this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
959 points (97.7% liked)
Comic Strips
22490 readers
1671 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not to nitpick, but Auror was Rowling's first idea, as you suggest in your last sentence there. Rowling's narrow-minded world view wouldn't let the hero become a teacher, or a politician, or an activist, or anything else. Her view of the world says cops are the real heroes, so the hero of her story must become a cop.
I think we're putting the cart before the horse here.
Assuming Harry is virtuous and good and brave and excellent at fighting dark wizards and helping people, wouldn't that be the perfect person to become a cop?
Those things qualify you for a whole slew of jobs, and Harry has plenty of other interests besides fighting evil wizards. It seems like very shallow, hackneyed writing to have a 14-year-old latch on to becoming a cop in a community that he didn't even know existed until he was 11*, one which he literally isn't permitted to participate in until he finishes boarding school.
Fair enough, but that argument also works against you:
Why become a cop? He has other interests than being a cop.
is equal to
Why not become a cop? He's interested in being a cop.
Surely you know cops don't eat sleep and breathe law enforcement too, right? As in they have other hobbies and interests? That goes for every job; a tailor has hobbies other than tailoring, and a taxi driver has other interests than driving.
What? Those aren't equivalent at all. My whole point is that it's bad writing and out of character for Harry to be interested in becoming a cop. Him becoming a cop is in no way equivalent to him pursuing literally anything else that would be more in-character.
Your second point has nothing to do with anything, and I don't know why you included it.
I think you just don't understand that cops come from the same schools, communities, homes, families, etc. as anyone else, including you; in other words, you have a significant mental rift that makes it impossible for you to walk the bridge of logic I built for you.
I don't know if I can build a bridge big enough for you to cross. I guess just stare at my previous comment for a while until it clicks.
TL;DR: If you think, and even shout from the rooftops, that the only people suitable for law enforcement are pieces of shit, guess who is going to become law enforcement? Oh my, we seem to have a Too Many Pieces of Shit in Law Enforcement problem! Wonder how that happened...
Hey you fucking acorn, wanna take a break from insulting me and putting words in my mouth to point out where I said that the only people suitable for law enforcement are pieces of shit?
My point, for the third (3rd) time, is that having Harry be interested in being a cop is out of character and poor writing because of Harry's traits and background
I didn't insult you other than to say that you're biased, which I don't think is an insult personally. I'm biased too, about different things. All humans are.
My point, for the third (3rd) time, is that having Harry be interested in being a cop is not out of character and poor writing because Harry’s traits and background don't preclude him from an interest in being one.
You insulted my intelligence ("can't build you a logic bridge big enough blah blah blah") and then hit me with the ol "nuh uh, you're wrong I'm right" argument, so I'm forced to believe I'm talking with a child. Go to bed son, you've got school in the morning.
I don't think I insulted your intelligence other than to imply you are not omniscient, and I immediately acknowledged I'm in a similar boat, just not in this very specific topic.
If implying you're not perfect is an insult, sure, you're welcome to throw in the towel and put that wall up by pretending I'm arguing in bad faith. Ironically, that actually does diminish your intelligence - actively fighting the opportunity to learn.
Only if you assume cops are there to help people. He'd do more good as a Batman/Dexter type.
Again, cart before horse.
You're asserting that there are no helpful cops, therefore Harry being helpful means he should not be a cop.
In reality, Harry being helpful should be a cop, because he could be in a position to help people.
Dexter/Batman don't do a lot of helping, they just crack skulls of people they perceive as bad. Ironically for your point, much like most IRL cops.
I asserted that?
Fair enough, it was an implication that you might not have intended. Add to it that 99% of Lemmites believe "ACAB," and you can imagine why I made that conclusion.
First off, ACAB.
Secondly, in a lot of stories Batman defeats city-wide or even nation- or global-wide threats. Kinda like Harry. And whatever Batman happens to do, because it's somehow justified, it ends up being good. Because he's the hero. Like Harry.
But like the earlier dude said Harry hasn't even got an understanding of the wider world. He would be much better at being a professor, because it also includes studying instead of just enforcing the rules.
Even if you imagine a perfect cop, he wouldn't be acting like Harry. Harry constantly breaks some rules or laws. Not what cops should be doing. Yeah you need some of the virtues Harry has but Harry is also inpatient and a large risk-taker. Neither of which are particularly good characteristics in cops except in media. A perfect cop would be someone slightly autistic about the rules and literally doesn't do whatever they feel like, but defers to the rules.
Which Harry most certainly doesn't.
Imagine if the magical world was (for this analogy) the US. Some who grew up in another country and hasn't even lived in the US, just went to a mostly American school, wants to be an American cop? Even when they go through a necessary training (and we know the wizarding world isn't big on credentials or experience) to become a cop, he'd still have very little understanding of the actual law with just some weeks of training, and wouldn't have grown up hearing about the constitution of the US let alone all the amendments to it.
This section is refuted by: He's 18, so "Duh" and "Nah," respectively.
A fair point, but essentially the opposite of what looks like most people's assertion about Harry becoming a cop, i.e. "He's good so he should not be a cop," and/or, "If some/most/all cops are bad, no one should become a cop." I find both of those asinine takes, hence my refuting them above.
TL;DR: Harry would be morally upstanding and a loose cannon (assuming he doesn't mature past 18), therefore a "good" cop, but not a "great" cop, and assuming his world is anything like ours, should absolutely be a cop to offset the bad.
Yes, immigrant cops have a disadvantage to face, but I disagree in your analogy and its application to Harry that it means they're disqualified from the position; that's a training issue that is far from impossible.
"Loose cannons" are never good as cops. No matter how much you delude yourself they're completely moral and even if that were 100% true they wouldn't be good cops. Cops aren't justice. They're law enforcement.
Someone applying their own morality all the time instead of laws should never ever be a cop. That's why ACAB.
A reminder that we're talking about choosing between lesser evils here. Would you rather an immoral by-the-book Auror/cop in league with Voldemort/Hitler or a moral loose cannon like Harry?
How do you feel about ICE arresting people for immigration offenses?
How do you feel about the DEA prosecuting people for cannabis?
There's nuance here, and you're pretending there isn't.
"No but you have to understand, All Cops might Be Bastards but they're could be way worse bastards!"
Wow what a magnificent argument.
Do you not understand that things are clearly immoral should lead to law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws. It doesn't mean they get to decide which laws to enforce or not, willy nilly, but if someone says "go an arrest every minority out there" they can say 'that's unconstitutional and I won't do it, you can fire me and then I'll sue you' or whatever it is you do there.
What you CAN'T do is become law enforcement and then use that authority while being completely arbitrary about laws.
The only reason I'm not a cop is because drugs are illegal (and some other laws but mainly those.)
This strawman isn't even properly put together; it's falling apart. If English isn't your first language, skip the following: Write better.
Evidently not, because my understanding of your argument is that it is an oxymoron: Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.
I'm not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine, but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you're making zero sense to me. It seems like you're assigning "willy nilly" to selective enforcement you disagree with and "refusal" to selective enforcement you agree with.
I really wouldn't talk with that sort of syntax. "They" became "they're" due to my fat thumbs, not because I meant it to. I write pretty fast on a phone and like we all (should) know, the predictive algorithm sometimes get stuck with the wrong word, and I don't really care yoo much (see, now I have to fix "yoo" to "too". Better to remove "yoo" as a prediction really, but who's got time for thay).
I'll bet my left nut that if we both tested our English skills, I'd have a larger vocabulary and better syntax. More than ten years ago I surpassed the average native speaker in vocabulary size.
No, you're just a dummy. There are laws in place which allow cops — just like soldiers, to not do what they're commanded to do. They're called "illegal orders". So for instance if I were at war (and I am a sergeant in the reserves), I would never hesitate to question a direct command... unless it broke the core principles which are not my personal morals, but strict rules which are in place. At that point, if it's murky if it is a legal order or not (as superiors officers often do give them, to both cops and soldiers), the first step is to ask it in writing. Then you can show that you protested, but as it was unclear, you did it anyway. However if your superiors officers tell you to do something clearly illegal like torturing people and kidnapping children, you don't need to hesitate, and even getting it in writing wouldn't help, as any reasonably well trained person should definitely understand the immortality and thus refuse to obey.
See what did I tell you about the syntax. Gjeoddamn.
But also, vocabulary. My definition isn't arbitrary in the least. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word?
Probably because you have zero actual understanding of the topic..?
Yes, you keep repeating your asinine and completely wrong argument. Did you just forget the other times, or do you repeat it so that you'll remember it? Either way, kinda weird, and super wrong.
Let's start small and check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_order_(international_law)
Real talk? I don't care. Good on you if you're right, but I'm almost certain you're wrong. I do understand why you made your assumption based on the average internet user, though. Literacy rates are dropping in the US and it's equally embarrassing and dangerous.
My point by pointing out your terrible writing was that if you're going to argue in such bad faith, you should at least put some effort into it. Put some pants on before you go scream at your neighbors that their grass is giving you migraines. By pointing out your penis was exposed, I'm not actually upset that I saw a penis, I just was hoping it'd embarrass you enough to shut up and go away.
Seeing this part and glancing at your many more paragraphs finally gave me the kick in the head that I needed to make me realize what a colossal waste of time talking to you is. Congratulations, you're about to be the first person I've ever blocked on Lemmy.
... that said, before I hit the block button, I did notice this bit which tempted me to respond because it's an all too common trope that I'd happily enter an in-depth discussion with you about my lived experience counter-anecdote if you weren't such a prick:
There are also laws that prevent Donald Trump from serving a second term. Does that comfort you, resting assured in the knowledge that your logic means he must not be President again? Definitely doesn't comfort me; I'd prefer to live in reality and advocate for his removal. Backing away from my metaphor, I promise you there are cops who have been fired for failing to follow illegal orders, you just didn't know about any of them because you never bothered to put in any effort to find out they exist. Ironically for the cause you pretend to care about enough to virtue signal on the internet, that pressures more cops to follow illegal orders (because they know they're completely screwed if they do the right thing). I would know, I sit in the former camp and know many who sit in the latter. Enjoy the illusion, though!
You're putting the cart before the horse there.
If cops could be helpful to Harry, then why wouldn't he ride a time horse back in time to meet his grandaddy's prize-winning steed, a racehorse name you've likely not heard of. I hope you're happy with your assertions
That's cause Rowling was a status quo loving Tony Blair labourite. As per a 4chan post:
Source: https://www.tumblr.com/ryttu3k/672686578850840576/description-a-text-post-originating-from-4chan