/or video?

WAAAH! Let me defend my rhetoric bullshit when I had no real argument! WAAH! Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

[Flagg]

I agree, you tell them to fuck off and take their red herring with them.

Or, you can accept you were just trying to grab attention and agitate tempers with language that could not be justified. This isn't the same as calling someone a "fucking idiot" when they make a completely absurd argument - you'd be actually describing their behavior, if coarsely. You're just substituting intelligence for loudmouth rhetorical bullshit.

Wait, you're actually trying to tell me that calling someone a "psycho" is not exactly the same as calling them a "fucking idiot"? Are you retarded?

If someone does something stupid, you call them an "idiot". If someone does something that shows an apparent lack of sanity you call them "crazy". If someone does something that shows an apparent lack of empathy you call them "psycho". And you can do all of that without actually making the claim that they are in fact an idiot, insane, or a psychopath.

And grab attention and agitate people? How? By making a logical argument? Really? Do you put down the meth pipe to actually think before you post?

By the way, I wasn't actually suggesting you were clinically addicted to methamphetamines.

[Flagg]

Oh, blow it out your ass, dipshit. Or do you think me calling you a "motherfucker" (like I'm doing right now, motherfucker), is me actually saying that you fuck your mother? Do I need to present evidence of you fucking your mother? Would witness testimony suffice, or do I need to provide pictures and/or video?

WAAAH! Let me defend my rhetoric bullshit when I had no real argument! WAAH! Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

My argument was thus: We can either choose take what these retards (not that I'm saying they are clinically retarded, or course) said as a joke, or we can choose to take it as a statement of intent.

Choosing the second option has far more potential for causing much more harm than ending the careers of a few dicksnots (not that they actually are snot that eminates from the urethra) before they can have the chance to go out and start victimizing people with their cop buddies protecting them.

So feel free to gather up all the shit spewn in this thread, compact it, and go fuck yourself with it. Asshat.

[Flagg]

Ghetto Edit:

Choosing the first option has far more potential for harm.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wait, you're actually trying to tell me that calling someone a "psycho" is not exactly the same as calling them a "fucking idiot"? Are you retarded?

No, you are, short bus (hint, that was not a 'logical' argument, more on that later). Fucking idiot describes (colorfully) stupid behavior. Psycho - even colloquially - describes personality types who are dangerous and psychologically deranged. A tasteless joke does not get qualify. Not that it matters, but overwrought rhetoric is not what you should try to defend as an infalliable "logical argument". You should just admit that you were exaggerating for effect, or ignore the criticism. Face it, this is about your pride. You couldn't give a shit about anything but how your presentation then and now reflects on your social status within a group. Well you're a dipshit for caring that much.

If someone does something stupid, you call them an "idiot". If someone does something that shows an apparent lack of sanity you call them "crazy". If someone does something that shows an apparent lack of empathy you call them "psycho".

An apparent lack of empathy? Please. They made a fucking dumbass joke. As Mike put it, they are assholes and this is not the attitude to be encouraged amongst law enforcement. Psycho is NOT a by-word for people who make tasteless jokes. It is for people who are deranged and enjoy the suffering of others. A woman who brutally beats her kids - psycho. A cop who tasers a minor repeatedly and against regs - psycho.

And grab attention and agitate people? How? By making a logical argument? Really? Do you put down the meth pipe to actually think before you post?

You're the one claiming you were making logical arguments where the conclusion was self-admittedly poorly defined, exaggerated, and colloquial. (Hint: Well-structured logical arguments do not yield poorly defined colloquialisms.) For Christ's sake, you even appealed to subjective grounds. Not that I care, but you're the one claiming you're speaking a soapbox of reason. I'd say you're just cargo-culting your way through some Internet culture you like. "Heh heh if I do this people will think I'm tough and cool like Mike." Please.

By the way, I wasn't actually suggesting you were clinically addicted to methamphetamines.

But I am saying you're dumb little bitch.

[Knife]

Actually from an insitutional sense you're mostly a buch of assholes. The idea of a person on any individual society being put apart from said society yet being in charge in any capcity, yet being held to the exact standards is ludicris.


The very idea that these people have to contend with the idea of death should be a que to put them on a different level of thought and specifically copeing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's bullshit. The same reasoning says firemen should be "understood" for other unethical acts or poor professional standards. We don't have to accept just anyone and we fail or fire people who do not meet the standards, so we don't have to make allowances for crap people. Just more apologism, of course.

[Flagg]

<snip faux-macho posturing>

Not a logical argument? You are on meth, aren't you?

What's not logical about choosing to take their slogan as a statement of intent rather than a joke, as to do otherwise would potentially to more harm to more people?

[Darth Wong]

Actually from an insitutional sense you're mostly a buch of assholes. The idea of a person on any individual society being put apart from said society yet being in charge in any capcity, yet being held to the exact standards is ludicris.

The very idea that these people have to contend with the idea of death should be a que to put them on a different level of thought and specifically copeing.

Too bad. I have great respect for those who risk their lives, but the job description of a police officer goes beyond that. A police officer is also expected to do things like fastidiously refusing to take bribes, refusing to show favouritism, etc. Those are some pretty strict ethical requirements, yet you seem to be saying that we can't even expect them not to act like thugs or fratboys. How the fuck can we expect to root out corruption in police forces if we give them a lowered standard of conduct?

[Death from the Sea]

Actually from an insitutional sense you're mostly a buch of assholes. The idea of a person on any individual society being put apart from said society yet being in charge in any capcity, yet being held to the exact standards is ludicris.

The very idea that these people have to contend with the idea of death should be a que to put them on a different level of thought and specifically copeing.

Too bad. I have great respect for those who risk their lives, but the job description of a police officer goes beyond that. A police officer is also expected to do things like fastidiously refusing to take bribes, refusing to show favouritism, etc. Those are some pretty strict ethical requirements, yet you seem to be saying that we can't even expect them not to act like thugs or fratboys. How the fuck can we expect to root out corruption in police forces if we give them a lowered standard of conduct?

I believe he was saying something similar to what I was saying. A morbid sense of humor and thinking, which is needed to cope with the job. The fact that this cadet already has that is probably a good thing.

[Darth Wong]

The problem I have with the "it's how we do things, you wouldn't understand" argument is that corruption in police forces is not a hypothetical problem; it is a real, ALREADY EXISTING problem and it doesn't seem to be going away. So the status quo is a pretty damned weak argument as far as I'm concerned.

[Durandal]

I believe he was saying something similar to what I was saying. A morbid sense of humor and thinking, which is needed to cope with the job. The fact that this cadet already has that is probably a good thing.

I can possibly forgive some grizzled veteran detective making a similar remark, because he's seen more action and has developed that callous attitude and has some sort of record of service behind him.

But the fact that this cadet has that morbid sense of humor makes it look a hell of a lot like he's looking forward to and will enjoy those circumstances. It's like a fresh medical intern not even blinking when he first does something negligent and causes the death of a patient. You should just be worried about the guy.

[Death from the Sea]

I believe he was saying something similar to what I was saying. A morbid sense of humor and thinking, which is needed to cope with the job. The fact that this cadet already has that is probably a good thing.

I can possibly forgive some grizzled veteran detective making a similar remark, because he's seen more action and has developed that callous attitude and has some sort of record of service behind him.

But the fact that this cadet has that morbid sense of humor makes it look a hell of a lot like he's looking forward to and will enjoy those circumstances. It's like a fresh medical intern not even blinking when he first does something negligent and causes the death of a patient. You should just be worried about the guy.

I understand what you are saying but the difference is that first of all, he has not caused anyone PTSD, now if he goes on to do so on purpose (meaning in some kind of manner that is not in line with his duties) then yes your analogy would be good. Feel free to disagree with me here, but I think a better analogy would be a graduating doctor/ med intern saying something along the lines of "Lets go save lives, but lets make sure they have medical insurance first!".

You guys are taking this way too seriously. I think it is obvious that the motto was a joke and probably arose from something that occurred in one of the classes in the academy.

[Knife]

That's bullshit. The same reasoning says firemen should be "understood" for other unethical acts or poor professional standards. We don't have to accept just anyone and we fail or fire people who do not meet the standards, so we don't have to make allowances for crap people. Just more apologism, of course.

That's bullshit because I have a hard time believing you'd hold some fireman culpabale for saying some off hand remark about how someone burns well while others don't

Too bad. I have great respect for those who risk their lives, but the job description of a police officer goes beyond that. A police officer is also expected to do things like fastidiously refusing to take bribes, refusing to show favouritism, etc.

and how does dark humor violate that?

Those are some pretty strict ethical requirements, yet you seem to be saying that we can't even expect them not to act like thugs or fratboys. How the fuck can we expect to root out corruption in police forces if we give them a lowered standard of conduct?

I expect them to act like any other click, those who are expected to do X and cope with X as if it were normal. People in normal jobs can bitch and moan about all sorts of shit that deals with their job and are....normal. Those that deal with...people are going to bitch about people. God forbid if those who deal with people in less than benevolent circumstances joke aobut fucked up people. This very forum does it, the only differnce is that the whiney ass fucks here don't actually go out and deal with or at their best; save common mother fuckers every day.

I understand the concept of superior culture. You can compare various cultures and make an ethical judgement upon them. To do so without even trying to undrstand a culture is pure arrogance though.

[Darth Wong]

I understand the concept of superior culture. You can compare various cultures and make an ethical judgement upon them. To do so without even trying to undrstand a culture is pure arrogance though.

Hardly, when we have empirical evidence that police officers will lie and bully in order to protect their own from the legal consequences of their own actions. There is not a police force in the country which does not suffer from internal corruption on some level. Saying that you need to "understand the culture" in order to say that there's something obviously wrong with it is nothing more than Special Pleading bullshit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

<snip faux-macho posturing>

Not a logical argument? You are on meth, aren't you?

What's not logical about choosing to take their slogan as a statement of intent rather than a joke, as to do otherwise would potentially to more harm to more people?

I'm sure you, Mr. Exaggeration-In-Lieu-Of-Substantive-Contribution, think "you are on meth lolz" and this other bullshit makes a logical argument true, eh? The point is, dipshit: if you were sincerely looking for substantive logical arguments, you wouldn't be throwing around poorly-defined colloquialisms because they cannot be logically proved or sustained.

Do us a favor, go join a debating club or take a formal logic course. Otherwise, go jump off a bridge (look what a psycho lolz).

[Flagg]

<snip faux-macho posturing>

Not a logical argument? You are on meth, aren't you?

What's not logical about choosing to take their slogan as a statement of intent rather than a joke, as to do otherwise would potentially to more harm to more people?

I'm sure you, Mr. Exaggeration-In-Lieu-Of-Substantive-Contribution, think "you are on meth lolz" and this other bullshit makes a logical argument true, eh? The point is, dipshit: if you were sincerely looking for substantive logical arguments, you wouldn't be throwing around poorly-defined colloquialisms because they cannot be logically proved or sustained.

Do us a favor, go join a debating club or take a formal logic course. Otherwise, go jump off a bridge (look what a psycho lolz).

Retard, which option has the most potential for causing the most harm to the most people?:

Expelling a few cretins from the police academy who may have psychological problems.

Allowing those cretins (who thought the slogan "Don't suffer from PTSD, go out and cause it" was appropriate for a banner at their graduation ceremony) to have badges, guns, and people who will cover for them if they abuse their authority?

Do have any actual issue with that? Or am I just going to get more bluster, "lolz ur st00pid and juz trying to getz noticedz!1!11" and whining about people throwing around the terms "psycho" and "sociopath" the same way the would "thug" and "nutjob"?