Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Amazingawesomator t1_je2dpkr wrote

Why are the police protecting the person that just stole two years of their life away? That doesnt make sense to me....


Gethisa t1_je2x09w wrote

Because they don’t rely on the same retirement plan as the ones Macron is modifying


Grosse-pattate t1_je3ve52 wrote

Because the French government is smart.

There are two large groups spared by the pension reform, the police and truck drivers.

One of these groups protects the government's power, while the other can paralyze the country in just a few days.


ImrooVRdev t1_je4cww5 wrote

And this is why sympathy strikes and general strikes should not only be a right but a base requirement for a free and moral society.

If you can not enact sympathy strike if you see your fellows suffer, you are no better than a serf.


MayaMiaMe t1_je3ipzx wrote

The police PROTECT rich communities (people) while POLICING poor communities. It is sad but true


Khalme t1_je42hx5 wrote

The police won't be affected by the changes, they can retire as soon as 52 y.o.
In the past few years they lowered the standards of the academy. If a police trainee has a history of domestic violence, anger issues, DUI, they can still become full fledged members of the police. At worst they might have to repeat a year, very few of them are actually fired from the academy.
So, you have a rising amount of unstable individuals with authority and weapons, who are not affected by the new law, and they know they won't get punished for beating up citizens.


ImrooVRdev t1_je4cy9v wrote

I see french are copying american notes on the topic


acebush1 t1_je3nwlo wrote

Police are professional class traitors.


UnrequitedRespect t1_je5bofi wrote

The idea of police has been softened by television, movies and stories but they have always been the Nottingham guards from Robinhood.


PaxNova t1_je389f4 wrote

Believe it or not, police are supposed to protect everyone, not just those that benefit them personally. That's what is supposed to separate them from any other gang of people.


PigeonMelk t1_je3cn7m wrote

The police are the armed paramilitary for capital owners. They are literally only protecting those who benefit them in this situation and most situations.


GreenCoatBlackShoes t1_je3lv9x wrote

Because the function of the policy is social control and protection of property. They do the bidding of the law makers, paid for by the rich. It’s systemic violence from the top and aimed at the bottom.


Prestigious-Letter14 t1_je452ox wrote

The police, as seen by them being excluded from this pension reform, are a force of oppression against these demonstrators.

Police in Europe has been started as professional paid wage slaves and they stayed the same till now. Somewhere along the way like-minded people like the privileges they got with becoming riot police (aka beating up leftists) and increasingly flocked into these positions.

The argument of „protect and serve“ can be at most be done for the classic patrol cop who is a first responder. Riot police is nothing else than a paid private army to protect the state from its citizens.


dclxvi616 t1_je4ivfk wrote

That’s what they want you to think. Seriously. They’re supposed to find any excuse they can to charge you with a crime. Misleading you into believing they are supposed to protect you only makes that easier. If you want protection, you get a lawyer, a bodyguard, or a condom, depending on what kind of protection you need.


meatismoydelicious t1_je8dhuv wrote

Failing that, firearms. Why do you think the US won't even consider giving up theirs?


dclxvi616 t1_je8enqg wrote

Sure I just try not to convince myself my pistol is "protection." It does not make me safe. It is a hail mary last resort act of desperation that might give me a small chance to survive a situation that might never occur in my life where I would otherwise certainly die. It's better to have and not need than need and not have. Nothing more.

There may be some people trained and skilled enough to consider their firearm protection, but I don't think that counts for most of us.


meatismoydelicious t1_je8g0yc wrote

Nah, just a means of leveling the playing field as well as technology can. I hope it was clear that "you" was used in the royal sense. Just making that clear for other readers.


dclxvi616 t1_je8g877 wrote

Oh it was clear to me, just figured I’d throw in my two cents since I met the demographic.


SGTwhocares t1_je4evc7 wrote

Because police are the first line of defense for capitalists and serve their interest only even if they are working class as well.


LordBoobington t1_je5sizy wrote

I don’t get this protest, the retirement age is moving from 62 to 64. Most of the world is 65-68.

Average lifespan is increasing. You either have to increase retirement age or increase how much you pay into retirement.


Drostan_S t1_je6yeki wrote

What the fuck is the point of working for your whole life to improve your lot, if you're gonna get punished by being forced to working the few extra good years you've earned?


LordBoobington t1_je7fzsy wrote

You either have to pay more in retirement pension or work longer if your average lifespan keeps getting longer.

Because if you don’t you won’t be able to live on your pension when you are in retirement.

I get your reasoning but 62 is low for retirement age.


Throwaway08080909070 t1_je2nr9w wrote

Maybe the police are just fans of not burning the place down, plus once one of your "brothers" tosses a bomb at you, I'm guessing you stop caring about their cause in a hurry.


Romecam t1_je2zbf7 wrote

Couldn't see them as "brothers" if they were ready and willing to stand on the other side. Their retirement plans haven't been effected by this


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_je3hqv4 wrote

But the police and you are fans of burning away two years of people’s lives?


Ok_Video6434 t1_je37pha wrote

Come back and say this on your main coward


Throwaway08080909070 t1_je39mev wrote

Why must you people always make things personal? I think it's because on some level you know that angry confrontation is all you have, or maybe it's just that people drawn to violence tend to lack in... other areas.

What do you think?


tky_phoenix t1_je3fzkw wrote

Protesting is one thing but burning things down and looting shops definitely goes too far.


Kypsys t1_je57lcl wrote

Main issue here is that our government doesn't give a flying fuck about peaceful protests. The country must be in absolute chaos to make them reconsider, and even then it's not won. Concrete example : 1968 protests, or right now, the gigantic water basin project, there has been peaceful protests for weeks, no one even talked about it, but now that there's rioting and combat at least we're hearing about it in mainstream medias


tky_phoenix t1_je73ip5 wrote

Would it be possible to at least limit the damage to public facilities and not private businesses? They have absolutely nothing to do with it. Even then looting wouldn’t be ok.

On a side note, I think it’s great that the people stand up and make their voice heard. With all the technology we should work less and not more.


meatismoydelicious t1_je8daip wrote

And yet we're more indentured than we've ever been thanks to the negligence of the ruling class. Wake up.


Kypsys t1_jedycrk wrote

I agree 💯 with you, and i do regret the damages, especially like you said private Businesses, and also on politicians houses or offices (weirdly, also some of the opposing parties offices has been damaged).

Even for the public facilities it pains me (it's my money from taxes after all).

but then again, if there is no destruction, if you don't pretty much stop the country...nothing will be done, you can't vote against it because there's no referendum, you can't ask your deputy to vote against it because they are a bunch of kids with no intention on people well being, but more focused on sticking it to the other party, at the expense of others So there's no way really.....other than maximum disruption...


meatismoydelicious t1_je8d41g wrote

So sacrificing the lives of the people isn't too far but sacrificing buildings is? You're seriously fucking up in the way of priorities.


tky_phoenix t1_je8eflu wrote

The democratically elected government is making a change. You are welcome to protest and to vote them out of office. No one is sacrificing anybody. They are nor executing people. 64 is also still lower than many other developed countries to put it into perspective. We are also talking about damaging private property and businesses of people who have nothing to do with the increase in retirement age. They might even be protesting on the streets as well.


meatismoydelicious t1_je8flz0 wrote

I'm not French so I don't think my vote, or anyone else's for that matter, will change a damn thing. They're sacrificing the time of others. That's their lives. If someone forces you to work more than is necessary to provide for yourself, they are literally taking your life. Not to mention, how many people die between the ages of 62 and 64? More than will likely die from these protests. Other countries disallowing their citizens to enjoy the benefits of retirement does not absolve Macron from jumping on the bandwagon late, especially when it is the effect of he and his constituents' bad decisions. If you hurt the nation's economy, you hurt its leaders. Economics are a bitch like that. And if I'm to the point of rioting in the street, it means I'm willing to risk more than a brick and mortar property. People's time, i.e. their lives matter more than fucking pastry shops.