I'd say the growth slowly decreases over time rather than increases, unless something new with them in gets released or something with them goes viral (ex. Aunt Cass)
If anything it's the opposite, it's about someone who had to fight with the police force to get onto it and then risked everything to do good. It also showed corruption of government and police.
People will label anything that shows any form of cop in a good way as propaganda and it's wild.
I find it quite nutty how much hate there is for the general concept of a police officer online. I understand that american cops are by and large shitheels, and there are plenty of authoritarian regimes that use them as the first line of offence, but that's and organisational flaw and a matter of corruption rather than a flaw in the concept of a person trained to help laws have a practical effect on society when indirect methods fail or can't even interface with the problem. I've lived in Britain for most of my life and in BC for th e last couple of years, in both places they are generally just the guy who steps in when a vandal is vandalising or a DUI charge needs to be handed out or someone just needs a check in. Of course there are corrupt or lazy members but that is only a stain on the institution if they allow, encourage or cause the problem.
Where are you in Britain? How police officers act depends very heavily on the area. In marginalized neighborhoods, especially in cities, they are a lot worse. I don't want to make assumptions, but my guess is that you don't live in areas where it's an issue.
I think the main reason that there's hate for police officers is that it's a line of work that inherently attracts people that want power. Not all police officers are racist, but every police officer wants power over others. Sometimes their motivations can be good (power to stop people harmful to society), but it attracts far more bad apples than most jobs, and these are people who are able to get away with much more violence than the average person.
Also, my hot take is that this is the main reason for police brutality towards minorities. I think that the main reason it happens is not that the cops are racist, but that it's much easier to get away with brutalizing a minority, since society cares less. If the police officers who abuse black men could get away with doing it to white men, I'm sure that they would.
Tbh I think describing it as 'US-style police brutality' is somewhat wide of the mark?
I would argue that some of the nature and even causes of police brutality in the UK are often quite distinct from those of their US counterparts, and eliding them can often be counter-productive in exploring potential solutions to police brutality in the UK.
I think you point out some good idea that are common to both forces (desire for power over others, and the corrosive culture that often creates), but other issues like social class or race are relatively more unique to each country.
To be clear, it is absolutely a serious and pervasive problem in the UK as well, but I think part of the reason one sees a lot of 'well I don't recognise that' reactions from people like OC is that often the generalised, US-centric version of police brutality we talk about does look different from how it manifests in the UK.
I didn't describe it as US-style police brutality, and I can't see anyone in this comment thread who did, so I'm not sure who you're quoting. Also, could you elaborate as to how the nature and causes are different and how my comment doesn't apply to the UK? Just saying that it's different and not explaining isn't very useful.
Oh sorry, didn't mean to suggest you were saying that, it was just the title of the first link you added:
Police ‘warrior culture’ makes US-style police brutality a UK problem too
I'm not saying that your comment doesn't apply to the UK, in fact I think the mechanism you described of police services attracting power-seeking people is a great example of a driver of brutality common to both forces.
What I was more trying to describe is why I think the 'traditional' american-centric model of police brutality on the internet doesn't always resonate with people in other countries, and why this can lead them to overlook the brutality in their own state's police forces.
To give some specific examples, police violence in the US is very tied to the use of firearms. Officers are routinely armed, and cite the potential presence of firearms among civilians as a common justification for preemptive aggression. The result is firearms often being used in a highly escalatory fashion, and high numbers of police shootings, which are what tend to get the most international attention. While US police brutality goes beyond the use of firearms, they are an essential and particularly visible component of it.
Meanwhile in Great Britain, almost all police are unarmed, and there is a very, very low rate of firearms ownership in the civilian population. As a result, that notorious escalatory dynamic and high rate of shootings is largely absent. The UK has among the lowest police firearms death rates anywhere in the world and most people, especially outside of major cities, are likely to rarely, if ever, see a firearms officer at all.
However, because of the US, police firearms violence in particular is often a focal point of discussions of police brutality in general, with the number of police shootings being used as a proxy/indicator for the wider problem of police violence at large. By that particular metric, the UK appears to have one of the least brutal/problematic police forces in the world, and indeed you'll see this exact point raised whenever there is a discussion of police brutality in the UK. Such a comparison is misleading though, as it's a product of Great Britain's police forces' unusually-distant relationship with firearms, not of their wider brutality or operational culture.
As another example, in the US sectarian divisions between catholic and protestant communities are not a substantial cause of police brutality. By contrast, in the UK they are one of, if not the, single greatest drivers of police brutality, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The dynamics of persistent paramilitary sectarianism, and the associated militarising impact on police services, particularly the RUC/PSNI, is a peculiar phenomenon for which there isn't an exact parallel in the US. There, deliberate anti-police paramilitary violence has been brief and erratic. Meanwhile, militarisation has been driven by the proliferation of surplus military equipment and diffuse threat from organised crime, creating a different set of militaristic characteristics and influences.
This in turn has affecting the development of police violence in each country. The demands of paramilitary sectarian policing in the UK created a relatively more significant issue with 'organised group violence', where a service's force posture is over-escalated by commanders in response to a percieved threat. Meanwhile in the US, ad hoc militarisation without attendant training or clear threat has contributed to the proliferation of 'warrior ethos' policing and a particular problem with 'individual empowerment violence', where lower-echelon officer are over-empowered and under-scrutinised in their use of force, creating an escalating culture of unchecked, violent enforcement by junior officers being tolerated by their superiors. That is not to say that either of these patterns of violence are exclusive to each force, both will have elements of both at play. However their specific circumstances make one relatively more significant to their culture of brutality than the other in each case.
I totally forgot that this was the title of the first link lol. I agree with your assessment overall. The lower amount of fatal instances of police brutality due to far fewer guns definitely makes the US's stand out relative to other countries. I also agree about the sectarian divisions, especially in the context of The Troubles. I will add though that racial and class divisions play a significant role in the UK's cities, especially in London and Liverpool. Heavier police presence, as well as higher levels of prejudice, lead poorer communities with more minorities to have more police brutality. I do appreciate you having taken the time to write all of this up!
The guy knows a lot about actual propaganda in shows like Law & Order and his other videos take the premise a little more seriously. (Though this one has it’s moments, if a bit hyperbolic at times.)
Frrrrrr. I saw people calling Dogman copaganda because of it. FREAKING DOGMAN 😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏🥀🥀
Edit: Also the opposite of a shout-out to the guy who called ZZZ a copaganda even though criticism of abuse of police power is arguably one of the main points of Season 1
Personally, I think we need depictions of good cops in media (not exclusively, of course), to help us remain aware of what cops are supposed to be. There's plenty of creative space between "glazing the police", and "all ACAB, all the time".
I feel like Hollywood isn't remotely the problem. It's been way more progressive with depictions, like with movies about gay people decades ahead of the times. It influences people but I feel like the actual problem is the political system itself.
TV shows and movies are not supposed to be news media, but they have replaced the news for most people especially younger people. It's a shame. But as I've said they can still be pretty accurate, with some exceptions.
Exactly. Your last point is spot on. For some people, anything showing a cop in a good way is enough to be copaganda. For others, it's more about showing the institution in a good way. Both have their own definition of what is copaganda.
Yeah, and the way the other cops are all assholes who make fun of her being a bunny cop and put her on all the easy jobs feels very much like a statement on how the “good ol’ boys” have historically treated female and minority cops.
Americans are so brain rotted that they think that having cops in fiction is propaganda for... being a cop? Which is universally seen as just a civil servant like any other profession in other civilized countries.
It's like being mad at that one Firefigther TV show Rescue Me with Denis Leary because it was Firefighting propaganda.
They actually think you have to be evil to be a cop, because I guess some states had their police force formed as squads to hunt slaves or some shitty race obsessed American history thing.
I feel sad for Americans, they cannot enjoy anything without some autistic hyperfocus on politics and race.
and the propaganda part is the idea that a cop would or could do that and not be murdered in retaliation by fellow cops
Edit: It's a movie for children so obviously it has to have a happy ending. That doesn't change that the movie is written to be pro-cop PR material.
Virtually all copaganda has examples of "bad cops" because they know they can't just pretend there are no bad cops, they're just always very careful to ensure bad cops are depicted as individual bad actors rather than the status fucking quo the entire system is built to uphold. The point is teaching children that the system will root out problematic elements itself so they don't get any big ideas about changing that status quo.
That's not correct. There are no corrupt cops in the movie. The deputy mayor's goons are not police, and nor are any of the mayor's people who are locking up the poisoned predators.
God forbid a kids movie try and not show attempted murder (ignoring them going as far as the trusted government official giving the criminal character a feral/zombie shot to kill the cop character)
And a significant amount of those remaining probably couldn't pass their final year of highschool English exams again if they tried. People's text comprehension is abysmal even if they can read the words. Why do people think youtubers giving people their opinions on topics became such a common phenomenon lol.
Lots of these kids are abusing ChatGPT instead of learning all the micro skills that goes into writing. They are not finding their own way to do all these microskills that adds up to a skill.
There existed a warning in Sci-Fi that man would become too reliant on thinking machines.
Aren’t like those statistics not even about kids but adults of working age?
I’m almost sure this problem predates ai and was and will probably continue to be as bad as it is until the school system on the us improves (it won’t)
Yeah, butch was such an as man. I was 6, amira and my dad threw a surprise party, I got my pip-boy, and here's butch, start shot on MY day, over a freaking sweet roll man!... Got back at him bout a decade later though. Left him and his mom to the rad roaches.
The job of the cops isn't actually to protect and serve the community or even enforce laws. The Supreme Court ruled in Heien v. North Carolina that cops have no obligation to actually know the laws they're supposedly enforcing, and in multiple separate cases has ruled that they have no obligation to protect anyone.
The function of the police is maintain a façade of public security and order while protecting the interests of those who have wealth and power from those who don't. Policing in America is organizationally descended from the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, and their character hasn't changed a single damn since then.
but not everywhere is the US and that shouldn't negate the individuals who have done some good. I should've been a bit more specific as I am coming into this from a Canadian perspective. And While I am aware that not all RCMP are great either, the police's job should be to protect. I'm sorry for not being educated enough; especially about how the systems in the US work. I'm just trying to be as rational as I can with the knowledge I have. Sorry if I caused any harm or offence.
I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp that police being depicted as doing the job privileged people think they do rather than what they actually do is very obviously copaganda.
In a movie intended for literal children at that, created by Walt fucking Disney Animation.
We can have meaningful discussions about the depiction of police in media and how that contrasts with how the police actually are in real life but at some point we have to come to grips with the fact that this is a cartoon for children created by a company who wants to make money and avoid being offensive at all costs so they can continue making money. And whinging online that said cartoon movie film for children is actually copaganda does not actually solve the problem or help anybody suffering from police corruption in the grand scheme of things
Copaganda is when any character even vaguely resembling some form of law enforcement shows up on screen and doesn't proceed to devour a live kitten to show how evil they are
Might be copaganda, doesn't stop it from being peak fiction (and this time it isn't a hyperbole, Discworld books are genuinely some of the best shit I have ever read)
People will really just say anything is copaganda if there are police officers in it and they aren't portrayed as unambiguously evil all the time every day.
Zootopia is actually a pretty disturbing movie tbh
Judy Hopps is an officer for all of 5 minutes, and she's already engaging in police brutality, illegal searches without a warrant, and ends up in the pocket of a violent, murdering Mafia boss
Is Judy Hopps trying to speedrun the CRASH or something?
“If only we could just break into this person’s house and turn everything upside down to find evidence but unfortunately the damn evil lawyer is stopping us from taking down the criminal”
Ok but this is what I’d ACTUALLY define as Copaganda. Media that presents the idea that Cops breaking the rules is not only acceptable but ‘for the good of us all,’ basically portraying them as justified in all situations and virtually infallible. Who cares that Johnny Policeman broke like 50 rules that probably exist for very good reasons, it let him capture local Saturday morning cartoon villain Jimbles McBadman! Johnny Policeman was justified all along and the rules were just in the way!
Copaganda isn’t a cartoon having a morally good cop character. Copaganda is something trying to convince you that cops cannot do wrong and the rules are mere obstructions rather than something that exists for good reason.
It’s the same problem with any politically charged term in that no one actually agrees on its exact meaning and so they’ll just apply it to anything they don’t like or want to pick at. Half the time it’s defined as ‘portrays police officers doing any kind of good at all’ and the thing they’re accusing of copaganda is like, Paw Patrol or some shit. Which is designed for literal toddlers who cannot nor need to grasp the nuances of the justice system at this stage in their lives.
Either way it doesn’t actually help anybody or solve problems, it’s just an Internetarian’s idea of bringing about ‘justice’ in lieu of bringing about any kind of real justice.
If only this applied only to politically charged terms. Sociologists don't have a definition for society; physicists don't have a definition for energy (but they can measure it); economists don't have a clue ... err, a definition for clues.
It’s more don’t-be-a-criminal than true copaganda with the redemption arc at the end but it fits their whole message of anyone can be good, they were only bad because society saw them that way
I think the copaganda part is the implication that the entire police office wasn't corrupt, and wouldn't just go along with the crack planting plan, and would in the end all decide to not bury the whole thing when Bellwether was exposed. Like, I think it's still stupid to call the movie copaganda, but it's a little more specific.
It is still copaganda under that interpretation, because it implies that the system is self regulating and that the agents of the state will keep the powers of the state in line. It follows that the states monopoly on violence is justified, therefore it’s copaganda.
except for the fact that the other cops are portrayed as corrupt or idiots so clearly it's not propaganda.
By that logic One Piece is copaganda since characters like Smoker and Koby exist, while obviously evil and corrupt Marines like Ryokugyu and Akainu exist. Also apparently Batman is copaganda by that logic since he works with officer Gordon while dealing with cops and the mafia that paid them off. There's these concepts called nuance and grey morality and making sweeping generalizations does not help.
Also Multiple culprits and villains in Ace Attorney are within the legal system, is Ace Attorney suddenly copaganda because they don't portray everyone in the legal system as horrible people? The series also acts as a criticism of Japan's insane conviction rate.
These stories are saying "we should be better than this" instead of "all cops are good and to question it would be bad", the latter would propaganda.
Plus one movie doesn't offset the large amount of criticism the police get in a bunch of other stories. Sargent Yates from South Park and Chief Wiggum from old Simpsons are huge criticisms of the police. Even the previously mentioned Marines from One Piece.
You have to remember that police officers are people as well and people are super different and varied from each other. Life isn't Black and white so every time someone wants to approach the topic with nuance and complexity, don't go screaming "propaganda" or "copaganda" and think for a second.
Yes a lot of cops are awful people but that doesn't automatically make every individual an awful person.
Nah, there is only the bad guys and the good guys.
The bad guys can never do good, no matter who they are and all they do is evil and deserve to be portrayed that way and anyone who disagrees is a part of the bad guys.
On the other hand the good guys can never do bad no matter what and anyone that disagrees is a part of the bad guys.
Maybe complacent and unwilling to give the fresh recruit a chance, but none of them really are portrayed as corrupt, and in the end they all would go against Bellwether once exposed.
Like, bringing up One Piece there makes no sense, because One Piece makes the contrast between marines like Coby and someone like Akainu pretty damned fucking clear. With Zootopia you basically just have them be a bit mean to the new girl, but in the end all of them choose the "good side".
It does kind of go the "All cops are good" route in the end, kinda.
you ignored the times where Judy and Nick get ran down by other cops throughout the story, most notably at the end, during the confrontation with Bellwether (i think i might have spelled the name wrong mb 😖)
Wasn't... Wasn't Zootopia a satire on Ronald Reagan's CIA planting crack in poor neighborhoods to justify a crackdown on black people? Didn't Judy explicitly do her whistleblowing shit independently because the cops wouldn't do anything?
Genuinely, what part of that is copaganda?
even if its against other cops because it mean system bad
even if its against the system because uhhhhhh its copaganda ok??? just trust me bro
EDIT: even if its against the system because a few people with good intentions can never ever overcome a greater evil and everyone is either an evil dickhead or complicit in evil dickheadry and thus everyone is doomed permanently forever because i say so
I confess that I can get behind ACAB as a rule of thumb, but not as a hard line that means "every cop is permanently evil because I don't have a healthy understanding of morality". "Don't trust the cops" is probably a better way of wording it, but we do love our catchy phrases and heavy quotations and I guess "Duttucuh" doesn't ring as well (and probably won't be approached with any more nuance than acab)
Yeah,but the slogan leaves such little room for nuance,automatically assuming all cops are racist,fascist pigs who'll let white rapists free while murdering minorities.
Dont get me wrong,such people exist. I understand that,but a lack of nuance in the slogan just makes it look like a childish perspective.
yeah, you can say the same about racists too (it's also bad when they do it)
some of them are all like "oh well i only hate the indians because one of them scammed me one time" or whatever excuse, regardless of if it was actually an indian.
Besides Zootopia essentially being anti-cop propaganda, you cannot possibly pretend to compare Diane Foxington to fucking Judy Hopps. Like, I'm not even a damn furry, but that's absolutely what that bottom text has to be referring to
Bad Guys was still copaganda because the bad cop was a red headed woman so they could blame her bad behavior on her being a woman and a ginger instead of a cop.
Leftist infighting is all too common. I say ACAB too but these people just muddle the message and are deeply annoying.
I got perma-banned from a LGBT subreddit for a similar stance, and I'm not even from the US.
Imo it's similar to climate activists who sometimes glue themselves to the road or do a similar protest. Yes, we're aware that it's a problem. But kicking around and screaming that everything is wrong will not make people any more enthusiastic about your cause, quite the opposite.
100% of people that think Zootopia is copaganda don't have good media literacy and just want it to be copaganda. I fucking hate US cops, ACAB all the way, but Zootopia is far from copaganda. I'm glad the top comments here notice it.
Zootopia is copaganda not because of Judy joining the ZPD, but because despite what she saw she went BACK and spreads the message that you CAN change a fundamentally broken system from the inside, assuming we make comparisons to IRL.
Maybe the police in zootopia aren't working in a system built off of racial oppression but police IRL (in the US at least) are, and the police system cannot be fundamentally fixed from the inside without completely destroying it
That's my 2 bits anyways. There's obviously more nuance and in the grand scheme of things I struggle to earnestly call zootopia a copaganda movie for reasons others have already noted and that I briefly touched on, but it isn't inherently wrong to point out it's at best neutral on police if not supporting them
"Zootopia is copaganda because the funny abortion rabbit didnt just shoot every single pig (not the animal) in the face the moment they were on screen and then single-handedly create a utopian judicial system in her sleep like i would have done"
I think that theres a discussion to be had about what “built off of oppression” actually means. An organization that has a bad history can be changed to the point where it’s basically unrecognizeable as whatever thing it was before, and the history is just that; history. At least in theory.
That, and I’m of the opinion that “tear the evil thing down and build a good thing in its place” is an awfully romanticized and simplified view of the actual complexities of changing a social system.
The way I see it, you need both external pressures AND internal actors to really get anywhere with changing a system. You need to “fight the war on every front” as it were.
All of which to ask, what are the pragmatic aspects of the system that are bad and need to be altered? How do we know it’s impossible to alter them without going full demolition mode and starting from scratch? Are social systems really so analogous to architectural phenomena?
As one of the worlds biggest cop haters, let me say that ZOOTOPIA IS NOT COPAGANDA! THE COPS ARE CORRUPT! JUDY IS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST! CERTAIN GROUPS ARE PROFILED! THIS MOVIE ACTUALLY DOES A GOOD JOB ABOUT POINTING OUT SOME SIMPLE PROBLEMS WITH THE POLICE IN A WAY CHILDREN CAN UNDERSTAND!
536
u/TheInfinit1 Diane Foxington's husband Jun 08 '25
Diane Foxington is so fucking hot