In what way is equating the actions of some police officers with all police officers different than equating the actions of some specific ethnic or religious group with all the people of that group?
If it isn't okay to stereotype based on race or religious affiliation maybe we shouldn't stereotype based on profession either. Just because some group has become the whipping boy of the moment (for good reason), doesn't mean we should assume the worst of everyone in it.
I'll explain how, even though I suspect you didn't take the time to think about it. It's because police groups are a command and control hierarchical organization. They aren't some loose group of people that share an attribute. When police officers commit crimes, their commanding officers share the responsibility.
The implication of the original comment is that the negative influence of this small group of police officers really doesn't matter to the reputation of the police because they are "the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months", which is also applying the actions of some of that group to the group as a whole.
I understand it's cathartic to have an "other" that you can focus anger on, and it's extremely beneficial for those trying to push an agenda, and the police have largely brought this upon themselves by being so insular, dysfunctional and resistant to any change, but it is an organization full of people, and I'm hesitant to apply a group stereotype to all individuals in a group, for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
Being a cop is a choice. You can stop whenever you want. Race and to a large extent religion(lots of religions implore the congregation to shun those who leave) are not a choice.
Yes, being a cop is a choice. But not everyone becomes one for the same reason. Assuming negatives about everyone in that group is unfair and unhelpful to the people that are within it trying to actually enact change.
In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers? There's plenty of jokes about lawyers, but I assume most people take those for what they are, jokes playing on stereotypes that shouldn't be applied to an individual or inform your opinion of an individual prior to evidence about them.
Are you saying it's okay to immediately have an opinion about the trustworthiness or likelihood of an individual police officer just because they are a police officer? That seems to be what your comment is defending.
>In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers?
Yes, because lawyers aren't in charge of enforcing the law, and even if they weren't, there isn't some sort of "thin blue line" where they're covering for each other.
Again, this is taking actions of a group, and some within it, and applying it to all the individuals. That your excuse for doing so is that "they are police" or "they are in charge" isn't all that convincing. Last time I checked, bigotry was bad in general, not just when applied to those without power.
> Last time I checked, bigotry was bad in general, not just when applied to those without power.
You're invoking "it's bigotry!" as a reason why we shouldn't do this. Why do you think bigotry is bad? Is it bad intrinsically (aka "bigotry is bad" is an axiom), or is it bad because of its effects? If it's the latter, does the reasoning apply when applied to organizations with voluntary membership?
Furthermore, I don't see why it's bad to hate on an organization and/or its members based on the conduct of its other members. Let's say Acme, Inc is known for sales reps with high pressure sales tactics. Is it bad then, if I ignore a cold call from an Acme sales rep on that basis?
Depending no the definition you use, either because it's part of the definition in that it's talking about negative effects, or because it's based on intolerance and unwillingness to consider other people's beliefs at all. Are you actually asking why intolerance of all other points of view is bad? Or are you asking why something defined as bad is bad, which is an odd semantic discussion to have? If this is trolling to get me to define a basic portion of my argument, it's a particularly absurd attempt, since it's literally covered by the dictionary.
> If it's the latter, does the reasoning apply when applied to organizations with voluntary membership?
> Furthermore, I don't see why it's bad to hate on an organization and/or its members based on the conduct of its other members. Let's say Acme, Inc is known for sales reps with high pressure sales tactics. Is it bad then, if I ignore a cold call from an Acme sales rep on that basis?
Because you are taking the actions of some members and applying it to the whole. Should we hate all Democrats and/or all Republicans because some of them act in horrible ways that undermine our government? There are definitely people on each side that would like it if you did.
Basically, I see this as coming down to the purpose of the organization, why people are members of the organization, and how many of them exhibit the behavior in question. If we're talking about white supremacists, people join because of that belief, that belief itself is problematic, and we can safely assume all members (except for special circumstances or those there because they have little choice) have those beliefs and exhibit and support that behavior.
Contrast that with police agencies. Whatever the behavior of the portion of officers that behave in a way you we all find abhorrent, the purpose of the organization is not to suppress or kill minorities, it's to keep public order, enforce the law, and keep people safe. I think most people join because they think it's a noble profession and want to serve their community (whether or not that goes to their head later). I don't think you can make an assumption about any specific police officer's behavior with regard to the negative behavior we've seen, because many police officers do not agree with it either.
That is a clear difference in many attributes that defines why I would be willing to make assumptions about an avowed member of a white supremacist group with regard to behavior about race, but I would not be willing to make assumptions about any single police officer with regard to behavior regarding treatment of minorities.
