ACAB means the police is upholding unjust systems and laws, isn’t that cops as individuals are bad. Of course a large percent of them are domestic abusers and racist, but that’s an entirely different issue.
If your slogan is inaccurate you will face resistance at every turn. Not to mention that some people using ACAB actually do think that all cops are personally bad.
Words have social meaning but that meaning is easy to twist and corrupt if the words are new and if the meaning is unclear, both of which are true for most liberal slogans tbh, especially ACAB. You can’t rely on conservative goodwill to interpret your slogan favorably when 1. you don’t agree among yourselves what “favorably” is and 2. conservatives don’t have goodwill.
Last, some does not mean the majority.
It doesn’t have to be a majority, just a significant enough portion that people hearing the phrase will have heard multiple people using it in two different and semi-opposite ways.
Interesting that you’d be using this sort of logic, kinda tipping your hand…
Fuck off, and don’t put me in a box. If you want to know my opinions you can ask me and I will answer truthfully. If I wanted to troll people and hide my real opinions I’d do something more interesting than arguing normally.
Right, so conservatives don’t have goodwill which means they’ll twist anything regardless, self defeating argument
See point 1.
Wasn’t putting you in any box, just pointing out that generalization is bad, and that you were participating in that behavior. People will think what they want and not being informed enough of what the social implications of words mean is exactly why both sides are at odds. Get it or don’t get it.
Well I appreciate the reasonable response. I do think it’s important to reduce the ability of conservatives to twist liberal actions but you are right that a good portion will find a way to do it anyways :/
If you’re interested, and I think you may be, look into the solution to tolerance of the intolerant, cleared a lot of misgivings I had about the concept
You can’t rely on conservative goodwill to interpret your slogan favorably when… conservatives don’t have goodwill
Right. But that just means you shouldn’t give a shit about making the name look nice for conservatives. They’re going to oppose it anyway, so might as well be inflammatory and get the most attention.
It also helps liberals (or moderates, however few remain) who haven’t encountered the phrase before get on board more easily so that you don’t spend time fighting your own allies.
Maybe, but being inflammatory gets you in the news so that moderates hear about it in the first place, which is where you get the chance to explain the true meaning.
Man, I actually agree with this… Most cops are bad, let’s start there. This said, there’s a lot of truth in the comment above the one I’m replying to. The system is absolutely corrupt. Civil asset forfeiture alone is a clear, objective example of it.
ACAB means the police is upholding unjust systems and laws, isn’t that cops as individuals are bad. Of course a large percent of them are domestic abusers and racist, but that’s an entirely different issue.
If your slogan is inaccurate you will face resistance at every turn. Not to mention that some people using ACAB actually do think that all cops are personally bad.
Meh, don’t forget groups will deliberately misinterpret even the most perfect slogan.
Examples:
Black Lives Matter
Defund the Police
The first one especially, but while the second one is easily the more provocative and easily misunderstood one, it should elicit interest.
Words have social meaning, sorry not sorry.
ACAB means all cops are bastards
Because they enable if not encourage or participate in the problem.
Last, some does not mean the majority. Interesting that you’d be using this sort of logic, kinda tipping your hand…
Words have social meaning but that meaning is easy to twist and corrupt if the words are new and if the meaning is unclear, both of which are true for most liberal slogans tbh, especially ACAB. You can’t rely on conservative goodwill to interpret your slogan favorably when 1. you don’t agree among yourselves what “favorably” is and 2. conservatives don’t have goodwill.
It doesn’t have to be a majority, just a significant enough portion that people hearing the phrase will have heard multiple people using it in two different and semi-opposite ways.
Fuck off, and don’t put me in a box. If you want to know my opinions you can ask me and I will answer truthfully. If I wanted to troll people and hide my real opinions I’d do something more interesting than arguing normally.
Right, so conservatives don’t have goodwill which means they’ll twist anything regardless, self defeating argument
See point 1.
Wasn’t putting you in any box, just pointing out that generalization is bad, and that you were participating in that behavior. People will think what they want and not being informed enough of what the social implications of words mean is exactly why both sides are at odds. Get it or don’t get it.
Well I appreciate the reasonable response. I do think it’s important to reduce the ability of conservatives to twist liberal actions but you are right that a good portion will find a way to do it anyways :/
If you’re interested, and I think you may be, look into the solution to tolerance of the intolerant, cleared a lot of misgivings I had about the concept
The social contract one? Yeah it’a a very elegant way to avoid the issues for sure
Right. But that just means you shouldn’t give a shit about making the name look nice for conservatives. They’re going to oppose it anyway, so might as well be inflammatory and get the most attention.
It also helps liberals (or moderates, however few remain) who haven’t encountered the phrase before get on board more easily so that you don’t spend time fighting your own allies.
Maybe, but being inflammatory gets you in the news so that moderates hear about it in the first place, which is where you get the chance to explain the true meaning.
Man, I actually agree with this… Most cops are bad, let’s start there. This said, there’s a lot of truth in the comment above the one I’m replying to. The system is absolutely corrupt. Civil asset forfeiture alone is a clear, objective example of it.
All my homies hate civil asset forfeiture
Whichever judge decided that you could sue a pile of money to indirectly violate its owner’s rights should be hanged for treason against the public
Yeah that might be convincing if it was tpss(the police system sucks) but instead the braindeads use ACAB, so…