For those sick of all the "police are assholes" threads...

[AMT]

In the words of Chris Rock "what do you want, a cookie?" Doing good things is expected of any right-thinking citizen. It should not deserve special mention.

Why shouldn't it? We give special mention to murders of all kinds, kidnappings, and other crimes. Even if the crime is completed, the criminal caught, and no further effect on society is to be done based on that action. If we make mention of those, why not make mention of the more positive aspects of humanity?

Why does news always have to be negative?

See, you can't have it both ways. You cannot say "the police is overwhelmingly good" by pointing out to a minority of officers delivering sandwiches (which is not that huge of an act) then argue that multiple cases of questionable death committed by a minority of officers is not the same thing.

When did I say the police are overwhelmingly good? I said they're not all complete monsters, and that while there are those who are monsters, assholes, etc, there are just as many who just do their jobs, and (hopefully) just as many who go above and beyond their jobs to do good in the society in which they live. All I did was bring one counter example to the overwhelming negativity that pervades to show that yes, there are those who are bad, but they aren't everyone, and likely not even the majority.

But overwhelmingly good? I never once claimed that. In fact my claim was the following:

Remember, any group has bad and good members of it. Just because our society likes to accentuate the negative doesn't mean the positive also doesn't exist, and perhaps more so than its opposite.

Actually, I can see where he is coming from. He is saying that stuff like this should not be posted because it serves the same value as posting a thread about Catholic charity next to a thread about pedophile priests - at best, it is completely unrelated to the issue, at worst it just serves as police apologia, aka the "only a few bad apples" when in the case of the NYPD the rot is clearly widespread throughout the entire department (see the police reaction even to the mildest of criticism). In other words, what people are outraged about is the large number of officers condoning or not ostracizing the assholes....

.... right, nobody is arguing against that

Combined your last two.
And people should be outraged at officers condoning or not ostracizing those who abuse their power. However, I don't see this as apologia. If one is going to make a claim, then one should look at all aspects of the item for which they're making the claim.
And as for arguing against that, from the examples that Flagg was using, it felt that way. If it wasn't meant to be that way, I apologize for misunderstanding.

However, I don't think it's making apologies for the bad apples when posting a news story showing that good apples also exist, and we shouldn't torch the entire orchard because a few trees are rotten, or assume that all the trees are rotten in general.

Though I'll admit there's a fine distinction between the two.

[Thanas]

In the words of Chris Rock "what do you want, a cookie?" Doing good things is expected of any right-thinking citizen. It should not deserve special mention.

Why shouldn't it? We give special mention to murders of all kinds, kidnappings, and other crimes. Even if the crime is completed, the criminal caught, and no further effect on society is to be done based on that action. If we make mention of those, why not make mention of the more positive aspects of humanity?

Why does news always have to be negative?

Because news is supposed to show where society goes wrong. It serves as a warning and to stimulate discourse. I can't believe I have to point this out. News is supposed to inform people, not to make them feel good.

[AMT]

In the words of Chris Rock "what do you want, a cookie?" Doing good things is expected of any right-thinking citizen. It should not deserve special mention.

Why shouldn't it? We give special mention to murders of all kinds, kidnappings, and other crimes. Even if the crime is completed, the criminal caught, and no further effect on society is to be done based on that action. If we make mention of those, why not make mention of the more positive aspects of humanity?

Why does news always have to be negative?

Because news is supposed to show where society goes wrong. It serves as a warning and to stimulate discourse. I can't believe I have to point this out. News is supposed to inform people, not to make them feel good.

News is supposed to inform people yes, but it doesn't have to inform them of negative information only. I agree with you that it should stimulate discourse and inform, but it's not meant to always show where society goes wrong. It can also be used to show where society is getting it right, and there's no reason for it not to do both.

[Thanas]

News is supposed to inform people yes, but it doesn't have to inform them of negative information only. I agree with you that it should stimulate discourse and inform, but it's not meant to always show where society goes wrong. It can also be used to show where society is getting it right, and there's no reason for it not to do both.

If the news would report "things go right" then it would become unwieldy and way too huge to read, because in all functioning societies 99% of things go right. I mean, you read about traffic incidents and not "Guy X travelled to office safely".

[AMT]

News is supposed to inform people yes, but it doesn't have to inform them of negative information only. I agree with you that it should stimulate discourse and inform, but it's not meant to always show where society goes wrong. It can also be used to show where society is getting it right, and there's no reason for it not to do both.

If the news would report "things go right" then it would become unwieldy and way too huge to read, because in all functioning societies 99% of things go right. I mean, you read about traffic incidents and not "Guy X travelled to office safely".

What you described as an example is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about items that are above and beyond the norm, where a person's better nature comes through and a person makes a special effort to do something for someone else.

Not everything is newsworthy, I'll agree, but just because it's something that casts a positive light doesn't mean it's less newsworthy of a story than something casting a negative light.

[Jub]

Good news is great as the occasional once in a while fluff article or a pick me up you might see posted on facebook, but it's not really news. News is designed to inform you of issue that may be relevant to you with an emphasis on reporting things that can negatively effect you either immediately or at some potential future date. Nobody will ever complain that you cut a feel good fluff story about feeding kids if the coverage that replaces it is something that could save them even a small amount of aggravation. As such even a report on an emerging traffic issue is more worthy of coverage than the best of feel good stories. The exception to this rule is reporting the end of an ongoing bad thing.

The reason for this is simple, the good news doesn't become irrelevant as soon as it's moment has ended the way bad news tends to. Also, nobody gets hurt if they don't hear about a dog being rescued, but not knowing that a city's police force is trigger happy or running a torture site could be pretty damned detrimental. Now on a forum that isn't as large an issue as people don't tend to come hear from break local news, but people only have so much time in a day and hearing about a bad thing could literally save a life in a way that hearing good news likely will not.

[bilateralrope]

Here's the difference I see:
- Police helping people is something that should be normal. It should be routine. So feel good stories about it don't have much long term interest.
- Police brutality is something that shouldn't be normal. It shouldn't be routine. So the fact that it keeps happening in some parts of the US is something to worry about.

[Simon_Jester]

Umm, why should we praise cops for doing what they are paid to do? That's fucking idiotic.

Tell me where it's said that police are supposed to go out to the homes of poor children and personally hand food off for them to eat.
Or is this just general thread shitting without actually reading the thread?

Umm, it's on their cruisers, shithead. "Protect and Serve".

So if police do infinity good things, that is not praiseworthy, because "protect and serve."

No wonder you hate the police, by your own argument you expect them to be these infinitely loving and benevolent slaves who do absolutely everything imaginable for you. The disappointment must be harsh.

Now, this is obviously an exaggeration of your viewpoint, but it does follow logically from the idea that "police should not receive praise for doing good things because it's in their motto." So if you think the thing I just said is bullshit, that conflicts with the argument you just made.

To me that seems to be more of an indictment against society that doing good deeds is not newsworthy while other items are.

In the words of Chris Rock "what do you want, a cookie?" Doing good things is expected of any right-thinking citizen. It should not deserve special mention.

If good things are not worthy of mention, then they are not good in the first place, they are morally neutral.

Resisting the urge to hit someone is morally neutral. Paying one's rent on time is morally neutral. Not going to jail is morally neutral. Which, if you actually know anything about the Chris Rock skit you just quoted, is the class of thing he was talking about. Sure, you can't brag about doing things that are morally neutral just because you happen to know people who are morally evil.

But for crying out loud, if it really were normative to go to extensive efforts to personally deliver meals to hungry children when the normal system for feeding them breaks down, there wouldn't be any hungry children in the first place. Empirically, human societies just don't behave that well on a day to day basis. We can argue that not killing and stealing are normative. We can argue that working at a job, caring about one's family, and so on are normative.

We cannot argue, at least not with any intellectual integrity at all, that delivering meals to the homeless is a normative thing that we "expect" every person to do routinely. Because people DON'T DO THAT. Not all of them, not all the time.

So it's at best stupid and at worst actively hypocritical and disingenuous to claim that people who do that are 'only' doing what we expect them to do, and are therefore not worthy of praise. At most, they are being good when we expect them to do good... but a predictable good deed is still praiseworthy. If someone does something difficult that is good for you, and you knew ahead of time they'd agree, you still thank them.

Unless, of course, one happens to be an arrogant, entitled little fool.

See, you can't have it both ways. You cannot say "the police is overwhelmingly good" by pointing out to a minority of officers delivering sandwiches (which is not that huge of an act) then argue that multiple cases of questionable death committed by a minority of officers is not the same thing.

Nor, logically, can you argue "the police are overwhelmingly evil." Which AMT rather explicitly spelled out is the point of his argument.

Actually, I can see where he is coming from. He is saying that stuff like this should not be posted because it serves the same value as posting a thread about Catholic charity next to a thread about pedophile priests - at best, it is completely unrelated to the issue, at worst it just serves as police apologia, aka the "only a few bad apples" when in the case of the NYPD the rot is clearly widespread throughout the entire department (see the police reaction even to the mildest of criticism). In other words, what people are outraged about is the large number of officers condoning or not ostracizing the assholes.

the basic claim, which is that not all police are assholes and monsters, is valid and still stands.

Right, nobody is arguing against that.

And yet it is not treated as worth having threads in N&P about that, which suggests that it is universally accepted on N&P.

Except that there are people who do not accept this fact, and see nothing wrong with blanket condemnations of all police, with going so far as to advocate treating them like an occupying army.

In which case there are definitely grounds for a complex, nuanced debate about the morals of policing.

Good news is great as the occasional once in a while fluff article or a pick me up you might see posted on facebook, but it's not really news. News is designed to inform you of issue that may be relevant to you with an emphasis on reporting things that can negatively effect you either immediately or at some potential future date.

If the news reports so much bad news that it causes people to develop false cognitive biases about what's actually going on in society, then there is too much bad news.

This is actually happening in real life in some ways- for instance, 24-hour local news networks have hugely played up the fear of violent criminals in the US (especially black criminals). And people feel less safe in their own homes as a result because they are bombarded with stories and images of people being beaten and robbed. So they become afraid, they militarize the police to 'control' the 'crime wave...' All while crime rates are much lower than they used to be.

Somehow, the media took a relevant fact (reduced overall crime), and completely hid it behind a blizzard of stories tailored to introduce irrational fear of the other.

The reason for this is simple, the good news doesn't become irrelevant as soon as it's moment has ended the way bad news tends to. Also, nobody gets hurt if they don't hear about a dog being rescued, but not knowing that a city's police force is trigger happy or running a torture site could be pretty damned detrimental. Now on a forum that isn't as large an issue as people don't tend to come hear from break local news, but people only have so much time in a day and hearing about a bad thing could literally save a life in a way that hearing good news likely will not.

But if people become actively delusional and start making paranoid, irrational assumptions about police because they 'know' the police are evil...

...How is that any different? Is it not detrimental to harbor false beliefs about the idea? Maybe it will make people fear to call the police when the police could protect lives and property.

[Tiriol]

I'm no moderator or admin, so this is just a simple poster's opinion:

N&P section NEEDS positive stories. This place has become such a cesspool of misery, hate and observation of humanity's worst sides that it's no wonder people's posts are angry and downright hateful. If there's no counter to eternity of dark news, we should simply rename N&P into "Warhammer 40k in the making" and gaggle insanely in the grim dark that is yet to come.

As for the news item itself... That is good that the police decided to do so. It isn't in his job description, but clearly it is in his moral compass to do such good things and help the hungry kids. We need more people like him both in the police force and in general.

[Thanas]

If good things are not worthy of mention, then they are not good in the first place, they are morally neutral.

That does not follow.
Whether things are newsworthy or worthy of mention does not have a bearing on their moral value. Me sending money to Amnesty international is not newsworthy or worthy of mention, but it does have a moral value - it helps the fight against tyranny of all kinds.
On the other hand, if I were a billionaire and would donate millions to Amnesty, it would be newsworthy and still have the same moral value.

Likewise, the US sending ships out on patrol is in itself newsworthy, but doesn't have a specific moral value attached to it.

Resisting the urge to hit someone is morally neutral. Paying one's rent on time is morally neutral. Not going to jail is morally neutral. Which, if you actually know anything about the Chris Rock skit you just quoted, is the class of thing he was talking about.

Actually, if you would care to look it up, he was talking about the things one is expected to do. And I do expect people to do good if it is not too much of their strain on resources.

We cannot argue, at least not with any intellectual integrity at all, that delivering meals to the homeless is a normative thing that we "expect" every person to do routinely. Because people DON'T DO THAT. Not all of them, not all the time.

You are confusing "expected" with "normal". The two words do not mean the same. For example, I would expect a marriage to hold despite divorce being a normal thing. Maybe I am too much of an idealist, but I don't think doing good is so exceptional it needs to be mentioned in the news.

At most, they are being good when we expect them to do good... but a predictable good deed is still praiseworthy. If someone does something difficult that is good for you, and you knew ahead of time they'd agree, you still thank them.

Thanking =/= newsworthy.

Nor, logically, can you argue "the police are overwhelmingly evil." Which AMT rather explicitly spelled out is the point of his argument.

Which is a great strawman nobody in this thread has ever put forward.

the basic claim, which is that not all police are assholes and monsters, is valid and still stands.

Right, nobody is arguing against that.

And yet it is not treated as worth having threads in N&P about that, which suggests that it is universally accepted on N&P.

What now? You cannot claim with any intellectual honesty that the viewpoint that all police are assholes and monsters is in any way or form the universally accepted viewpoint in N&P. At worst, you got people overreacting to news like Eric Garner.

Except that there are people who do not accept this fact, and see nothing wrong with blanket condemnations of all police, with going so far as to advocate treating them like an occupying army.

And when those claims are made they can be dealt with in the threads those claims are made. We do not need a REMINDER: POLICE ARE HUMAN BEINGS for that.

[Terralthra]

I absolutely love it when people defending police refer to them as just having "a few bad apples." Like, you know how that saying ends, right? It's not "One bad apple... is totally ok, you guys."

[Patroklos]

In a civilized country, we expect the police to be better people than us and set a positive example for the rest of society to follow.

No. If you think this you are buying in to BS propaganda. I expect police to be no different than what I expect from every citizen. That is to be a decent person to others and follow the laws of the land in general and do the job that they freely accepted (should you do so) competently, lawfully and ethically. I also expect every one of them to have normal human flaws. If they decide to be a hero on top of that awesome and commendable but not required or expected. If your job requires selfless service then I give you props for that in and of itself but I don't assume that doesn't mean you don't beat your wife or watch kiddy porn. I don't assume you do either, they are completely unrelated.

Granted, the police (and military) have actively and consciously pushed the flawless hero line themselves and by now have forgotten themselves that it was marketing shtick but intelligent people, both citizen and cop, do not believe that. 100 years ago cops were respected for what they did regarding serve to others (should they actually do that) but were still considered a lower class profession populated by people with flaws. Similarly the sailors of Trafalgar returned heroes for their actions but nobody pretended they were paragons of moral virtue in all other respects of the human experience. And similarly nobody faulted them when they immediately went drunk to the whore and gambling houses right after their congratulations. Same with the heroes of Midway. At some point we decided that anyone worthy of praise had to be good through and through, rather than human beings who did one thing well. That's part of the reason why the police and military have so may PR problems, they have convinced the public they are something that is not true and indeed impossible to achieve and thus fail to live up to it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I absolutely love it when people defending police refer to them as just having "a few bad apples." Like, you know how that saying ends, right? It's not "One bad apple... is totally ok, you guys."

Who has ever made this argument? Not just in this thread but on this entire forum?

[Terralthra]

You might try scrolling. "It's not all police, it's just a few here and there, most police are good people" is a classic "few bad apples" argument.

[Queue]

I like this discussion.

I agree with Thanas that not every good deed deserves a mention, and that it's probably not significantly newsworthy. However, I would never agree that the OP wasn't worth posting at all. This is a community of people, and people do in fact like to feel good. So, if you upbeat guys are willing to support such a thing, I'd be happy to sponsor a "Faith In Humanity Restored!" sticky thread in, say, OT.

If someone who is interested creates it and can convince people to help maintain it with new posts, of course. If it lies dormant for an extended period of time, I'm likely to declare faith in humanity lost and un-sticky it.

[K. A. Pital]

I support the idea. If Thanas is also supporting (and everyone knows we're often polar opposites when it comes to opinion), I think it is worth it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You might try scrolling. "It's not all police, it's just a few here and there, most police are good people" is a classic "few bad apples" argument.

You might try rereading your own post. You said "one bad apple...is totally ok, you guys" Is not something anyone here, to my knowledge, has ever said.

It is possible to make the observation that it is a minority of police that are engaged in this behavior yet still take the issue of police misconduct seriously. I know it's difficult for your sort but you can do both.

[Terralthra]

You might try scrolling. "It's not all police, it's just a few here and there, most police are good people" is a classic "few bad apples" argument.

You might try rereading your own post. You said "one bad apple...is totally ok, you guys" Is not something anyone here, to my knowledge, has ever said.

It is possible to make the observation that it is a minority of police that are engaged in this behavior yet still take the issue of police misconduct seriously. I know it's difficult for your sort but you can do both.

Yes, "one bad apple...is totally ok, you guys" was sarcasm, you nitwit. The saying is "one bad apple spoils the bunch", meaning that all it takes is a slim minority of bad actors in a group to completely spoil the perception of that group. Saying "one bad apple" or "a few bad apples" is - or should be, to anyone who isn't braindead - a condemnation of police, not an exculpation. That was my point, which apparently sailed majestically over your head.

[Thanas]

I support the idea. If Thanas is also supporting (and everyone knows we're often polar opposites when it comes to opinion), I think it is worth it.

Yeah, might be a good thing in OT.

[Flagg]

I don't care, as long as it isn't in N&P since this is neither news nor politics.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is possible to make the observation that it is a minority of police that are engaged in this behavior yet still take the issue of police misconduct seriously. I know it's difficult for your sort but you can do both.

I think the issue Terraltha is objecting to (unless I misunderstand him), is the argument that is frequently brought up in almost every police abuse thread on the forum. In response to people complaining about the overmilitarization of American police and how the whole damned system needs to be reformed, there is always someone making a comment along the lines of, "Calm down, this isn't a systemic problem, this is just one corrupt/asshole/whatever cop".

While you are right that it is possible to observe that it is a minority of police beating black people (or whatever the issue is) and still take that issue seriously, it is also correct to excoriate the majority of police who, despite not actively engaging in whatever bad behavior is under question, often seem to tacitly encourage that behavior by not taking an active stand against it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You might try scrolling. "It's not all police, it's just a few here and there, most police are good people" is a classic "few bad apples" argument.

You might try rereading your own post. You said "one bad apple...is totally ok, you guys" Is not something anyone here, to my knowledge, has ever said.

It is possible to make the observation that it is a minority of police that are engaged in this behavior yet still take the issue of police misconduct seriously. I know it's difficult for your sort but you can do both.

Yes, "one bad apple...is totally ok, you guys" was sarcasm, you nitwit. The saying is "one bad apple spoils the bunch", meaning that all it takes is a slim minority of bad actors in a group to completely spoil the perception of that group. Saying "one bad apple" or "a few bad apples" is - or should be, to anyone who isn't braindead - a condemnation of police, not an exculpation. That was my point, which apparently sailed majestically over your head.

Yeah, right. I'll chalk this up to you inserting your foot in your mouth and not having the integrity to admit it. Though, if you seriously are that much of an internet novice then I highly recommend next time you use an emoticon.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think the issue Terraltha is objecting to (unless I misunderstand him), is the argument that is frequently brought up in almost every police abuse thread on the forum. In response to people complaining about the overmilitarization of American police and how the whole damned system needs to be reformed, there is always someone making a comment along the lines of, "Calm down, this isn't a systemic problem, this is just one corrupt/asshole/whatever cop".

The issue Terraltha is objecting to is he simply doesn't like it when others don't want to jump on the generalization bandwagon. Obviously, we understand that perception plays a powerful role which is why this thread exists with the intent of showing the other side of things. However, nobody here even remotely suggested that corruption by police is a problem not worth addressing. Frankly, Terraltha should have stayed out of this thread since that was all he had to offer.

While you are right that it is possible to observe that it is a minority of police beating black people (or whatever the issue is) and still take that issue seriously, it is also correct to excoriate the majority of police who, despite not actively engaging in whatever bad behavior is under question, often seem to tacitly encourage that behavior by not taking an active stand against it.

I disagree with this mindset that you must be an activist against something in order to avoid being slandered. There are many reasons people don't want to engage in activism and some of those are respectable.

For example, I have not attended a single pro-police rally in my life because I don't like going to those things because I'm an introvert. The most I engage in "pro-police" activity is on this forum but I do things that you people can't see and will never see. I am a field training officer with my department and I do everything I can to make sure the right people stay and the wrong people leave.

[Terralthra]

Yeah, right. I'll chalk this up to you inserting your foot in your mouth and not having the integrity to admit it. Though, if you seriously are that much of an internet novice then I highly recommend next time you use an emoticon.

Don't blame your reading miscomprehension on me. Maybe you could come by my college and take an English class from one of my colleagues. My post was perfectly clear, as evidenced by the fact that other people read it and understood it just fine.

The issue Terraltha is objecting to is he simply doesn't like it when others don't want to jump on the generalization bandwagon. Obviously, we understand that perception plays a powerful role which is why this thread exists with the intent of showing the other side of things. However, nobody here even remotely suggested that corruption by police is a problem not worth addressing.

Plenty of people have suggested that police violence and corruption are not systemic problems, and that police violence and corruption are just a few "bad apples", in this forum; they apparently are forgetting that the rest of the saying about apples is not, as I said, paraphrased: "...don't have any effect on the rest of the bunch."

Remember, any group has bad and good members of it. Just because our society likes to accentuate the negative doesn't mean the positive also doesn't exist, and perhaps more so than its opposite.

He continues in that vein throughout his posts in this thread.

Here are some links to Broomstick and Themightytom both making the "not all cops are bad, it's just a couple bad ones" argument in another thread on the first page. Here's Purple using the phrase explicitly this last December.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I disagree with this mindset that you must be an activist against something in order to avoid being slandered. There are many reasons people don't want to engage in activism and some of those are respectable.

I don't agree with the mindset either, frankly. I was just trying to clarify or elaborate on Terraltha's general line of thinking (as I interpreted it). That is, I don't agree with Terraltha's conclusion, but I at least understand how and why he came to that conclusion.