Or maybe people like you just hate authority and will always portray anyone in positions of authority as being corrupt?
Except if it was you in charge, of course?
Like I asked you in a different reply: what's the prevalence rate of these bad behaviors? "Full of people" seems to imply that you think it's a majority? I can confidently state that you cannot back this up with evidence, because it appears the only evidence you have is anecdotal, and likely anecdotes you actively select for in order to feed your confirmation bias.
I'll note that you didn't answer my question, either. Coordinated deflection like this is not a sign that you have a well-formed argument
define "anecdote" as it pertains to your argument - because i have literally hundreds of videos of police misconduct, from just 2020-2022. I stopped collecting them because i can't move the needle.
here's where people go "oh but there's 800,000+ uniformed law enforcement in the US, and you have 100 videos, big whoop". How many videos would it take? We've only been able to really easily record the police doing misconduct for 15-20 years, depending on how you parse "easily record." So how many videos would it take? And of those videos, how many would i have to listen to someone say "the victim of police misconduct should have just [...]"?
How many lawsuits against cities and departments would you need to read before it made a dent?
because using mean words to talk about the police isn't punching down. There's a difference between punching down on marginalized groups, compared to speaking against / badly about authority figures.
That doesn't really answer the question. Perhaps I should rephrase:
You were replying to someone who stated this, I believe:
> Maybe a bit better, but you're still overgeneralizing in order to demonize an entire group of people.
To which you responded:
> Cops aren't a marginalized group.
Why does being a marginalized group matter in this context? Why does not being a "marginalized group" mean it's okay to overgeneralize and/or demonize? What is a "marginalized group" in this context? Why is one not allowed to overgeneralize and demonize a marginal group, but one is allowed to for groups that do not hold this status?
The more meta question is: Why is overgeneralizing in order to demonize a group of people acceptable in any circumstance? I don't think it is, because once you start carving out exceptions, all you end up doing is just justifying and reinforcing your own biases.
Nope, doesn't clear anything up. Redeclaring your statement doesn't really answer any questions that arose from your original statement.
I still have these questions: What is a marginalized group, and why is that important? Why does being an "authority figure" mean it's okay to overgeneralize?
You're declaring these to be important factors in whether or not it's "okay" to overgeneralize specifically for the purposes of demonizing an entire population. I'm arguing that generalizing like this is never acceptable. In fact, I'm arguing that doing this is actively harmful to the goal you ostensibly are serving by demonizing this group in particular (unless you have ulterior motives, I suppose).
You have yet to explain why it's acceptable, and what makes it acceptable. Further, you should explain why overgeneralizing like this is useful, and how it actually furthers your goal.
Actually, I'm not sure what your goal is, other than to spread hate?
Except if it was you in charge, of course?
Like I asked you in a different reply: what's the prevalence rate of these bad behaviors? "Full of people" seems to imply that you think it's a majority? I can confidently state that you cannot back this up with evidence, because it appears the only evidence you have is anecdotal, and likely anecdotes you actively select for in order to feed your confirmation bias.
I'll note that you didn't answer my question, either. Coordinated deflection like this is not a sign that you have a well-formed argument