You're viewing a single thread.
Actually it was bootlegging.
The underlying point is the same. Bootleggers were providing what the people wanted and cops were in the way because ACAB. That's the core of it.
I'll remind you that prohibition required a Constitutional amendment, the idea was very popular.
Popular amongst Protestant busybodies with more zeal than sense and outsized influence on politicians, sure, but not necessarily the population in general.
I'll in turn remind you that it became so unpopular that they passed a new amendment to get rid of it, the only time that ever happened.
It was popular for a reason people don't understand now: women were getting the shit beaten out of them by their drunken husbands. So a huge number of people, especially women, thought prohibition would stop that. Unfortunately, it just created a whole new kind of violence without reducing the domestic violence.
But the cause was a lot more noble than people give it credit for.
A lot of people don't know that Abraham Lincoln was a big proponent of prohibition. It was seen by progressives as an important step to move society forward.
women were getting the shit beaten out of them by their drunken husbands. So a huge number of people, especially women, thought prohibition would stop that
They thought wrong. Typical of conservatives to blame something external and simple for a societal problem rooted in toxic gender roles and family structures.
the cause was a lot more noble than people give it credit for.
Except for the fact that there's nothing noble about jumping to conclusions and trying to solve the only tangentially related problems of some by depriving everyone else of something that most of them enjoyed more or less responsibly.
a reason people don't understand now
On the contrary: we still understand that domestic violence is awful and we now also understand that alcohol doesn't in itself cause it.
are you seriously blaming conservatives for something that the progressives of the time championed?
The "progressives" of the time were quite conservative, yes.
Scapegoating a chemical compound for problems caused by toxic gender roles and social ills wasn't progressive and legislating based on such a colossal misunderstanding of cause and effect rooted in religion, moral panic, and othering is textbook conservatism.
Dude, it was the 1920s. People did not understand that the problem was not alcohol-related. Also, many people, mostly men, did not think there was a domestic violence problem because they thought it was an okay thing to do. You are looking back on it with 2024 knowledge and values.
People did not understand
That's actually my point: they passed major legislation based on a guess not supported by knowledge. People knew THAT is a bad idea in the 1920s (and 1919 when the law was passed), though it seems to have been forgotten in the century since..
Also, many people, mostly men, did not think there was a domestic violence problem because they thought it was an okay thing to do
I'm fully aware of that. My point is that the people who didn't agree that it was ok was wrong to pass law based on an unproven assumption as to the underlying reasons.
You are looking back on it with 2024 knowledge and values.
More like 1990s values at the latest. Demagoguery and scapegoat politics haven't gotten the bad rap it deserves in the wider population for a LONG time..
Well some people want kiddie porn and cops are in the way of that too, so probably not the best line of reasoning there.
But trotting out a mountain sized false equivalence is? 🙄
It's not false equivalence, it's negation of your logic, but different.
I might have put down, some people want to get drunk and beat you up, and the police is in the way of that too, now unless you are into that you provably don't want to get beaten up by drunks.
The crime doesn't matter, I choose extreme example to get the point across that your reasoning as to why ACAB is flawed and meaningless point farming.
It's not false equivalence
It very much is. You're equivocating alcohol and child abuse.
it's negation of your logic
Nope. Just because cops arrest child abusers doesn't mean that they're the only answer. In fact, a well-funded social safety net is much better at discovering and stopping it and most if not all other societal, psychological and psychiatric problems than cops will ever be.
but different.
Well, at least you got that part right 🤷
I might have put down, some people want to get drunk and beat you up, and the police is in the way of that too, now unless you are into that you provably don't want to get beaten up by drunks
Another case of giving cops credit for something that they do by default even though their way of dealing with it is much WORSE than alternative ways less focused on use of force and punishment as a deterrent.
The crime doesn't matter
It very much does, as treating every societal problem with the same blunt tool is an awful idea
get the point across that your reasoning as to why ACAB is flawed
Overly simplified for the sake of brevity, maybe, but otherwise nope, wrong again.
meaningless point farming
This might be difficult to understand to someone whose opinions are unpopular because they're bad, but sometimes people express honest opinions that other people agree with, rather than playing pretend for points.
So you genuinely think that all cops are bastards? No nuance, no nothing?
The "good" cops stand up for the same system that shelters, protects, and encourages the bad cops. There's no nuance. It is what it is. Therefore ACAB.
Right, the nuance is that there are bad cops and worse cops. It's not a system that's capable of change from the inside, and will actively fight anyone who tries until they give up, get shuttled away to a place that doesn't matter with no hope of promotion, or even end up dead.
So in your opinion, the cops that bust kiddie porn makers are bad too?
So in your opinion, if a Nazi was to kill a pedophile, they're now a good Nazi?
If your society is regulated by Nazis, i blame the entire country and all its citizens.
the collective would have embraced facism and murderous eugenics as guiding principles.
So it is the fault of the citizens, because they created, nurtured, and tolerated an environment to sustain the Nazis.
So all citizens are bad.
A pig with lipstick is still a fuckin pig
Edit: and honestly, they get a metric fuckton of help from non-profits and the like. Stop romanticizing law enforcement
Do you genuinely think anyone is claiming bad entities never do good things?
So when I pull on a gun on you and take your money, your car, you will definitely not call those goddamn bastards, right? You swear?
Why would I call the cops? To report that I killed someone that tried to rob me? Naw man, I know plenty of places to dump a body where it's not gonna be found for years, if ever. Welcome to Appalachia.
Oh, you think that people that think ACAB aren't armed...?
Haha welcome to Lemmy m8. I've gotten into this exact argument before. I'm all for police reform and I was out there in the George Floyd protests but the hatred of police officers on this platform is absolutely rabid.
Imo, the argument that ACAB because the good ones don't stop the bad ones can be applied to virtually any group of people. So we're all bastards I guess.
No it can't be applied evenly. Cops have legal authority to use force, including lethal force. Name another group of people with that right.
Soldiers.
But anyways, i think it's just as reprehensible for, as an example, an engineer to not report his coworker cutting corners on an infrastructure project that could jeopardize an entire community (maybe he wanted to meet a deadline to make himself look good, maybe he took money under the table from an interested party) as for a cop to not report his coworker who took a bribe from a drug dealer. In both cases, the bystander has equal ability to intervene and potentially save lives. The fact that the police officer has the right to use force as part of their job description isn't really relevant.
What? No, according to international law and the Geneva Conventions, soldiers generally do not have the legal authority to kill a citizen unless that citizen is actively participating in hostilities during a declared war, meaning they are considered a combatant; killing a civilian who is not actively involved in combat would be considered a war crime
The crime doesn't matter
It sure does.
Well THOSE assholes are not welcome in the hot rod community, so there's that.
Except when it is the cops.
Same difference.
Yeah. And bootleggers run from the cops. Because fuck em
Also because they'd prefer to stay alive and free.
That's true haha
Actually, there was a big culture in rural areas to just fuck with cops for fun, and the best way to avoid being arrested is to be faster than the cops.