Ottawa Police Scandal: How Right-Wing Authoritarians Attempt to Argue

So, in response to the major public relations disaster of the Ottawa Police FORCE being investigated for numerous assaults on innocent people, some dim-bulb (no doubt a blubbering, self-pitying cop or one of their moronic relatives or friends) has put together one of those xtranormal instant animations as their contribution to the debate.

Besides one case involving a woman who says she was beaten and sexually assaulted that's already before the courts there are the Stacey Bonds and Terry Delay cases where the public has seen video evidence of both these non-threatening individuals being needlessly abused by police who later blatantly lied about both incidents. (As well, I've heard there are other complaints and planned lawsuits.)

The shit-head behind the animation responds to this by showing two cops arguing. One of them wants to put a violent, drunken, publicly masturbating lunatic into the lock-up while the other one behind the desk says that their new, pro-Charter rights policy is to not lock anybody up. Instead, the arresting officer is told maybe he should take the hepatitis-B positive drunken lunatic over to his (the arresting officer's house) and that's when I really stopped paying attention, but the gist was that the arresting officer should take the drunken, masturbating lunatic to his house and treat him as an honoured guest.

One commentator at the link wisely trashed the cartoon:

For those of you who do not understand the purpose of this video. The intent is to suggest that it is acceptable for police officers to beat up prisoners and insinuate that police officers are victims.

Interesting fact: Ottawa has the lowest rate of conviction rate for violent crimes (14%). Maybe our cops could spend less time beating innocent people up and more time resolving crimes?

Yes. And this video is typical of what I've seen of right-wingers' arguments. When they're defeated about something their response is to argue about something else, win that, and imagine that the straw-man they've defeated is the actual subject at hand. And that is the more charitable interpretation. The other option is to imagine (say) that the idiot who made that cartoon actually believes that the outcry against four male officers and one female "special" constable kicking and beating and molesting an unarmed, non-threatening, diminutive woman is the exact same thing as demanding that the police take violent lunatics into their homes. Which is completely insane.

It's not that I feel obliged to be charitable. I honestly believe that there are a lot of people who are so stupid that the things they believe and the things that they do based on these beliefs appear to be insane. Insane people generally are unable to control the associations they make. Oftentimes conclusions are based on non-existent, imagined "evidence." (These imaginary inputs are what constitute genuine insanity.) Really stupid people aren't insane, but they cobble together beliefs based on false, incoherent beliefs, strengthened by ignorance. For example:

• "Liberals" care more about criminals' rights than anyone else's.
• The police are all heroic defenders of public order.
• "Liberals" are complaining about police brutality.
• Therefore, "liberals" want the police to adopt violent criminals into their families and sing "Kumbaya" at the Unitarian Church.

This is why it is a waste of time to argue with most of these people. They're incapable of grasping simple truths. By the time you've managed to get them to understand even a few of the fundamentals they've already gone on and committed some new atrocity elsewhere which they will likewise defend with the same mulish obstinacy.