- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
You must log in or register to comment.
So you be wanna be p? a cop?
100% funded by the fire department lmao
Nobody wrote a song called Fuck the Fire Department. Except this guy. And it’s amazing.
Actually? Because good! Cops try and act like they’re an emergency service, like they’re first responders, when they’re not. So it’s good to hear some firies and ambos pushing back against that, all too often cops buddy up to them.
Only in america, cops would not be regarded AS first responders lmaoo
I don’t know what part of the world you’re in, but where I am, cops absolutely are referred to as first responders.
One actually showed up at my friends place just a few weeks back, and the complete bloody chucklefuck did CPR on her even though she was breathing.
They also notoriously give narcan for literally anything lol
I don’t completely blame them, considering it’s one of the only anti drug drugs that they can administer, but like not everyone who’s unresponsive is confirmed opioid overdose.
Friend, I have done Advanced First Aid before where I live. I’ve refreshed the CPR component many times. Which is the best case for that officer in question’s qualifications. The thing with narcan is that, it’s not great if you don’t need it, but it won’t kill you. However, and you’re taught this in CPR training, if you perform it on someone who isn’t in cardiac arrest, you can cause them to go into cardiac arrest. He literally could have killed her.
is ambo actually a thing people say? that’s so funny
Yes, that is actually a thing people say here in Australia. We don’t have “EMTs” here, they’re called Ambulance Officers, and that sounds kinda wanky, so we just say Ambo. It’s as widely-used here as Cop is for Police Officer.
By and large, you probably think it sounds funny bc it does in ur accent and I’d be laughing my arse off at you ☺️
Don’t if it was, but firemen tend to dislike police. I am also getting the idea EMT are are getting to that point now. Close friends of the family have been in both of these fields for a long time. They, and all their friends, from their prospective work, feel derision for police. The firemen openly mocked them as long as I knew them, and the EMTs are have been getting less, and less, friendly with the police in the last decade.
I was at my first rodeo a few weeks back and there was a tug of war between the cops and firemen. The cops won but they had an extra guy and somehow their huge anchor person at the back was twice as fat as the biggest fire guy. I don’t know how a 450-500 pound guy is a cop.
I can tell you how that guy is a cop. He started off meeting physical requirement however, after he had been there for years, he either was injured, or something, that put him on permanent desk duty, and ballooned up, but it doesn’t matter now, he is on desk duty forever. That or he had been there for years, and became obese over that time, but had enough seniority they just stuck him with an admin/desk job until he retires.
Don’t worry about getting confused. It WAS your first rodeo, after all.
You generally need a Master’s degree to become a librarian.
Lmao, you need a fucking masters to catalogue and check out books to local schoolchildren but you don’t need it to be trusted with a badge and a gun.
We’re so fucked dude.
You are dramatically underestimating the responsibilities and skill set of a librarian.
I don’t doubt that. Handling large groups of kids, especially in the summer when they’ve got nowhere else to go, all while keeping a vital resource to the community alive.
Admittedly that was a shitty way to paint librarians, so sorry about that.
That being said, a bad cop can do a lot more damage to a community than a bad librarian.
Actually to be a school librarian you only need a bachelor’s of education focusing in something IT-related, plus whatever teaching cert your state requires. And in public libraries, you also only need a bachelor’s in information science to be a library tech, which is the one that stocks the shelves and checks out books to local schoolchildren. Only being a full librarian needs a Master’s. That said, academic libraries won’t even look at you if you have less than a Master’s.
focusing in something IT-related
Ok, how? IT-librarian? I can belive in IT-related assistant, but librarian? In school? Where I live they usually have degree in pedagogy.
a library tech,
Ah. Nvm. I thought you said about only librarians.
Yes. The poster is encouraging people to do better.
Why master’s? But you WILL need a degree. Bachelor in Library Science, alternatively Pedagogy or Philology.
It may seem odd, but librarians are pre-internet search engine. You tell them “I want I don’t know what, but something like that and that” and they point where to find such information.
Less cops. More people with higher education.
I need to go back to college, man
Wish it was free
bep?
Better. Eattle.
ool nurses.
rarians.
MTs.
Fewer.
Ahh, I went on a rant about this, and someone already did it for me much more concisely.
Yeah, they used less words
It took fewer time, too.
I actually kind of disagree in this context. Less is sharper and more readable while conveying the same meaning. The grammar books might say it’s technically incorrect, but I think it was the right word to use here.
Why?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less
Essentially, fewer is normally used for discrete numbers of things (e.g. “fewer apples”, “fewer boats”, or “fewer cops”) while less is used for amounts (e.g. “less water”, “less sand”, or “less money”).
As noted in the above link, there are exceptions. However, the exceptions listed are all with “than” or “or” added. Specifically, it’s pointing put that while “fewer items” is correct, “3 items or less” is also considered correct.
In the case of the sign, it is referring to the specific number of officers in the city, so it should use “fewer”. Does it matter? No, not really. Why did I bother saying anything? I got a chance to rep grammar and quote Stannis Baratheon at the same time.
Good to know. Thanks
Recently I’ve started to think that these and other similar battles are lost.
This one isn’t even real. “Fewer” can only refer to countable things, but “less” can refer to both countable and uncountable things, and has been used that way for hundreds of years. It has never been wrong to say “less.”
They aren’t “lost”, because they were never yours to be “fighting” in the first place…
I’m a grammar loving curmudgeon. Even I check myself more often than not after I realized the kind of classist tones that come through when arguing against lexicon.
Me trying to get people to say they “are doing well” not “doing good” when asked “how are you doing?”
“I’m doing goodly.”
Eh, I’ll take it
What if you caught me in the middle of doing good works?
Tracy Jordan says it best in 30 Rock -“No, Superman does good. You’re doing well.”
Language prescriptivism is a useless endeavour, let the language evolve as it wants, I personally don’t mind the use of less in this situation
It just feels so petty. Not a single person reading “less cops” was confused by its meaning. I get fighting against misuse of your/you’re, its/it’s, etc. because they can make things harder to read. Fewer and less, though, have the exact same underlying meaning (a reduction).
Your write. Choose you’re battle wisely
Can we at least stop allowing people to use ‘of’ instead of ‘have’?
It doesn’t make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they’re saying.
I’m something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting “whom” die, “less” and “fewer” might as well just be interchangeable. There’s no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike “literally”'s tragic demise.
Ah don’t let whom die. It’s a really good lesson in subject vs object.
Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century.
I’m aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays.
That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn’t get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast.
I thought it meant cops should lose weight so there’s less of them overall.
Fewer cops, not less cops.
Less pedants
You can do betterYet you have no problem with “wanna?”
Funny enough, a few months ago, I took a photo of the same poster.
So, you wanna be on the top Harassin’ and shootin’ all the kids on the block Incarcerate the youth of the next generation And you’ll get the high-fives at the police station
Thank you, I had to scroll way too far to find a Morning Glory reference.
I would say it’s “fewer” not “less”, but every time I do, I get a lecture and downvoted.
Even though this time it’s quite clearly a case where “fewer” is the proper choice as “cop” is most definitely a countable noun (yes, I know there are exceptions, this is generally not one.)
Bring on the downvotes.
I agree with the sentiment.
Well when you have 81,000 gallons of cops you need less cops for sure. I think the sign is right.
I can’t tell if you made this example randomly, or were actually present for the last discussion of this exact same thing. Either way, it’s pretty funny. How many gallons in your average cop? They look pretty voluminous in general.
Less cops --> Fewer racism
Less cops
Fewer racism
Very better society
Wow!
You wanted a lecture, here you go:
You can use less for countable nouns, any of them. We’ve been doing it for literally centuries. In fact, it has never been used only for uncountable nouns (unlike fewer, which has generally only been used for countable nouns). Correct language is determined by what native speakers use on purpose, not what a textbook or teacher says.
At least read the Wikipedia and the dictionary if you want to keep a strong opinion about this:
However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns so that the traditional rule for the use of the word fewer stands, but not the traditional rule for the use of the word less. As Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage explains, "Less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted.”
OK, so I’m a prescriptivist and don’t agree. As mentioned in the paragraph before the one you quoted. Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm? Why not spell it “definately”? It’s very common and everyone understands it.
I’m all for evolving language, but the fewer words we use, the less elegant it becomes. IMO of course.
Common usage the the norm are literally the same thing.
Prescriptivists act like ‘the norm’ is some ordained perfection and everything in their own lifetime is an aberration, but that’s just temporal exceptionalism. Do you really think you just happened to be born at a time when the people writing style guides pointed at the be all the all of the English language and all advances are just corruption?
Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm?
Yes.
Why not spell it “definately”? It’s very common and everyone understands it.
I don’t think that quite meets the threshold yet, since most people who do that would still agree that it’s not correct. However, it’s close, and I wouldn’t be against recording it as an alternative spelling.
It’s a bit tangential, but English spelling is awful anyway, it bears hardly any relationship to the pronunciation, and I think it’s great if it evolves to be a bit less unintuitive.
I suppose you probably do accept the existence of American spellings, even if you aren’t from there? So the only difference between us is time, and how many people use a variant. Everyone is a descriptivist, some people just also think they should force their opinions on others, which is wrong. ;)
Hey man, do you want to be grammatically correct, or do you want to speak clearly to people who want to be a cop? Sometimes you have to make a choice.
Haha! Fair enough.
You can’t be downvoted because this is on blåhaj.
Does lol have downvoting? Because, for some weird federation thing, I can definitely downvote and see others having been downvoted if their instance allows downvotes. Here, have a downvote. :D
You can only see downvotes from people on your instance. To get to other instances, they have to go through blahaj lemmy, and it just ignores them
Yes, lemy.lol has downvotes.
And no, I don’t see them here.
Literal grammar police.
ACAB.
The thin red line
? That’s usually a reference to British soldiers especially during the musket era. What’s it mean here?
it’s a joke that a lot of people copyedit or mark students’ work in red pen, a pun on the thin X line, a(n arguably risible) belief that those in a particular uniform are the only thing keeping society intact.
The squiggly line that spell check draws Uber misspelled words
It draws under words usually, not über them
You can count numbers but they use < in maths. QED.
Oh, you mean the “fewer than” symbol? (Some people do call it that.)
You can count numbers? How many are there?
At least 7
no downvotes on blahaj
More help and less authoritarian violence!
Fewer authoritarian violence.
Apparently an unpopular take, but wouldn’t the world (or at least, this country…) be a better place if the folks who became cops were the type of people who were also considering being a librarian?
Basically it seems like the ACAB mindset is in part self-fulfilling: “cops are bastards , I’m not a bastard, therefore I won’t be a cop.” Ok, so now some bastard who is less qualified than you becomes a cop, with no competition from you.
I get that the institution of policing in this country is deeply flawed; but is what we’re currently doing really working?
Maybe a progressive, grass roots “infiltration” of the police is doomed to fail, I dunno. But I’m not sure we’ll ever find out.
It’s because the institution itself is corrupt. The cops are best thought of as a state-sponsored gang. What you’re proposing is like saying “Maybe if enough progressives join street gangs, we can end gang violence!”
Good people who become cops get bullied into either becoming bad cops or leaving (or worse)
I think another big issue is that cops are paid like shit. This immediately removes a lot of qualified people because for that effort you could make a lot more money somewhere else.
The only candidates you are left with are those who truly care for the community, and those who get off controlling it.
Where did you get that info? Cops in LA NYC & Seattle (all places I’ve lived) have very high starting salaries, besides all the excellent benny’s like double pay for anything over 4hrs OT work per day, zero dollar PPO insurance, etc…
Entry level salary for cops in Seattle is over 100k
YouTube content creator and ex-police officer That Dang Dad notes that it’s not just the current killology-riddled precinct culture in which every civilian is a potential threat that drives pro-escalation attitudes in law enforcement, but also a degree of combat PTSD, as police are directedmto where social trouble spots occur, and have to deal with the potential of violence even when all the people in a situation are polite.
That Dang Dad quit law enforcement before coming to terms with how it affected his brain. He is a total police abolitionist now, saying not only that police officers are driven by the culture to be cold and cruel but also by the work to be afraid of everything, that danger might come from anywhere at any moment.
These days, we know the police are not here to protect the public, rather to serve as an occupying garrison for the ownership class, and while this was always the case, the DEA and war on drugs and the 1033 program have made this role even more clear. But it also means we’re not going to get a public serving response service until we are no longer occupied by the ownership class.
Funny you mention PTSD.
There’s practically a direct pipeline from military to police.
Really gotta wonder how much current police behavior is manifesting from combat related PTSD.
These days, we know the police are not here to protect the public, rather to serve as an occupying garrison for the ownership class, and while this was always the case, the DEA and war on drugs and the 1033 program have made this role even more clear.
American police. Police in different countries are structured in very different ways.
American police. I know that Scotland Yard is willing to bash journalist faces when the MPs are upset with the news. France has brutality problems similar the US if not so extremely common.
Maybe you’re speaking of nations other than those. I assume Liechtenstein law enforcement are polite and professional.
The story I’ve heard is “What does a ‘good cop’ get for sticking their neck out for what is right?” “Fired.”
I agree with your sentiment though. I don’t know how to fix it, but we need an overhaul of the system.
Maybe a progressive, grass roots “infiltration” of the police is doomed to fail, I dunno. But I’m not sure we’ll ever find out.
You not wanting to find out doesn’t mean it hasn’t been confirmed, over and over and over and over again.
but is what we’re currently doing really working?
No, that’s literally why people who say ACAB also want to abolish the police.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/officer-a-cab-confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-manifesto-for-the-abolition-of-the-police
want to abolish the police.
That’s stupid. Yeah, they’re bastards, but some sort of police is needed. We aren’t devolving into libertarianism where everyone hires private security.
We just need to cripple police unions, restrict qualified immunity, make body cams mandatory, have a separate oversight body, and make cops carry individual insurance (so no tax dollars pay out lawsuits, and bad cops become uninsurable). The problem will fix itself in months.
We aren’t devolving into libertarianism where everyone hires private security.
The fact that that’s the only option you can imagine (and that you’ve clearly refused to further educate yourself about other options that definitely do exist, by reading any of the links provided, some of which address your specific brand of bullshit, or any other relevant information that is freely available to you, because they challenge said bullshit) is down to you, not a reflection of reality.
The problem will fix itself in months.
Lmmfao, sorry, not that I was, but I doubly can’t take you seriously if you honestly believe this, since it removes any last shred of doubt about your wilful ignorance…
We do not need armed representatives of the state to have a peaceful country. Cop training is designed to create violence and escalate. Cops are tasked with jobs they are not qualified for, like interacting with disabled people. Cops are violent, cops are slave catchers, cops are used to stop social revolution and to jail/kill political dissidents. They murder, pillage, rape, and justify their violence as “needed” as if violence has ever solved the problem of “crime”. Crime is only a symptom of the system, and cops exist to mask those symptoms from the consciousness of the machine. Their “necessity” is far oversold. Any number of more specific and useful specialized jobs could be created to fill the role of cops. Fun fact: on average (between the states) cops only get 500 hrs of training (before they get to shoot civilians).
Still think the cops can be “fixed” by simple policy change (which requires ignoring the systematic issues with the police)? In 2005, the supreme court made a landmark ruling that boils down to “the police do not need to enforce the law, we leave it up to their own judgment” (read more: Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
The fact you can’t conceive of a world where police aren’t needed is genuinely sad. We did just fine without a militarized police force for hundreds of years. Do you think human nature has changed in the past 70 years? That we have suddenly gotten more inherently violent?
Personally, I think traffic cops are the only part of the police force I can’t justify getting rid of. Most other things seem like they should belong to the FBI, IRS, or the actual military. But traffic cops do actually important work.
