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

[Simon_Jester]

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.

I think I made the mistake of using 'mention' when 'praise' would be a more appropriate term. My ptoblem was chiefly with people (like Flagg) who seemed to be claiming that charitable actions by the police aren't praiseworthy,, as though this was just what we routinely expect everyone to do all the time.

Which is absurdly unrealistic; it's NOT what everyone does all the time.

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.

To quote the skit:

"_____s always want credit for some shit they supposed to do. A _____ will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A _____ will say some shit like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!"

The point is, this is about people who (stereotpyically) brag about things "a normal man just does."

But a normal man does NOT just routinely take their time off to deliver meals to impoverished children. That is not what people normally do with their spare time. Granted that lots of people do it occasionally, but it's well outside the bounds of what we can say we have a right to expect.

"Works laboriously for charity" is not anywhere close to the same order of 'this is what you're SUPPOSED TO DO, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!' territory as "doesn't end up in jail."

And it's very disingenuous of you to say so.

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.

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.

When we routinely have generalizations about how the police are killers, thugs, or criminals passing with minimal comment...

I think the thesis "the police are overwhelmingly evil" needs refutation, even if you personally aren't coming out and claiming it.

One thing I'm not sure you've ever quite understood is that, as part of presenting a larger idea, a person may feel the need to refute or address certain topics. Even if they aren't things you said. It's like, to prove theorem A I need theorem B... so I go and prove theorem B.

Getting upset about how I'm strawmanning because you never claimed theorem B is false... frankly, it's just a stupid waste of our time.

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.

I don't know, I think we can make an argument for 'restore faith in humanity' threads and 'all these people we dump on frequently are capable of basic human decency' threads.

Because we seem to keep refighting the same battles over and over, and the bile levels keep increasing.

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.

So... because it shares the starting structure of this argument class you're thinking of, it must logically have the same conclusion?

I mean, suppose you're familiar with 'syllogisms' that work like:

"Nothing is better than eternal happiness."
"A ham sandwich is better than nothing."
"Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness."

This is clearly absurd and stupid. But you cannot take your experience with fallacious arguments like this and assume that just because some other new argument begins with "nothing is better than eternal happiness, it must logically turn into one of those fallacious grammar-trick arguments.

[Thanas]

I think I made the mistake of using 'mention' when 'praise' would be a more appropriate term. My ptoblem was chiefly with people (like Flagg) who seemed to be claiming that charitable actions by the police aren't praiseworthy,, as though this was just what we routinely expect everyone to do all the time.

Which is absurdly unrealistic; it's NOT what everyone does all the time.

I don't know if that is in the society you live in, but over here in Germany it is not unsual for every German to at least give some to charity. 4-5 billions raised annually for charity.

The point is, this is about people who (stereotpyically) brag about things "a normal man just does."

So wait, you are the one who now tries to shift from newsworthy to praiseworthy but at the same time give me a hard time about this?

"Works laboriously for charity" is not anywhere close to the same order of 'this is what you're SUPPOSED TO DO, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!' territory as "doesn't end up in jail."

And it's very disingenuous of you to say so.

If you have time to spare and money to spare, you should be very well expected to donate some of it to charity. It is the right thing to do. It is very disingenious of you to pretend otherwise.

I think the thesis "the police are overwhelmingly evil" needs refutation, even if you personally aren't coming out and claiming it.

I don't think it does and unless you show me with evidence that a majority of the board thinks that way then I will not entertain any speculation on this matter. Claiming that this is an accepted thesis on SDN should at least require some evidence for that. At best, you got like three or four posters claiming that, which is not even approaching anything resembling a sizable minority.

One thing I'm not sure you've ever quite understood is that, as part of presenting a larger idea, a person may feel the need to refute or address certain topics. Even if they aren't things you said. It's like, to prove theorem A I need theorem B... so I go and prove theorem B.

You are confusing a strawmen with a logical necessity or an argument chain. I'm not sure if you ever quite understood that there is a difference between the two or that your "argument" is not an argument chain.

Getting upset about how I'm strawmanning because you never claimed theorem B is false... frankly, it's just a stupid waste of our time.

No, it is not. Not when you use that strawman to then prop up your main argument which got nothing else in support.

[Simon_Jester]

I think I made the mistake of using 'mention' when 'praise' would be a more appropriate term. My ptoblem was chiefly with people (like Flagg) who seemed to be claiming that charitable actions by the police aren't praiseworthy,, as though this was just what we routinely expect everyone to do all the time.

Which is absurdly unrealistic; it's NOT what everyone does all the time.

I don't know if that is in the society you live in, but over here in Germany it is not unsual for every German to at least give some to charity. 4-5 billions raised annually for charity.

Dividing by eighty million Germans, that translates to about 50 to 60 euros (I assume) per year per German.

While I would not consider it exceptionally praiseworthy to do the average level of donation, that particular act can reasonably be praised. Just as, say, carelessly incurring a 50-euro parking ticket is worthy of a bit of criticism. People who live average lives should be praised for average good acts and criticized for average bad acts; otherwise praise and criticism are useless tools.

Moreover, writing a check to a charity is, in a case like this, not going to solve the problem, which required physical people to volunteer on short notice to drive around in difficult weather hand-delivering the meals. The actions of those people are, therefore, praiseworthy- they perceived that others were in immediate, urgent need, and took at least a period of several hours out to fulfill that need. That may not be an amazing rare thing, but it is a good thing and, I would argue, praiseworthy.

The point is, this is about people who (stereotpyically) brag about things "a normal man just does."

So wait, you are the one who now tries to shift from newsworthy to praiseworthy but at the same time give me a hard time about this?

I never actually talked about newsworthiness in the first place. But when I talked about praiseworthiness, making it explicit that I was doing so... people tried to 'correct' me on that. Therefore I continue to talk about praiseworthiness.

My subject never changed, and if you don't want to talk to me about my subject, you don't have to.

"Works laboriously for charity" is not anywhere close to the same order of 'this is what you're SUPPOSED TO DO, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!' territory as "doesn't end up in jail."

And it's very disingenuous of you to say so.

If you have time to spare and money to spare, you should be very well expected to donate some of it to charity. It is the right thing to do. It is very disingenious of you to pretend otherwise.

To pretend that it is not the right thing to do would be disingenuous.

To maintain that we should not consider "spends hours working for charity" to be a minimum expectation that you get no praise for meeting... To maintain that we should consider it a (moderately) positive thing that deserves (moderate) praise...

I do not think that is disingenuous. I am being quite sincere when I think it is worth saying good things about people who do that.

I think the thesis "the police are overwhelmingly evil" needs refutation, even if you personally aren't coming out and claiming it.

I don't think it does and unless you show me with evidence that a majority of the board thinks that way then I will not entertain any speculation on this matter. Claiming that this is an accepted thesis on SDN should at least require some evidence for that. At best, you got like three or four posters claiming that, which is not even approaching anything resembling a sizable minority.

I would not say it is an accepted thesis on SDN as a whole. I would, however, say that it is a thesis which appears with such frequency that police abuse stories earned their own sticky thread, being one of THREE topics that have such a thread.

This strikes me as unusual, and suggests that the issue is 'big' enough for N&P that it presents a legitimate, normal topic for discussion.

Getting upset about how I'm strawmanning because you never claimed theorem B is false... frankly, it's just a stupid waste of our time.

No, it is not. Not when you use that strawman to then prop up your main argument which got nothing else in support.

In this case, could you review for me (or post a link to the place where you clearly state)...

Exactly what is my strawman?

Exactly what is my main argument?

[Thanas]

While I would not consider it exceptionally praiseworthy to do the average level of donation, that particular act can reasonably be praised. Just as, say, carelessly incurring a 50-euro parking ticket is worthy of a bit of criticism. People who live average lives should be praised for average good acts and criticized for average bad acts; otherwise praise and criticism are useless tools.

Moreover, writing a check to a charity is, in a case like this, not going to solve the problem, which required physical people to volunteer on short notice to drive around in difficult weather hand-delivering the meals. The actions of those people are, therefore, praiseworthy- they perceived that others were in immediate, urgent need, and took at least a period of several hours out to fulfill that need. That may not be an amazing rare thing, but it is a good thing and, I would argue, praiseworthy.

Again, nobody is saying these people are not deserving some praise. But being shown as some kind of heroes in the news is not that. The effort is not that extraordinary.

I never actually talked about newsworthiness in the first place. But when I talked about praiseworthiness, making it explicit that I was doing so... people tried to 'correct' me on that. Therefore I continue to talk about praiseworthiness.

So why the fuck did you reply to my post at all? Remember, you first replied and argued against my posts, not the other way around.

I would not say it is an accepted thesis on SDN as a whole. I would, however, say that it is a thesis which appears with such frequency that police abuse stories earned their own sticky thread, being one of THREE topics that have such a thread.

This strikes me as unusual, and suggests that the issue is 'big' enough for N&P that it presents a legitimate, normal topic for discussion.

Again, you are confusing "the police are all evil" with "a lot of police are not punished for doing evil".

In this case, could you review for me (or post a link to the place where you clearly state)...

Exactly what is my strawman?

That the police are overwhelmingly evil is an accepted point of view on this board, or that people who post in the police abuse thread think so. In doing this, you are taking "a lot of police are not punished for doing evil" and strawman it into "the police are all evil".

Exactly what is my main argument?

Have you got one besides "we need to post good stuff about good police because otherwise people think they are overwhelmingly evil"? Honestly, I am trying.

[Dark Hellion]

I think I made the mistake of using 'mention' when 'praise' would be a more appropriate term. My ptoblem was chiefly with people (like Flagg) who seemed to be claiming that charitable actions by the police aren't praiseworthy,, as though this was just what we routinely expect everyone to do all the time.

Which is absurdly unrealistic; it's NOT what everyone does all the time.

I don't know if that is in the society you live in, but over here in Germany it is not unsual for every German to at least give some to charity. 4-5 billions raised annually for charity.

Thanas, just for the sake of accuracy according to the Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University 95.4% of Americans give to charity. Total charity generated by America in 2013 was $335.17 billion. The average per household is $3000.

So, it is not unusual for Americans to give to charity either. In fact, by purely numeric terms Americans are far more charitable than Germans.

So, the difference here is not one about charitability but seems to have deeper perceptual roots that should be addressed.

[Thanas]

Thanas, just for the sake of accuracy according to the Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University 95.4% of Americans give to charity. Total charity generated by America in 2013 was $335.17 billion. The average per household is $3000.

One caveat, charity =/= philanthropy.

But if your numbers are correct, then that is even more of a reason to believe that this is not an exceptional occurrence.

[Dark Hellion]

Thanas, just for the sake of accuracy according to the Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University 95.4% of Americans give to charity. Total charity generated by America in 2013 was $335.17 billion. The average per household is $3000.

One caveat, charity =/= philanthropy.

But if your numbers are correct, then that is even more of a reason to believe that this is not an exceptional occurrence.

I am not seeing the logic in how your conclusion follows. American's are in general more charitable and yet this act by the man seems to be one that was noteworthy enough for multiple people to notice it.

This is why I am saying that there is a difference of perception in what are the responsibilities of citizens and civil servants. Charity is a red herring.

[APlayerHater]

So uh.. He was just doing what he was paid to do, right? It said one of their duties was to go to the homes of truant kids, give them food, etc. So this officer was getting paid 30 bucks an hour to hand out food that he didn't have to pay for either? I do my dayjob too, nobody ever thanks me.

The story just didn't have many details. From what I saw, just looks like the guy was doing his job.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, nobody is saying these people are not deserving some praise. But being shown as some kind of heroes in the news is not that. The effort is not that extraordinary.

Well then, it's a good thing that nobody did show them as "some kind of heroes," and the most complimentary thing said about the officer involved here was "way to go Officer Nottingham!"

So since you're obviously not strawmanning, you got exactly what you wanted out of the whole afair. Happy days!

I never actually talked about newsworthiness in the first place. But when I talked about praiseworthiness, making it explicit that I was doing so... people tried to 'correct' me on that. Therefore I continue to talk about praiseworthiness.

So why the fuck did you reply to my post at all? Remember, you first replied and argued against my posts, not the other way around.

Because by invoking the "what do you want, a cookie" analogy, you explicitly invoked Chris Rock's condemnation of people who want special treatment for doing routine, mundane things like paying their rent on time, or not going to prison, or trying to care for their children.

Thing is, here we are talking about mildly special treatment for a mildly special thing. And I disagreed with you when you made the jump from saying that a thing like that is not newsworthy, over to implying that it was a perfectly mundane duty that no one can expect to be lauded for at all by invoking the Chris Rock skit in question.

I would not say it is an accepted thesis on SDN as a whole. I would, however, say that it is a thesis which appears with such frequency that police abuse stories earned their own sticky thread, being one of THREE topics that have such a thread.

This strikes me as unusual, and suggests that the issue is 'big' enough for N&P that it presents a legitimate, normal topic for discussion.

Again, you are confusing "the police are all evil" with "a lot of police are not punished for doing evil".

Then why do the two keep creeping together into the same thread? Are we just going to blame one or two guys for it or whatever when it obviously happens repeatedly? Because I don't think it's fair to treat them as scapegoats.

In this case, could you review for me (or post a link to the place where you clearly state)...

Exactly what is my strawman?

That the police are overwhelmingly evil is an accepted point of view on this board, or that people who post in the police abuse thread think so. In doing this, you are taking "a lot of police are not punished for doing evil" and strawman it into "the police are all evil".

Exactly what is my main argument?

Have you got one besides "we need to post good stuff about good police because otherwise people think they are overwhelmingly evil"? Honestly, I am trying.

Well, thank you for stating clearly what you think I think.

I need a little more time to evaluate how I respond to this part of your post, but I do appreciate you doing that. It's far too often that people tell me (or others) off for being 'wrong' without actually stopping to clearly define what 'wrong' opinion they are dealing with.

[Flagg]

This board is not Fox News. It does not need to be "fair and balanced".

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, it should be actually fair and balanced. Not in-quotes horseshit fake "fair and balanced."

Or more precisely, it should be intellectually honest and value truth, logic, and objectivity. Nonsensical arguments should be rejected, as should the people who advance them. Especially if they refuse to recognize when they're letting irrational impulses cause them to make the same mistakes over and over.

So whatever we do, we should value our objectivity, and we should not be allergic to someone who presents us with facts we don't like to hear.

There's a tendency to think that arguments are soldiers- that once you've picked a 'side' you have to automatically fight every argument that even looks like it might favor the opposing side. This attitude is very poisonous and makes people (in effect) stupid when they debate complex issues.

Because if you treat all arguments like soldiers that have to affiliate with one side or the other in a "with us or against us" war, it can easily mean you start attacking true and valid facts purely because they are facts that don't support your preconceptions. Attacking the truth because it doesn't support your existing position is a great way to look like a belligerent moron.

Or "arguments as soldiers" can also cause someone to advance an argument they (ought to) know is fallacious, and to not realize they're doing something wrong by doing that. Because clearly this argument is kosher, even if it contradicts itself- because it's fighting for the right team!

[Thanas]

So since you're obviously not strawmanning, you got exactly what you wanted out of the whole afair. Happy days!

Happy days indeed.

Because by invoking the "what do you want, a cookie" analogy, you explicitly invoked Chris Rock's condemnation of people who want special treatment for doing routine, mundane things like paying their rent on time, or not going to prison, or trying to care for their children.

Thing is, here we are talking about mildly special treatment for a mildly special thing. And I disagreed with you when you made the jump from saying that a thing like that is not newsworthy, over to implying that it was a perfectly mundane duty that no one can expect to be lauded for at all by invoking the Chris Rock skit in question.

Yes. My personal standards are that it should not deserve special commendation. We've been over that before.
I am also not opposed to others slobbering their knobs for doing this.
What I am opposed to is that this is newsworthy. Unless you disagree with that and can actually make an argument that is not one massive appeal to emotion, then this conversation serves no purpose.

Then why do the two keep creeping together into the same thread? Are we just going to blame one or two guys for it or whatever when it obviously happens repeatedly? Because I don't think it's fair to treat them as scapegoats.

I am confused. Are you really saying that the police corruption has spread throughout the majority of the police?

[Ziggy Stardust]

To return to something Thanas said earlier and abstract this debate a little bit, one of the reasons that "good" news is so rarely reported is that "good" really is the default state of affairs (see the earlier statistics about German and American charity donations). The reason "bad" news is predominant is because, all things considered, bad things happening is still rare compared to good things happening. (And yes, there are other factors as well: sensationalism, morbid curiosity, practical considerations concerning who might be effected, etc.). But when it comes right down to it, actions like this cop helping out these kids, while certainly praiseworthy on an individual level, really aren't newsworthy because they are relatively routine.

All this to say, purely in terms of individual action and not something broader and systemic (like, say, the Gates Foundation), how much "good" does a person need to do before it is considered generally newsworthy on a national (i.e. not the local paper) level?

[Thanas]

All this to say, purely in terms of individual action and not something broader and systemic (like, say, the Gates Foundation), how much "good" does a person need to do before it is considered generally newsworthy on a national (i.e. not the local paper) level?

Well, I would suggest a person would definitely qualify if they spent a lot of time and energy on it. For example, in Germany people who dedicated a large portion of their life to helping others typically get state or national recognition. So, if the police continue doing this for decades, they would probably qualify IMO.

[Channel72]

Then why do the two keep creeping together into the same thread? Are we just going to blame one or two guys for it or whatever when it obviously happens repeatedly? Because I don't think it's fair to treat them as scapegoats.

I am confused. Are you really saying that the police corruption has spread throughout the majority of the police?

He's talking about the SDN posters, not the police.

You know, these guys, who clearly are enthusiastic about portraying the police in a negative light.

Fortunately, the average SDN poster is nowhere near as insane as this asshole, and we've got a nice counter-balance going with posters like Kamakazie Sith. Still, the ratio of negative sentiment to positive sentiment towards the police is likely overwhelmingly negative (although I haven't actually calculated that), which, to be fair, somewhat reflects the national mood in the US, which is unsurprising since a lot posters here are American.

The only thing I'd add is that, because humans tend to generalize, it's at least worth pointing out, from time to time, that "most cops aren't evil", even if that statement might seem obvious to your rational mind.

Also, regarding charity - the US in one of them most charitable countries in the world - so if your average American thinks what this cop did is somewhat noteworthy, it means it's probably somewhat noteworthy to the average human.

[Thanas]

The only thing I'd add is that, because humans tend to generalize, it's at least worth pointing out, from time to time, that "most cops aren't evil", even if that statement might seem obvious to your rational mind.

Yeah sure but that doesn't need its own thread, one can do so in the other threads if they start to generalize.

[Lord Revan]

Thanas the problem here is that we're not talking about people intrested in a rational argument.

When it's pointed out that not every cop in the US is a thug with a badge you get accussed of dismissing the problem, hell it happend on this very thread. These people are not able to or don't want to accept that you can be conserned about the corruption is US police forces without thinking every single US cop is a spawn of satan.

that's the true purpose of threads like this to show that yes there is a major problem with police corruption but being a police doesn't mean a person is incapable of being a decent human being as well.

[Flagg]

Thanas the problem here is that we're not talking about people intrested in a rational argument.

When it's pointed out that not every cop in the US is a thug with a badge you get accussed of dismissing the problem, hell it happend on this very thread. These people are not able to or don't want to accept that you can be conserned about the corruption is US police forces without thinking every single US cop is a spawn of satan.

that's the true purpose of threads like this to show that yes there is a major problem with police corruption but being a police doesn't mean a person is incapable of being a decent human being as well.

No, the purpose of threads like this is to try and "rile up" people who don't trust the police due to things like them getting away with everything under the sun. I'm sure this guy is a nice guy and a good cop. I bet he also would look the other way if he saw his fellows committing abuses and crimes and would lie about it if directly asked.

And what's there to "argue" about? I mean is there currently an argument going on about whether or not charitable donations made by anyone are bad?

[Batman]

Not currently, no, though I suspect there has been in the past given where a lot of that charity actually ended up.