More shitty cops

[Gozaburo]

I addressed that directly. So please do the same to mine. And then consider "who" and why I also discussed.

I'm not looking at you data because it doenst dispute what I wrote. Social conditions, the age of the persons polled, and social meda/video have exposed much more. The conditions arent parallel enough to make that difference valid. So again...address what I wrote directly...articulate your argument.

'In vogue' means something is popular, trending. If I can demonstrate with data that skepticism of policing has not always been the case and has become more prevalent in the last 10 years (my data proves both points) then I am correct and you are refuted. The social atmosphere was never a condition in my conditional, you raised that and it's a largely irrelevant point. We're not talking about niche social movements, we're talking about broader society.

That makes no sense, as seems to be something you want to pretend...but is inaccurate.

So directly refute what I wrote or admit you cant.

What doesn't make sense? It seems an attitude is more prevalent because (according to the polling data) it is more prevalent. So it would seem that my interpretation of the consensus is in-line with where the consensus is at, which is greater skepticism of policing than the past.

You are stuck and cant refute what I wrote.

Yes I was well aware you would choose to ignore the data and insist on gaslighting. No surprise.

 

[Lursa]

'In vogue' means something is popular, trending.

No kidding?

If I can demonstrate with data that skepticism of policing has not always been the case and has become more prevalent in the last 10 years (my data proves both points) then I am correct and you are refuted. The social atmosphere was never a condition in my conditional, you raised that and it's a largely irrelevant point. We're not talking about niche social movements, we're talking about broader society.

You didnt, as I wrote, there are too many variables to accept just one simple poll from a year then and now.

And were not discussing a niche social movement, we are discussing US society.

What doesn't make sense? It seems an attitude is more prevalent because (according to the polling data) it is more prevalent. So it would seem that my interpretation of the consensus is in-line with where the consensus is at, which is greater skepticism of policing than the past.

No...an attitude is more prevalent because the evidence supporting that attitude is more prevalent.

Yes I was well aware you would choose to ignore the data and insist on gaslighting. No surprise.

I'm not ignoring the data...it's just not an acceptable parallel...there are too many variables. The age of the people, adults, being polled in 1965 would have had drastically different views of the police, black Americans, and the Vietnam War, for instance, than the teens in 1965 that wouldnt even have been polled. The teens then then into the 70s 20 yr olds that were the ones that were the ones interacting with the cops as things changed socially, drastically, in the late 60s. Those 20 yr olds of the 70s are the seniors of today...where is your data showing if their opinions have changed?

So show me the data where those polled in '65 and now have changed? "We've" been here, since the late 60s, observing, even taking the abuse...and now the real change is that the abuses are recorded and shared more.

 

[Gozaburo]

You didnt, as I wrote, there are too many variables to accept just one simple poll from a year then and now.

And were not discussing a niche social movement, we are discussing US society.

Where did I deny that more variables/visibility means higher skepticism of police? I'm sure that functions much in the same way as if more people saw how their Big Mac was created from cow farm to grill.

No...an attitude is more prevalent because the evidence supporting that attitude is more prevalent.

Sure. Never disputed this. What are you trying to argue exactly?

The age of the people, adults, being polled in 1965 would have had drastically different views of the police, black Americans, and the Vietnam War, for instance, than the teens in 1965 that wouldnt even have been polled. The teens then then into the 70s 20 yr olds that were the ones that were the ones interacting with the cops as things changed socially, drastically, in the late 60s. Those 20 yr olds of the 70s are the seniors of today...where is your data showing if their opinions have changed?

So show me the data where those polled in '65 and now have changed? "We've" been here, since the late 60s, observing, even taking the abuse...and now the real change is that the abuses are recorded and shared more.

So are we discussing US society (as bolded above) or a particular demographic? The studies I linked both analyze the broader social consensus, not a particular demographic consensus.

 

[Lursa]

Where did I deny that more variables/visibility means higher skepticism of police? I'm sure that functions much in the same way as if more people saw how their Big Mac was created from cow farm to grill.



Sure. Never disputed this. What are you trying to argue exactly?



So are we discussing US society (as bolded above) or a particular demographic? The studies I linked both analyze the broader social consensus, not a particular demographic consensus.

What is your point, what are you trying to argue? You wrote that it's more "in vogue", trending now. That it's a recent trend. I posted that it is not. It started in the 60s/70s and has been with us all that time. And if it's more 'obvious' now it's because now it's recorded more and shared more easily by social media. Of course overall numbers are higher because "reach" is greater but the concern and attempts to expose it have been here at least since the mid-60s.

 

[Gozaburo]

What is your point, what are you trying to argue? You wrote that it's more "in vogue", trending now. That it's a recent trend. I posted that it is not. It started in the 60s/70s and has been with us all that time.

Right and I demonstrated with data that a plurality of people weren't skeptical of the police in the 60's, let alone a majority. It wasn't a popular consensus, more a conclusion of a few social niches (like the hippies).

It's "in vogue" now because the data demonstrates that a plurality (and nearly a majority) of people are skeptical of policing. That is a substantial shift.

And if it's more 'obvious' now it's because now it's recorded more and shared more easily by social media. Of course overall numbers are higher because "reach" is greater but the concern and attempts to expose it have been here at least since the mid-60s.

Sure technology has had an effect. No one would dispute technology has radically altered society for better or worse.

 

[Lursa]

Right and I demonstrated with data that a plurality of people weren't skeptical of the police in the 60's, let alone a majority. It wasn't a popular consensus, more a conclusion of a few social niches (like the hippies).

And your poll took place right as it was starting to change. Which is exactly what I started with. THe mid 60s.

It's "in vogue" now because the data demonstrates that a plurality (and nearly a majority) of people are skeptical of policing. That is a substantial shift.

You are not disputing what I wrote directly, you are repeating something that failed already.

Sure technology has had an effect. No one would dispute technology has radically altered society for better or worse.

Not just technology...and not that it's altered society. Why do you continue to try and bring in "society in general?" In this conversation it substantially made this abuse more recorded and public in order for the greater "action"...protests and demonstrations. "Technology" facilitated more public reaction...the accusations of police abuse became very public in the 60s...the ability to record and publicize them are available now.

 

[Gozaburo]

And your poll took place right as it was starting to change. Which is exactly what I started with. THe mid 60s.

Right, which is why I was pretty intentional when I referred to the 60's. As a refresher, you replied to me first.

You are not disputing what I wrote directly, you are repeating something that failed already.

You arrived in the thread and challenged me on an argument I wasn't making. You've brilliantly burned your strawman though. Good job!

Not just technology...and not that it's altered society. In this conversation is substantially made this abuse more recorded and public in order for the greater "action"...protests and demonstrations. "Technology" facilitated more public reaction...the accusations of police abuse became very public in the 60s...the ability to record and publicize them are available now.

Okay.

 

[Lursa]

Right, which is why I was pretty intentional when I referred to the 60's. As a refresher, you replied to me first.



You arrived in the thread and challenged me on an argument I wasn't making. You've brilliantly burned your strawman though. Good job!



Okay.

Do you have a point here? There's no strawman. People have distrusted and been calling out the cops since the 60s. There was outrage in 1992 when we had helicopters recording actual confrontations and abuse. Today with even more technology, the confirmation of such abuses reinforce that distrust and give us the opportunity to actually protest and act on those abuses. The "in-vogueness" of police distrust has been here since the 60s. Now it's supported by evidence and more people are reacting to that.

 

[Gozaburo]

The "in-vogueness" of police distrust has been here since the 60s. Now it's supported by evidence and more people are reacting to that.

It hasn't and attitudes have shifted substantially over time and the data demonstrates as much, but you can continue with your story telling if you'd like.

 

[Lursa]

It hasn't and attitudes have shifted substantially over time and the data demonstrates as much, but you can continue with your story telling if you'd like.

Attitudes havent shifted...your data is from the period before I discussed. It's from right when the change started. And that's all you have.

 

[Gozaburo]

Attitudes havent shifted...your data is from the period before I discussed.

Right. That's what I said.

It's from right when the change started. And that's all you have.

Which is all that I ever claimed.

 

[Lursa]

Right. That's what I said.



Which is all that I ever claimed.

You claimed it's 'in vogue' now...I pointed out that that attitude occurred in the 60s and seems more 'in vogue' now because of recorded and more public evidence.

 

[Gozaburo]

You claimed it's 'in vogue' now...I pointed out that that attitude occurred in the 60s and seems more 'in vogue' now because of recorded and more public evidence.

In the mid 60's it wasn't in vogue. My data was 1965, but you can use the same website to find a 'Louis Harris & Associates Poll' asking the same question in 1969 and it found ~70% of people still viewed the police favorably. So the consensus didn't shift radically in the 60's.

I'm not disputing the reasons it's more 'in vogue' now, so challenging me on that subject is irrelevant.

 

[Lursa]

In the mid 60's it wasn't in vogue. My data was 1965, but you can use the same website to find a 'Louis Harris & Associates Poll' asking the same question in 1969 and it found ~70% of people still viewed the police favorably. So the consensus didn't shift radically in the 60's.

I wrote that it was and gave examples...remember? And it only started about '65. Go back and read it.

I'm not disputing the reasons it's more 'in vogue' now, so challenging me on that subject is irrelevant.

Then you dont seem to have a point at all.

 

[Gozaburo]

I wrote that it was and gave examples...remember? And it only started about '65. Go back and read it.

Right. You responded to an argument I wasn't making. We've established as much.

Then you dont seem to have a point at all.

Of course I do. My point was that skepticism of policing was not the consensus in the 60's, but it is the plurality (and near majority) consensus in 2025. The data demonstrates this.

Then you came into the thread and started challenging me on the reasons why it's a consensus today, which was an argument I didn't present. This entire interaction has been you talking past me, attempting to form an argument against a point I never made lol.

 

[Lursa]

Right. You responded to an argument I wasn't making. We've established as much.



Of course I do. My point was that skepticism of policing was not the consensus in the 60's, but it is the plurality (and near majority) consensus in 2025. The data demonstrates this.

Then you came into the thread and started challenging me on the reasons why it's a consensus today, which was an argument I didn't present. This entire interaction has been you talking past me, attempting to form an argument against a point I never made lol.

Now you're changing your story. Hard to respond to an argument that's fluid.

 

[Gozaburo]

Now you're changing your story. Hard to respond to an argument that's fluid.

Nope. At no point did I pontificate over the reasons why skepticism of police has become more prevalent. I've only said that over time skepticism has increased, which is true. I supported this claim with data when you challenged me with your original comment...

It's been pretty common since the 60's and now with camera phones and body cams, that belief is only being supported, proven, more and more.

And we've now demonstrated 'pretty common since the 60's' was nowhere near the case. Not even a plurality of people were skeptical of police.

 

[Lursa]

Nope. At no point did I pontificate over the reasons why skepticism of police has become more prevalent. I've only said that over time skepticism has increased, which is true. I supported this claim with data when you challenged me with your original comment...



And we've now demonstrated 'pretty common since the 60's' was nowhere near the case. Not even a plurality of people were skeptical of police.

And per overall population...I still disagree and provided the reasons. Your 'numbers alone' dont work because the knowledge of those abuses wouldnt have been as public. "Awareness" is relevant to the issue. If you want to reduce it to numbers only, that's just hiding from the actual issue. It doesnt even support 'trends' since trends are defined by more than numbers.

Tell me, what was your point? Just articulate it.

 

[Gozaburo]

And per overall population...I still disagree and provided the reasons. Your 'numbers alone' dont work because the knowledge of those abuses wouldnt have been as public. "Awareness" is relevant to the issue. If you want to reduce it to numbers only, that's just hiding from the actual issue. It doesnt even support 'trends' since trends are defined by more than numbers.

Okay, but you're objectively wrong according to the data.

Tell me, what was your point? Just articulate it.

I've told you what my point was like five times now.

 

[Lursa]

Okay, but you're objectively wrong according to the data.



I've told you what my point was like five times now.

I never made a claim that was based solely on data.

Ok, what is it?

 

[Gozaburo]

I never made a claim that was based solely on data.

Oh. I'm not really interested in talking about your feelings.

Ok, what is it?

Skepticism of police has generally risen over time.

 

[Lursa]

Oh. I'm not really interested in talking about your feelings.

There was nothing in my response related to my feelings. As to yours, your 'feelings of interest' arent important to me, lol.

Skepticism of police has generally risen over time.

And that is based on the greater, more prevalent access to the evidence that's also become available.

The skepticism began in the 60s. Technology drove it since then..if it's more 'in vogue' now that is because of that greater abuse revealed.

The skepticism begun in the 60s was documented & shared the best way it could be...and that generation made sure we knew about it. The more "documentation" (evidence) we've had...the greater the base of skeptics.

Perhaps my point can be phrased as...the skepticism has been there for 60 yrs, but it's been more and more supported by actual evidence of the abuse...not that the levels of abuse causing the skepticism have changed.