why is everyone continuing to use ACAB?
- it's reproducing discrimination
- it's based on a discriminative narrative
- it's not at all any critic of what the issue with all cops is
- it doesn't reach any other circle then our own for opening a discourse
- it is very invative for the #backfire effect, and can be through this just counter-effective
- it's simple to find a statement countering #ACAB
...
Why don't you add an RO making out of it #ACABRO?
ALL
COPS
ARE
BY
ROLE
OPRESSORS
@slightlyflightyone
that's a bit to simple to counter.
Someone reading the statement:
>I met a cop, and they where nice.
End of discourse.
It's also somehow brining a structural problem with it's reasoning onto individuals.
Being bad is also very unspecific.
@paulfree14 People can be nice to you and still dedicate their life to causing mass harm. That makes them still bad.
@slightlyflightyone
yes that's true. Even I'm anarchist I believe the statement ACAB is wrong.
I'm convinced that there are at least very few people that are convinced to change what the police is doing from within.
Also keep in mind that ppl like to spray ACAB. Means you won't be the one answering in the discourse, but maybe someone from their peer-group that has similar believes then them
@paulfree14 If they’re spraying, the people who disagree are probably going to be upset that it’s being sprayed regardless of what exact wording is used.
@slightlyflightyone
yes propably. but they still will read the message.
@paulfree14 I think I get the point about it reproducing discrimination, which is a fairly valid point, but what do you mean by it being "based on a discriminitive narrative?" Just trying to fully understand.
ACAB is meant to be confrontational, I think. It's meant to challenge the propaganda/narrative that cops are heroes by default, necessary in our society, and a force for good. Like the first time I heard it it pissed me off, but it kept nagging at me over time until I came to accept it
@emerican
yes it's confronational. but to simple to find a counter argument. through confirmation bias the counter argument can deepen.
You feel ACABRO is less confrontional?
@paulfree14 I do think it's less confrontational/less "provocative," but not necessarily in a bad way. I am in favor of diversity of tactics and language and tailoring messaging to suit the situation/audience, so I think it could have a lot of utility.
As an example, your ACABRO would probably be better in messaging that targets centrist liberal types while ACAB might be better for targeting liberals who are closer to being radicalized or rightwing libertarians, for instance?
@emerican
@emerican
about provocational this just came to my mind:
ACAB forms a front
ACABRO describes a front
@paulfree14 Another thought, since ACAB is so prolific, it might also be possible to try to change the B to "bad" or some other less problematic B-word. Buttheads? Bullies? I'm really bad at this, lol
@emerican
see here. just having a talk with someone else about b for bad.
https://todon.nl/@paulfree14/100257148081300620
rabble rousing appeals to rabble ultimately failing to rouse on a large enough scale producing instead widespread indifference
@D
Weather I miss understand the meaning of rabble rousing, or I disagree with you here.
What do you mean with rabble rousing? It seems to be very ambiguous.
Acht
Cola
Acht
Bier
Bitte
Without the additional B it sounds so brisk.
@paulfree14
For me ACAB is especially valid when the police protects the state and capital. And also in other circumstances when the police uses violence against non guilty civilians. The only positive side of the police is when they really protect civilians, but I call that the PR department of the police. So maybe we should separate this PR department from the police and rename it, so ACAB covers all of police.
Until then I say ACAB*
* except where noted
@paulfree14
no. acab is worldwide... every1 knows... 
@paulfree14
fuck every cop that ever did his job. there are no good cops, all cops are bad cops. 
@paulfree14 Because All Cops Are Bad.