this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
1226 points (100.0% liked)

196

16576 readers
1696 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 104 points 4 months ago (6 children)
[–] 018118055@sopuli.xyz 43 points 4 months ago (10 children)

Recently I've started to think that these and other similar battles are lost.

[–] nova@lemmy.world 66 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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).

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 38 points 4 months ago

Your write. Choose you're battle wisely

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 11 points 4 months ago

Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 months ago

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."

[–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They aren't "lost", because they were never yours to be "fighting" in the first place..

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] casmael@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ahh, I went on a rant about this, and someone already did it for me much more concisely.

[–] Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, they used less words

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

It took fewer time, too.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 102 points 4 months ago (15 children)

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.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 67 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Literal grammar police.

ACAB.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 41 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CandleTiger@programming.dev 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago

Haha! Fair enough.

[–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Less cops --> Fewer racism

[–] WanakaTree@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Less cops

Fewer racism

Very better society

Wow!

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 74 points 4 months ago (2 children)

100% funded by the fire department lmao

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 4 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Don't know if it was, but firemen tend to dislike police. I am also getting the idea EMT 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 have been getting less, and less, friendly with the police in the last decade.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Only in america, cops would not be regarded AS first responders lmaoo

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 57 points 4 months ago (10 children)

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.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 48 points 4 months ago

Good people who become cops get bullied into either becoming bad cops or leaving (or worse)

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

https://inthesetimes.com/article/police-and-poor-people

https://web.archive.org/web/20220128000248/https://www.enainstitute.org/en/publication/mark-neocleous-capitalism-was-created-by-the-police-power-interview-at-ena-institute/

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 13 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago

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!"

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] lessthanluigi@lemmy.world 46 points 4 months ago

Funny enough, a few months ago, I took a photo of the same poster.

[–] ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 4 months ago (10 children)

You generally need a Master's degree to become a librarian.

[–] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 75 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Less cops. More people with higher education.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

Yes. The poster is encouraging people to do better.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] obinice@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Fewer cops, not less cops.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 29 points 4 months ago

Less pedants
You can do better

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Yet you have no problem with "wanna?"

[–] norimee@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

More help and less authoritarian violence!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›