Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[League Circles]

hate the institution of slavery? why not start a plantation, be a kind-hearted slavemaster!

i think you're completely missing the point of this. the institution is the problem, and beyond that i think it's interesting that you would just assume that this institution of white supremacy, the police, would hire ""activists"" to be cops.

some guy said you're thinking about this rationally, but you aren't, you're completely misinterpreting what the problem is and offering unhelpful, uninformed solutions.

This is just pure identity politics. I don't believe in group or institutional moral evaluation. All we have are individuals and policy (rules). We need the right rules (which we don't have but are pushing for), and we need the right people, which we don't have enough of. I'm suggesting that the most mindful defenders of black freedom (activists) DO THAT FOR THEIR JOB! It would be beautiful. What's the alternative suggestion, that all blacks boycott police work until there is zero evidence of police racial misconduct? Or that we don't have police?

You don’t believe in immoral institutions?

Absolutely, positively not. Morality is only meaningful with regards to specific human actions and behaviors IMO. Institutions are the intangible cumulation of individual component actions. They can be more or less effective, beneficial/detrimental, but morality is in an individual attribute. It's not that groups can't be immoral, it's that they can't have any coherently identifiable moral characteristics at all. This is a philosophical issue.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

This is just pure identity politics. I don't believe in group or institutional moral evaluation. All we have are individuals and policy (rules). We need the right rules (which we don't have but are pushing for), and we need the right people, which we don't have enough of. I'm suggesting that the most mindful defenders of black freedom (activists) DO THAT FOR THEIR JOB! It would be beautiful. What's the alternative suggestion, that all blacks boycott police work until there is zero evidence of police racial misconduct? Or that we don't have police?

You don’t believe in immoral institutions?

Absolutely, positively not. Morality is only meaningful with regards to specific human actions and behaviors IMO. Institutions are the intangible cumulation of individual component actions. They can be more or less effective, beneficial/detrimental, but morality is in an individual attribute. It's not that groups can't be immoral, it's that they can't have any coherently identifiable moral characteristics at all. This is a philosophical issue.

Slavery, the SS, Blackwater, the KKK... just a collection of bad individuals? Nothing in the hard-wiring of the institutions themselves?

What about institutions that have immorality literally written into their charters? Segregationist townships and school systems, for example? Federal loan authorities that didn't allow financing for Black people?

[dougthonus]

The middle ground I was referring to is more along the lines of making sure there are enough police or national guard to protect property so that it doesn't come to a storeowner having to defend his shop with a pistol. Or boarding up windows so that can't happen.

Well as a store owner you don't have much control over the police or national guard. Certainly trying to board up your windows may help, not sure how practical that is in all locations, but definitely a good step to take.

Also, if a group of young kids- teens and early 20's, broke into your store, would you really want to open fire on them- maybe killing a whole group of them? Is it worth taking their lives over that? Not to mention that by doing so, if any of them are armed, your life would be in serious danger as well. How about just firing a warning shot or something to scare them off, which would probably do the trick? Personally, I think I'd rather have my store robbed than have 6 dead kids on my shop floor.

Not sure if you've ever fired a gun before, but I don't think you're going to "kill a whole group of them". If you were just trying to kill as many people as possible, it's unlikely you'd kill more than one in this scenario. Warning shot is definitely a good idea and probably gets the job done too.

[League Circles]

I still don't see how BLACK cops became centered in this discussion, but I'll bite.

I know of cops who've spoken out against selective police wrongdoing. But they aren't what I'd consider activists. If you give your labor to an abusive institution, you fall well short of that mark, in my eyes.

Also, to SuperSalmon's point, I'm not sure why you think PDs are looking for anti-police brutality activists. They screen their candidates for certain personality traits and backgrounds and, to my knowledge, a history of subversive activity would be a dealbreaker.

I specifically mentioned black cops because, to be honest, I thought it would be more difficult for you to dismiss under the ideology of identity politics.

You know that you know an insignificant % of black cops right? So you don't really have the faintest clue what virtually all of them do and say on and off the job right? Or, do you think because you know their type, that generalization is valid? See where I'm going?

This is patronizing and digressive. You don't know my relationship with "the ideology of identity politics."

And, once again, I've made no claims about what Black cops do or think -- except to say that I've seen Black cops commit a lot of the same abuses as white cops in the last week.

My last post was about COPS IN GENERAL who've spoken out against police wrongdoing. None of whom I know personally.

Sorry, didn't mean to be patronizing, I've just been reading some of your posts these last few pages and it seems to be that you are comfortable treating people according to their group identity over their individual human dignity. By the way, that's OK. It's just a different philosophy.

You've said:

1. You know 100% for sure that activists aren't applying to be cops right now

2. That cops, by virtue of giving their labor to a corrupt institution, cannot be activists in your mind (regardless of what they actually do and say as individuals, on and off the job).

3. That none of the hundreds of activists you know would even CONSIDER being a cop.

IMO, it appears you believe you know these things which you rather obviously cannot know IMO, because you know their "type" (on both "sides", notably). You feel you know enough about the groups to generalize about the constituent members of the group. Again, that's fine, I just disagree with it. I've been trying to stand up to that line of thinking my whole life. I think it's dangerous and regressive.

[dice]

after trump's "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" tweet, posted to facebook and echoing segregationists in the '60s, facebook employees walked off the job when zuckerberg refused to act on it. he had previously said that he would draw the line at posts calling for violence

What on gods earth did that statement have to do with segregationists in the 60s? The looters were white, black, brown, etc.

Didn’t the shooting start after the looting? People were shot and killed and police were shot at and killed. Some store owners were protecting their store with guns possibly shooting at looters if they were attacked. What was so bad about that statement?

LA Riots same thing...people started looting and plenty of shooting afterwards. Roof Koreans. Looters shooting back, etc. Zero cops were around for those riots during the prime moments.

I’m trying to figure out what was so wrong with that factual statement?

Shonuff, that's exactly the sentence used in the civil rights protests by Miami police chief.

That exact sentence.

It's a dog whistle.

and then trump pretended not to know where he got the phrase from. not the first time he's done stuff like this. he's essentially a professional political troll

[Michael Jackson]

I think it's interesting to note that the Los Angeles police department has pretty well created a 'diverse' PD that matches the demographics of Los Angeles -- what difference has it made?

Well what we already do know is, white police + black neighborhood = a toxic match made in hell. It hasnt worked out in 70 years. Again, a proven bad marriage that's long overdue for a divorce. Gotta try something new.

Dominater, think about what's creating these black neighborhoods...that even need to be policed more than a white neighborhood?

Why do more patrols exist? Because there is more crime. Why does more crime exist?

Because there are socio-economic factors at play that create the kinds of segregation that create clusters of high crime. And clusters of high wealth.

This is America. And we have to take a long hard look at it.

The police are but one small aspect of it.

This is the real issue and the government wants to skirt around it because there is no turn key solution. It is a very complex issue to even quantify, so they would rather focus on band aid fixes and low hanging fruit. This is exactly what needs to change.

[musiqsoulchild]

Well what we already do know is, white police + black neighborhood = a toxic match made in hell. It hasnt worked out in 70 years. Again, a proven bad marriage that's long overdue for a divorce. Gotta try something new.

Dominater, think about what's creating these black neighborhoods...that even need to be policed more than a white neighborhood?

Why do more patrols exist? Because there is more crime. Why does more crime exist?

Because there are socio-economic factors at play that create the kinds of segregation that create clusters of high crime. And clusters of high wealth.

This is America. And we have to take a long hard look at it.

The police are but one small aspect of it.

This is the real issue and the government wants to skirt around it because there is no turn key solution. It is a very complex issue to even quantify, so they would rather focus on band aid fixes and low hanging fruit. This is exactly what needs to change.

And most likely the number of years that it would take for the solution to yield results would be greater than 8 years. Which is important...because Presidents all the way down to local politicians do not push for policy change if it does not DIRECTLY translate to votes.

And that's why this whole thing is bogus.

Needs to be stripped down to its bare bones and built again.

[League Circles]

You don’t believe in immoral institutions?

Absolutely, positively not. Morality is only meaningful with regards to specific human actions and behaviors IMO. Institutions are the intangible cumulation of individual component actions. They can be more or less effective, beneficial/detrimental, but morality is in an individual attribute. It's not that groups can't be immoral, it's that they can't have any coherently identifiable moral characteristics at all. This is a philosophical issue.

Slavery, the SS, Blackwater, the KKK... just a collection of bad individuals? Nothing in the hard-wiring of the institutions themselves?

What about institutions that have immorality literally written into their charters? Segregationist townships and school systems, for example? Federal loan authorities that didn't allow financing for Black people?

Again, this is just a philosophical, semantic difference. Don't read too much into it. Slavery is wrong, so everyone who practiced it was wrong to do so, etc. "The hard wiring" isn't a coherent concept to me other than as the cumulative effect of the constituent individuals and their actions, which can all be assessed individually. When the "institution" is literally based on by-definition immoral actions, it's easy to see that all the members (unless occasionally under extreme force or coercion perhaps) are performing those immoral acts. For "institutions" that are not based on by-definition immoral actions, like activism or police work to name two examples we're discussing now, you never know, nor do you need to, nor is doing so helpful IMO. Like I don't know what is fo be gained by "rounding up" to a binary decision that no activist you know has considered being a cop (you obviously have no idea what the depths of contemplation are for these hundreds of people, EVEN IF THEY STATE IT), that no cop is an activist in your mind (ever heard of anonymous sabotage????), Or that no activists have been submitting applications right now, where you actually wrote you were 100% sure. I literally saw that and thought "damn, Ashy knows someone in police admin no wonder he's so engaged that's great."

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I specifically mentioned black cops because, to be honest, I thought it would be more difficult for you to dismiss under the ideology of identity politics.

You know that you know an insignificant % of black cops right? So you don't really have the faintest clue what virtually all of them do and say on and off the job right? Or, do you think because you know their type, that generalization is valid? See where I'm going?

This is patronizing and digressive. You don't know my relationship with "the ideology of identity politics."

And, once again, I've made no claims about what Black cops do or think -- except to say that I've seen Black cops commit a lot of the same abuses as white cops in the last week.

My last post was about COPS IN GENERAL who've spoken out against police wrongdoing. None of whom I know personally.

Sorry, didn't mean to be patronizing, I've just been reading some of your posts these last few pages and it seems to be that you are comfortable treating people according to their group identity over their individual human dignity. By the way, that's OK. It's just a different philosophy.

You've said:

1. You know 100% for sure that activists aren't applying to be cops right now

2. That cops, by virtue of giving their labor to a corrupt institution, cannot be activists in your mind (regardless of what they actually do and say as individuals, on and off the job).

3. That none of the hundreds of activists you know would even CONSIDER being a cop.

IMO, it appears you believe you know these things which you rather obviously cannot know IMO, because you know their "type" (on both "sides", notably). You feel you know enough about the groups to generalize about the constituent members of the group. Again, that's fine, I just disagree with it. I've been trying to stand up to that line of thinking my whole life. I think it's dangerous and regressive.

1. Nope. I responded to your hope that A LOT of activists are applying to be cops. I feel very comfortable saying that isn't true.

2. That's not a generalization -- it's a definitional issue. A cop cannot be an activist by the definition of the word I and many other activists use.

3. Yep. Been an activist for a while now. Not one activist I know has become a cop, or expressed even the faintest interest. Am I a mind reader? Do I LITERALLY know they aren't considering becoming cops now? Of course not. They could also become Russian beaver trappers. Should we talk about that too?

Generally speaking, I think you're taking something you imagined - activists coming cops - and asking me to prove a negative (NO activist would become a cop). When YOU meet a significant number of activists applying to the police academy, we can start the conversation there. Until then, this line of talk is grounded in nothing.

[Michael Jackson]

The downside of that is you are probably limiting police tension but increasing racial tension. Also where do you draw the line? Do only black judges / juries / prosecutors work on black cases going forward? Do you do that with companies and hiring? It may only be a small step, but you are moving towards creating a society of segregation and while that may help with this singular problem in the short term, it likely leads to vastly bigger problems in the long term.

White cops aren’t the problem. Racist white cops are. I think segregation of a police force does not help the problem, I do think that having a more diverse police force in those areas though is a huge benefit. I personally am very very anti segregation. Having a force though that is a higher ration African American in those communities though makes sense to me.

I think it's interesting to note that the Los Angeles police department has pretty well created a 'diverse' PD that matches the demographics of Los Angeles -- what difference has it made?

It is absolutely more than just making a diverse in color police force. It has to be a whole system change for sure. The police brotherhood, is it's own culture and really doesn't know race, in the fact that a black officer caught in the hierarchy, is going to act as an officer rather than an individual. That being said the diversity allows more input (and I am sure the bigot cops generally look at the black or insert race cop as "one of the good ones") to start having a foundation. Most Police are not sociopaths, but it is indeed an occupation that is not particularly easy and it attracts sociopaths. The brotherhood needs to be able to speak out against the wrong actions of the bad officers, yet that culture is tough. Police also have a silly tough job in a lot of situations as most criminals are not usually polite and reasonable. So that "cover it up" culture is justified on one level (and hence why not many cops who disagree with it speak out) but it is also a horrible loophole for really really dangerous men (and or women but generally men) to operate. More diversity is a positive step, but it is not a trun key solution nor is it the biggest problem.

[Dominator83]

Dominater, think about what's creating these black neighborhoods...that even need to be policed more than a white neighborhood?

Why do more patrols exist? Because there is more crime. Why does more crime exist?

Because there are socio-economic factors at play that create the kinds of segregation that create clusters of high crime. And clusters of high wealth.

This is America. And we have to take a long hard look at it.

The police are but one small aspect of it.

This is the real issue and the government wants to skirt around it because there is no turn key solution. It is a very complex issue to even quantify, so they would rather focus on band aid fixes and low hanging fruit. This is exactly what needs to change.

And most likely the number of years that it would take for the solution to yield results would be greater than 8 years. Which is important...because Presidents all the way down to local politicians do not push for policy change if it does not DIRECTLY translate to votes.

And that's why this whole thing is bogus.

Needs to be stripped down to its bare bones and built again.

Thats an issue too for sure man. Politicians always want instant gratification for the reasons you just mentioned. Kind of like when a coach or GM keeps making moves to squeeze for wins now at the price of the future, especially when they figure they'll be gone by the time the bill comes due anyway. Kind of like when Mayor Daily sold all our assets, only to make his last 2 years budget better, not caring that he was gonna be screwing over Rahm, Lightfoot, and many more beyond.

[dice]

The middle ground I was referring to is more along the lines of making sure there are enough police or national guard to protect property so that it doesn't come to a storeowner having to defend his shop with a pistol. Or boarding up windows so that can't happen.

Well as a store owner you don't have much control over the police or national guard. Certainly trying to board up your windows may help, not sure how practical that is in all locations, but definitely a good step to take.

Also, if a group of young kids- teens and early 20's, broke into your store, would you really want to open fire on them- maybe killing a whole group of them? Is it worth taking their lives over that? Not to mention that by doing so, if any of them are armed, your life would be in serious danger as well. How about just firing a warning shot or something to scare them off, which would probably do the trick? Personally, I think I'd rather have my store robbed than have 6 dead kids on my shop floor.

Not sure if you've ever fired a gun before, but I don't think you're going to "kill a whole group of them". If you were just trying to kill as many people as possible, it's unlikely you'd kill more than one in this scenario. Warning shot is definitely a good idea and probably gets the job done too.

how much of this looting is a calculated group effort? are large groups bum rushing and overwhelming store personnel to get things started? or is it mostly an ass**** or two breaking windows, the owners fleeing and people noticing that there's an empty, open store?

[musiqsoulchild]

Absolutely, positively not. Morality is only meaningful with regards to specific human actions and behaviors IMO. Institutions are the intangible cumulation of individual component actions. They can be more or less effective, beneficial/detrimental, but morality is in an individual attribute. It's not that groups can't be immoral, it's that they can't have any coherently identifiable moral characteristics at all. This is a philosophical issue.

Slavery, the SS, Blackwater, the KKK... just a collection of bad individuals? Nothing in the hard-wiring of the institutions themselves?

What about institutions that have immorality literally written into their charters? Segregationist townships and school systems, for example? Federal loan authorities that didn't allow financing for Black people?

Again, this is just a philosophical, semantic difference. Don't read too much into it. Slavery is wrong, so everyone who practiced it was wrong to do so, etc. "The hard wiring" isn't a coherent concept to me other than as the cumulative effect of the constituent individuals and their actions, which can all be assessed individually. When the "institution" is literally based on by-definition immoral actions, it's easy to see that all the members (unless occasionally under extreme force or coercion perhaps) are performing those immoral acts. For "institutions" that are not based on by-definition immoral actions, like activism or police work to name two examples we're discussing now, you never know, nor do you need to, nor is doing so helpful IMO. Like I don't know what is fo be gained by "rounding up" to a binary decision that no activist you know has considered being a cop (you obviously have no idea what the depths of contemplation are for these hundreds of people, EVEN IF THEY STATE IT), that no cop is an activist in your mind (ever heard of anonymous sabotage????), Or that no activists have been submitting applications right now, where you actually wrote you were 100% sure. I literally saw that and thought "damn, Ashy knows someone in police admin no wonder he's so engaged that's great."

Chitown, what are you saying brother? I really dont understand anymore.

What specific problem do you think people are protesting?

Black Lives Matter...its that simple. They havent mattered in a long time. For a long time.

I am an activist too. I dont actually need to be in a rally to do so. I have written about a million words so far in multiple forums on the same issue. And spoken maybe another million more to friends and strangers. I can be an ally without actually knowing a good cop.

I can be EXTREMELY engaged while being a privileged Indian-American. My bone in this fight is that it is the right fight. My ex goes to protest regularly. She works with refugees and with undocumented immigrants. I try to learn about the issues and put my weight behind them as best as I know how.

First, I start with acknowledging that there is a problem. I think you are looking at the problem as a "Cop -Policing" problem. That is NOT the issue here at all.

[League Circles]

1. Nope. I responded to your hope that A LOT of activists are applying to be cops. I feel very comfortable saying that isn't true.

2. That's not a generalization -- it's a definitional issue. A cop cannot be an activist by the definition of the word I and many other activists use.

3. Yep. Been an activist for a while now. Not one activist I know has become a cop, or expressed even the faintest interest. Am I a mind reader? Do I LITERALLY know they aren't considering becoming cops now? Of course not. They could also become Russian beaver trappers. Should we talk about that too?

Generally speaking, I think you're taking something you imagined - activists coming cops - and asking me to prove a negative (NO activist would become a cop). When YOU meet a significant number of activists applying to the police academy, we can start the conversation there. Until then, this line of talk is grounded in nothing.

Thanks for these clarifications. They seem accurate and reasonable. I guess I just want people, frankly, like you, to be cops, and you don't, and that tweaks our perspectives.

[musiqsoulchild]

1. Nope. I responded to your hope that A LOT of activists are applying to be cops. I feel very comfortable saying that isn't true.

2. That's not a generalization -- it's a definitional issue. A cop cannot be an activist by the definition of the word I and many other activists use.

3. Yep. Been an activist for a while now. Not one activist I know has become a cop, or expressed even the faintest interest. Am I a mind reader? Do I LITERALLY know they aren't considering becoming cops now? Of course not. They could also become Russian beaver trappers. Should we talk about that too?

Generally speaking, I think you're taking something you imagined - activists coming cops - and asking me to prove a negative (NO activist would become a cop). When YOU meet a significant number of activists applying to the police academy, we can start the conversation there. Until then, this line of talk is grounded in nothing.

Thanks for these clarifications. They seem accurate and reasonable. I guess I just want people, frankly, like you, to be cops, and you don't, and that tweaks our perspectives.

Aha....I get it now.

Be the change you want to see in the world? Is that what's behind your posts?

I get it now.

Well, unfortunately that's not the problem now. The problem now is that BRING the change you want to see in the world.

Being the change takes a LONG time. Bringing the change is faster and immediately resolved issues.

[dougthonus]

how much of this looting is a calculated group effort? are large groups bum rushing and overwhelming store personnel to get things started? or is it mostly an ass**** or two breaking windows, the owners fleeing and people noticing that there's an empty, open store?

I'm not an expert on it, but a lot of it is coordinated and professional. It isn't protesters looting. It is gangs and other people that know the police is distracted and can't respond and then do coordinated raids. I'm sure there is other looting / vandalism that just happens, but a lot of the big problem is the coordinated stuff.

[dice]

i do feel somewhat bad for the 3 cops who have now been charged. yes, they should have forcibly removed chauvin from floyd's neck, but he seemed to be the one in charge. when floyd was initially brought to the ground one of the cops asked chauvin whether he should get off his neck and chauvin said "this is the way we're going to do it." the officers have already been fired, their names are public and forever tarnished. are they ALL bad apples or did they just find themselves in a bad situation that they were ill-equipped to deal with and didn't have the personal strength of character to do the right thing?

i'd be very interesting to find out what chauvin's professional status was relative to the other officers in terms of tenure, etc.. as well as how he was viewed within the ranks

[League Circles]

Slavery, the SS, Blackwater, the KKK... just a collection of bad individuals? Nothing in the hard-wiring of the institutions themselves?

What about institutions that have immorality literally written into their charters? Segregationist townships and school systems, for example? Federal loan authorities that didn't allow financing for Black people?

Again, this is just a philosophical, semantic difference. Don't read too much into it. Slavery is wrong, so everyone who practiced it was wrong to do so, etc. "The hard wiring" isn't a coherent concept to me other than as the cumulative effect of the constituent individuals and their actions, which can all be assessed individually. When the "institution" is literally based on by-definition immoral actions, it's easy to see that all the members (unless occasionally under extreme force or coercion perhaps) are performing those immoral acts. For "institutions" that are not based on by-definition immoral actions, like activism or police work to name two examples we're discussing now, you never know, nor do you need to, nor is doing so helpful IMO. Like I don't know what is fo be gained by "rounding up" to a binary decision that no activist you know has considered being a cop (you obviously have no idea what the depths of contemplation are for these hundreds of people, EVEN IF THEY STATE IT), that no cop is an activist in your mind (ever heard of anonymous sabotage????), Or that no activists have been submitting applications right now, where you actually wrote you were 100% sure. I literally saw that and thought "damn, Ashy knows someone in police admin no wonder he's so engaged that's great."

Chitown, what are you saying brother? I really dont understand anymore.

I'm discussing the philosophical notion of whether morality applies to individuals only or groups as well.

What specific problem do you think people are protesting?

Different people have different things in their mind as they protest. I guess perhaps the best way to characterize the protests is that they are protests against racial disparities in the excessive use of police force.

Black Lives Matter...its that simple. They havent mattered in a long time. For a long time.

To who? To some, certainly. To most, including me, they completely do IMO.

I am an activist too. I dont actually need to be in a rally to do so. I have written about a million words so far in multiple forums on the same issue. And spoken maybe another million more to friends and strangers. I can be an ally without actually knowing a good cop.

I can be EXTREMELY engaged while being a privileged Indian-American. My bone in this fight is that it is the right fight. My ex goes to protest regularly. She works with refugees and with undocumented immigrants. I try to learn about the issues and put my weight behind them as best as I know how.

First, I start with acknowledging that there is a problem. I think you are looking at the problem as a "Cop -Policing" problem. That is NOT the issue here at all.

Excessive use of police force isnt the, or a, big issue? Could have fooled me. Seems like a problem to me. That's why I've been talking about it here and with families, friends, neighbors and coworkers, and coming up with a bunch of things I advocate, hoping to find like minds and/or find other good policies to advocate. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[musiqsoulchild]

My friend runs a clinic - he just started the business a few months ago. It's in the North side...near Fullerton.

His place was ransacked by rioters. They stole electronic equipment among other things. They knew what they were looting.

He has a lovely post on Facebook. He says - " I get it. I dont care what happened to my business. I understand the frustration and the anger. These people have been marginalized for so long. I get their pain."

I am not asking y'all to be like him. But at least know that this isnt about looting and rioting.

This is primarily about protesting. And that will continue.

You cant make beautiful bacon without some of that bacon fat spilling on you and burning you in the process. Creation is not linear. It's very organic.

History is being created now. The National Guard is being called in unprecedented numbers. On our fellow citizens.

The focus needs to be on the protesters. The damage that is occurring alongside it is what it is. Store owners can defend their stores. Shoot at the vandals. That's fine.

Just dont delegitimize the movement.

There are bad actors. That doesnt take away from the protest and the movement. This is the same logic we have been spoonfed for decades now...that there are some bad cops...dont vilify the entire police force because of it.

Eventually the anger will fade out and the people whose calling it is to bring the community together will rise up. In due time though.

[dougthonus]

1. Nope. I responded to your hope that A LOT of activists are applying to be cops. I feel very comfortable saying that isn't true.

2. That's not a generalization -- it's a definitional issue. A cop cannot be an activist by the definition of the word I and many other activists use.

3. Yep. Been an activist for a while now. Not one activist I know has become a cop, or expressed even the faintest interest. Am I a mind reader? Do I LITERALLY know they aren't considering becoming cops now? Of course not. They could also become Russian beaver trappers. Should we talk about that too?

Generally speaking, I think you're taking something you imagined - activists coming cops - and asking me to prove a negative (NO activist would become a cop). When YOU meet a significant number of activists applying to the police academy, we can start the conversation there. Until then, this line of talk is grounded in nothing.

I gather your definition of activist is much more specific and narrow than LC's definition or how I was defining activist in my head.