> You probably don’t have much experience with the police, would be my guess

It's a bad guess.

EDIT: Police in America have a "thin blue line" problem of reflexively defending peers' mistakes. Their cultures look disturbingly similar to gangs, though I don't think that's intentional--they're better described as fraternities with guns. (Which also describes gangs. Convergence.)

That said, new recruits aren't corrupt. And most cops are trying to do the right thing. More fundamentally: most Americans want a police force, and when the police stop working, the most proximate token is torched.

So yes, I get the drive behind the slogan. But it's counterproductive to a ridiculous degree. And it's nowhere proximate to a solution. On HN, I figure we can do better.

I do think it conveys something important about policing in the USA as a vibe, though I agree it's polarizing. In a similar sort of way to "defund the police" -- very catchy slogan which contains a bunch of nuance that's mostly not addressed by opponents.

As you say, I think a lot of cops do get into it for basically-good reasons, but the (hopefully-small) number who're in it for the power trip or who become dirty over time are fundamentally corruptive to the organization when combined with the "thin blue line" sentiment. If you can't trust any cop to help when you're victimized by another cop, "a few bad apples" will have spoiled the bunch.

Of course, I'll admit that much like "defund the police", it's kind of an umbrella term that gathers a few different views together, and you can't tell whether the person saying it holds the view I expressed above (which I think is the most mainstream position), or whether they think that policing is inherently corruptive and should be removed from society somehow.

> And most cops are trying to do the right thing.

Citation needed.

The slogan may be counterproductive to achieving its stated aim, but it's also opening the ol' Overton window to a range of possibilities beyond the usual vague but well-funded "reform". If that's what it takes to get a marketplace of ideas, I'd say it's productive.

> it's also opening the ol' Overton window to a range of possibilities beyond the usual vague but well-funded "reform". If that's what it takes to get a marketplace of ideas, I'd say it's productive.

Slogans like #ACAB and "defund the police" shut down debate on reform. They're most successful at consolidating the pro-police position with moderates by presenting the entire police-reform spectrum as anti-cop radicals.

You've built up your very own strawman, and are arguing with it. ACAB is not "deeply connected" to defunding the police. And it's not also a solution to a problem: it's an opinion, a observation of facts. All cops are bastards, whether they're the young, new recruit that joins and inevitably ends up covering for the gang actions of others, the cops that have an itchy trigger finger the moment the person they're talking to is anywhere beyond #FFFFFF, or the captains that turn a blind eye to actions.

First off: this is not about America. Read the title, and stop being self centered for a moment. If you think France hasn't been saying ACAB for decades now, you're sorely mistaken. You know what my experiences are with the police, as a regular white dude ? Not what I see on TV, what I have lived. It's them not intervening when a neighbour in the middle of a psychotic episode stabs a passerby. It's them refusing to take in a deposition for sexual assault. It's them checking my arabic friends for drugs, but leaving me alone when I'm hanging out with them.

So, if you want more nuance: ACAB, and defund _this_ police. A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch, well the basket is rotting at this point.

The vast majority of interactions with police are peaceful and relatively mundane. Your view of police seems to be only informed by videos you see online.

The only interactions you see with police online are either extremely wholesome or extremely hostile. The mundane and boring interactions with police don't get seen, because they are boring and not at all noteworthy because it is standard.

If an interaction with the police revolves around something that is not criminal, such as speeding tickets, that involve a fine, you are effectively their customer so they are polite as long as you are, unless you make them feel in danger by reaching suddenly for things or being born into some stereotype or prejudice the officer has.

If the interaction involves criminal behavior, you are now "other" and you get to see the yucky side. My friends who were in law enforcement fell into people who got high on the control, people who got high on the adrenaline (worse), or people who came from legacy law enforcement family or just wanting to make a difference, trying to do the right things but knowing there were rules to follow and a line to maintain and thus got pulled down with the other two.

I have only had one interaction with police. It ended with them trying to pin the robbery of the store I was working at on me. They had footage of another person running, but couldn't see his face. They couldn't ID his car. The officer on the scene misquoted me and they used that against me. They took me for questioning without telling me I could have a lawyer, and without telling me that my parents should be present (I was under 18). They told me I had to take a polygraph test and tried to use that to bully me into confessing to something I didn't do. I was a child.

If I, a solidly middle-class white guy can have that experience, what is the experience like for marginalized kids?

Now, that is VERY anecdotal, I understand that. But why would I ever open myself up to that kind of liability again?

>But why would I ever open myself up to that kind of liability again?

Because the alternative of living in an anarchist society without law would be worse; where anyone can rob, meme, or rape you with impunity.