just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property
There are plenty of instances where you would be correct, such as the origin of police forces in the American South (which were initially slave patrols), but that doesn't mean you are correct in all instances.
I'm not sure what joy you derive from spreading misinformation, but you should probably reconsider it.
And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.
This is your statement: "just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property"
That statement is incorrect, no matter what your definition of "modern police force" is. That's it. It's not complicated, despite your attempts to deflect from the invalidity of that statement.
Thanks for confirming you knew exactly what you were doing as well. As I said at the start of this, I don't understand what you get out of intentionally making inaccurate statements, but I don't expect you to explain that.
You just made an inaccurate statement that supports your implied argument, because reality does not.
So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"?
I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.
It's not funny, it's accurate.
Spending seconds looking into the history of policing worldwide, or in the US, would back up my claim.
Had the parent poster bothered to post evidence backing up their comment, I probably would have made the effort to post citations refuting it.
> So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"?
When you say that something is correct in all cases, yes.
> I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.
Nice try, but there is no "element of veracity" to an absolute statement that is objectively false.