• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More shitty cops


'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.

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Lursa said:
You are stuck and cant refute what I wrote.
Click to expand...

Yes I was well aware you would choose to ignore the data and insist on gaslighting. No surprise.
 
Gozaburo said:
'In vogue' means something is popular, trending.
Click to expand...

No kidding?


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.



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

Gozaburo said:
Yes I was well aware you would choose to ignore the data and insist on gaslighting. No surprise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Lursa said:
No...an attitude is more prevalent because the evidence supporting that attitude is more prevalent.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Sure technology has had an effect. No one would dispute technology has radically altered society for better or worse.
 
Gozaburo said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

Gozaburo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Gozaburo said:
Sure technology has had an effect. No one would dispute technology has radically altered society for better or worse.
Click to expand...

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

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

Lursa said:
You are not disputing what I wrote directly, you are repeating something that failed already.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gozaburo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Right. That's what I said.



Which is all that I ever claimed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

Gozaburo said:
I'm not disputing the reasons it's more 'in vogue' now, so challenging me on that subject is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Then you dont seem to have a point at all.
 
Lursa said:
I wrote that it was and gave examples...remember? And it only started about '65. Go back and read it.
Click to expand...

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

Lursa said:
Then you dont seem to have a point at all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
Now you're changing your story. Hard to respond to an argument that's fluid.
Click to expand...

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...

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

Lursa said:
Tell me, what was your point? Just articulate it.
Click to expand...

I've told you what my point was like five times now.
 
Gozaburo said:
Okay, but you're objectively wrong according to the data.



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

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

Ok, what is it?
 
Gozaburo said:
Oh. I'm not really interested in talking about your feelings.
Click to expand...

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

Gozaburo said:
Skepticism of police has generally risen over time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…