alt Hacker News> you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system.
???
No, that is not a logical at all. Nor did I admit that. Please stop. You keep assuming things that are not true about what I've clearly written.
Yes, you did admit that, by implication. To replay what exactly happened in this conversation.
Person A: It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime".
Reduced: "you do not understand that covering up a crime is also a crime".
You: I did not say or imply that.
Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. So, if what I'm saying sounds stupid or obvious... uh, okay, reflect on that.
Regardless, you're missing the forest for the trees here. You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
The ACAB viewpoint comes from the preposition that policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice. Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
It's sort of how all jesters are silly. To be a jester, you must be silly, so by definition of a jester all jesters are silly.