I mean, if you weren't smugly comfortable in your biases, you could always just do a search, say for "FBI crime rate by year", or "police clearance rates by year", or "police funding per year", but I guess not.

It is different on fed level, state level and City level.

Not really

that has nothing to do with the fact that using that word causes people to stop listening to you

weee wooo weee wooo here comes the tone police!

(if only real cops could get that kind of response time/clearance rate!)

like that’s just a shitty argument yourself, you lost the argument on the facts so you’re complaining about how the presentation. Lazy argumentation, it’s a way to attack the messenger(‘s presentation) instead of addressing the argument.

It’s the highbrow version of “minor spelling mistake!!!!”.

we are talking about someone getting mad because they didn't like the word "copaganda" getting used in a discussion lol, how is this anything other than a total distraction from the point?

sealioning is right, bringing it up in the first place was a distraction, by design. if you don't want to discuss copaganda, get mad about the fact someone used the word copaganda rather than contradicting its existence or usage.

that's why tone arguments are a logical fallacy - they're an ad-hominem, you're attacking the speaker rather than the argument. it's far too easy to let this all slide into "well I would have agreed with you but now you've gone and offended me with your tone!!!" as a way to slam the door on a discussion you're losing.

as difficult as it is, the mature thing is to simply accept that this is a way that people legitimately feel about cops and their marketing/relations with the public, and that they feel there's very good evidence and backing for it. It's unfortunate that you feel offended, but you can't derail the discussion because of that.

(moreover, the idea that we have to inherently respect the cops as social guardians and blah blah is very much a neoliberal perspective to begin with. minority communities tend not to have such rose-colored perspectives on the issue etc. People who have their property stolen at gunpoint at the roadside by cops tend to have a different perspective too. This is not some universal norm that is violated here.)

I didn’t say it to be distracting. Indeed, I said it because the use of the word is distracting.

I am ambivalent on the topics in question. I could be persuaded either way by facts. But once someone reveals strong emotion motivates their argument, I am distrustful of their “facts.”

Sure, that might be quintessentially ad hominem, but we aren’t talking about mathematical proofs here. There is no indisputable proof. It’s just hearts and minds.

I’m not offended nor immature. I’m not tone policing. Speak and believe whatever you want. I was just commenting that I find that tone unpersuasive.

Just like I find the hypocrisy of calling me immature in the same comment that you lambast me for an ad hominem attack unpersuasive.

Anyhow, good luck storming the castle.

Bro. Don't literally admit to engaging in ad hominem attacks, and then get all pissy and try to gaslight and then condemn calling out your behavior as an illegitimate ad hominem attack.

We can read the the entire thread.

Take your L and go home and cry.

Gaslighting. “You keep using that word. I’m not sure it means what you think it means.” - Enigo Montoya

I admit to an ad hominem argument. Then I point out that my critic is themselves using one. That’s not gaslighting. Gaslighting would be if I denied it.

And yes, I say that is hypocritical and unpersuasive. But it is unpersuasive because it is hypocritical not because it is ad hominem.

I doubt this is persuasive to you. It sounds like you are emotionally invested in this. But hopefully you can at least see my intention was not to deceive or manipulate.

Sea lion.

Are you saying that police should arrest people when it’s not necessary? How do you figure that?

It's the cops who said that. I assume that's why the phrase is in quotes. Apparently they themselves believed they performed some arrests that weren't "absolutely necessary". They said this as a threat to influence negotiations. You should take this question up with them.

NYPD is an MBA style police agency. The management wants to hit their KPIs.

If the bosses want jaywalking tickets, they swarm like bees. Arresting someone for robbery fucks up the metric for the local commander.

It’s like any big dumb company. The officers are like salesmen, and they are trained to do whatever bullshit the boss wants.

Why be combative? I was curious about a statement and wanted to learn.

But seriously, why he combative? People used to be able to ask questions without being told to take it up with the NYPD. The entire world wants to fight and frankly, it’s embarrassing.