Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
Individuals and groups are often conflated and it's hard sometimes to make that separation. "Not all men" etc. It's true that not all men are actively woman-hating. It's true that not all cis people are transphobic. It's true that not all cops are evil.
But institutions and group dynamics create places where this behavior is unquestioned and unchallenged.
Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
When the good ones do not question the bad ones, you create a situation where evil is allowed to thrive. When good does nothing, evil wins.
Good = Symbiotic, sympathetic, compassion, working together, cooperation
Evil = Parasitic, destructive, manipulative, taking for the few from the many
Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
Do you know why I hate most morality systems in video games?
Because good is often incentivized over evil in a way that doesn't reflect the nature of the world. Makes good seem like it's always obvious, even when it isn't.
Evil becomes a caricature. Do you eat kids for power? Then you're evil. Do you... not? Then you're good
And evil is given a tiny fraction of power, and good is given a LOT of power. Or they're kept starkly equal.
Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
Here's what good and evil look like in real life:
Good people work together, they create networks that foster teamwork and safety, allowing each specialist to go about what they're best at so that everybody prospers.
Evil people infiltrate this system and take, they destroy parts of it so that they and their in-groups can prosper.
Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
When good people do not oust evil people, because they find themselves on the in group, they enable the evil to strangle the spread of prosperity, until it becomes actively harmful. Evil people benefit much more than good people, here. But when we oust them, when we question their ethics and keep the systems working for everyone, we all gain more collectively, but not individually.
Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
Whenever saying "All" that's what it means. It means the systems of power and the lack of people questioning them, often benefiting from them. In institutions, it's closer to literal.... it's not that these people are without moral fiber, it's that they exist within a corrupt system and benefit from it while not rocking the boat.
Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
Bringing up exceptions isn't salient to the point. Because the "Not all" argument is most frequently used to derail. And it's a powerful derail, because it appeals to a good person's sense of not wanting to generalize, of wanting to understand and accommodate and help. Of course you don't want to generalize good people into a bad category!
Politics, morality, group v individuals, police, corruption
Manipulative people intentionally use this form of derailing to drill it into good people, make them feel bad for standing against a bad, corrupt system, as they use the "good examples" as shields. And get you to spread their thoughts for them. All because you WANT to be good. This is the nature of bad faith arguing. One side earnestly attempts betterment, the other abuses it to convert in part.