Politicians make the laws, if people are being oppressed, its more of the politicians being the root cause of evil.
So… ACAB + APAB?
EDIT:
I’m using these definitions for the word politician: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politician
noun. [UK] - a member of a government or law-making organization
noun. [US] - a person who is active in politics, esp. as a job
It isnt an acronym, but saying all politicians are bad is pretty common in Romania
I assume most people haven’t had physical contact with a politician. I’m probably one of the few in my area, let alone entire state who actively has met with local politicians.
But I’ve had encounters with cops, even without them being called. They’re always the make whiney pissy people.
But politicians shape the will of the state, and the cops enforce the will of the state. I think it’ll be decades before people honestly consider that the party that promises them the moon just to get richer in office doesn’t even know their name, let alone actually care about the people who got them into office.
At least here in the US, every election, 99% of voters choose Democrat or Republican and just ignore the last 40 years of these politicians chipping away at our economic and social liberty, and the people who do that have to convince themselves somehow that they made a good choice.
Most justify it by gaslighting themselves into believing their guy isn’t as bad as the other guy, but it just never crosses their minds that APAB because they don’t want to think they’re the bastards for empowering these people.
You see politicians disagreeing with each others, protesting, calling out bad politics etc. You almost never see policemen refusing their orders or stopping violent colleagues. If they do, they get fired, so saying ACAB doesn’t include them
There’s just enough disagreement and “infighting” to make people think their guy is the good guy and the other is the bad guy.
When you look at the overall picture, however, things start standing out.
There was much complaining and gnashing of teeth by most Democrats, and even a few Republicans, when the Bush era Patriot Act was pushed through. One particular Democratic politician even ran on the promise of eliminating it.
Guess what? It wasn’t eliminated.
Same thing with war and attacking other nations on their own sovereign soil.
It’s still happening, and it never stops, no matter which party is in control of the US government.
“But the other side does it more than we do!”
HOW ABOUT NEITHER SIDE DOES IT! HOW ABOUT WE MIND OUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!
Mayors could end that in a heartbeat by firing the police chief and other top brass in the department and setting new standards. If you are more rural a lot of times you have even more power and directly elect sheriffs.
No, for the simple reason that some (yes, definitely not enough) politicians are trying to actually do good things, and they can do good things, in theory. Cops are bad because they’re enforcers of any and all laws, and nobody has purely good laws, and they’re specifically in the business of protecting property over lives, restricting peoples’ freedoms/etc.
The only case where all politicians are bad is in pure, actual communism, which cannot exist at this point in history.
Because neither are, or can be true as long as there is a single person of these professions with the heart somewhat in the right place. That doesn’t mean there isn’t alot to criticize, but hyperboles are not the right, nor effective way to do so. You’ll never get a person to admit they were wrong by vastly over-exaggerating.
To be honest, as much as I hate that word, these acronyms are just cringe.
Most local politicians I know don’t get paid (school board, commissioners, etc) or they get paid very little for the time they put in.
If you count up all the elected folks in the USA, less than 1% are what you think of as “politicians.” They are mostly just people you see at the grocery store
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politician
noun. [UK] - a member of a government or law-making organization
noun. [US] - a person who is active in politics, esp. as a job
School board and HOAs doesn’t really count, otherwise a militia patrolling their neighborhood would also count as a “cop”.
School boards are an elected, political position.
Militias are an illegal organization.
There’s a gulf of difference between the two.
There are also plenty of elected politicians that aren’t awful people. Especially at the state legislative level.
School boards are not political in the Netherlands, Germany or the UK.
In the US, school boards and superintendents are a common source of political corruption. Many states allow for local control of districts, so these boards oversee the spending of tens or even hundreds of millions of local tax dollars and government grants.
Well today I learned, that school board members are elected. I assume you’re referring to the US?..
I’m 42 years old and just learned this today. I attempted to run a petition at age 15 for our school of ~1200 students to keep the pizza lunch line, and I got approximately 420 unique signatures.
I still actually have the signatures somewhere in a file drawer in storage. Back when I did this, I asked people where to turn in my petition. Everyone told me to go to the superintendent’s office.
But nobody would actually tell me where the fuck that was, nor would anyone take me there ☹️.
I got more than a third of the students to sign my petition, but nobody would tell me where to take it, like what the actual fuck?
It this a weird jole#
Jole?
#jole
#fatthumms
It is a sentiment that separates politics from the people.
I believe/hope it is not a popular term because enough people believe it’s bad for democracy.
Depoliticaztion of the populace is what allows governments like Russia’s to happen.
Name for this kind of slogan is a “Thought-terminating clishé”
A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language—often passing as folk wisdom—intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance with a cliché rather than a point.
They are elected. That means that the real B in there would be a majority or plurality of citizens in the riding/town.
Politicians choose the qualifications to be a cop (via passing laws). So if the cops are terrible, perhaps that’s the politician’s fault.
If cops followed the rules and laws to the letter, then you might have something here, but they aren’t “law enforcement” as much as they are “bad guy removal”.
They decide who’s a bad guy, and eliminate them. When little Johnny football star and his friends get caught smoking a little weed, they get a warning to straighten up and sent on their way because they aren’t bad guys. But a “gang” of poor kids toking up are on a dangerous path and need severe intervention to keep them from becoming bad guys.
They decide who needs to be executed without due process, or proof of guilt. They decide that the off duty officer who can’t form a coherent sentence should drive home. They decide which high profile members of the community get a “heads up call” before the search warrant arrives.
The people who make the laws can’t be blamed because all of the shittiest things that make cops bastards, aren’t part of the laws at all.
Fair observation. Police are enforcers of the state’s will; politicians/bureaucrats shape said will.
But also police enforce “policy”, not so much the law. Someone distills the laws and rules into policy to dumb it down for cops to understand., but they always end up misinterpreting it. They end up bastardizing the law.
APAP: All Politicians Are Pussies.
Maybe try again without the misogyny.
APAP: All Politicians Are Preposterous?
Politicians without cops become blowhards real quick.
Cops aren’t the root cause of evil, they’re just actively standing in the way of making progress (in theory).
The root cause of evil might actually be in most of us not cooperating when that’s needed.
I think about it quite similar to you. I’d even go a bit further: shortsighted and bad laws are the biggest source of problems.
Often the kind of law that a populist gains popularity/notoriety through.
The law is just an expression, more or less up-to-date, of the existing balance of power between those who have power and those who don’t
Plenty of examples where both public and executive and legislative would’ve deemed certain behaviour problematic, yet the perpetrator, of marginal power, walks free.
I’d say the law also gives power to the marginalized, when the judicial behaves independently, as they should.
I agree with you there are perversions to this ideal, such as elected judges, plea bargains.
Disagree in general that it can empower the marginalized – it is at most a reflection of the power that the marginalized can sometimes use, either because they did things like strike or organize in the past, or because they have access to powers won by less marginalized people.
Would you say we’d be better off by merging executive and judiciary, doing away with legislative?
I don’t exactly know what it’d mean to merge the judiciary and executive. If we’re just tinkering with the system, the most democratic parts of the system are the US House of Representatives, UK House of Commons, and similar population-based representation, so I’d want to expand them at the others’ expense.
I don’t believe that will solve much, though. In a hierarchical society, those on top will use any existing govt structures to their benefit, having more control when there is less democracy. In general, I believe in spreading power so thinly that it effectively disappears. Instead, people affected by a decision should be the ones to make it, not merely to vote for those who promise to do right by them.
In a hierarchical society, those on top will use any existing govt structures to their benefit
That’s exactly why there’s separation of power! The idea being that executive, legislative and judiciary are of equal power. One can block or strenghten the behaviour of the other on an independant, case-by-case basis. Those properties should, imo be strenghtened, not weakened.
people affected by a decision should be the ones to make it, not merely to vote for those who promise to do right by them.
Samesees. My utopia would be liquid democracy.
But even here, there would be law! It’s a necessary good, to combat arbitrary prosecution, imo.
Cool yeah I need to look into liquid democracy more.
I’m sorta ambiguous about the law – it is always a blunt tool in that it can’t possibly cover every situation (despite judicial contortions) and every person’s particular circumstances. It ages badly and can be hard to keep it up with changing times.
At this point, though, I’m willing to accept laws written and passed by community assemblies, covering their community. It’d be a huge step forward anyway.
