To be blunt: I call BS.Let me ask you this: How many of your family and friends would you be willing to see killed and/or raped to see a 25% reduction in white collar crime?All of them. Including myself.
Of course you do.
You ask a question and then call me a liar when I answer it honestly.You asked the wrong guy, bucko.
Ah I finally found one of the stories I was looking for. Asset forfeiture laws are another big reason why cops should never be trusted.
This is the ONE item that I have serious problems with. I think if someone is either NOT involved with the crime (as per some states, they can seize the property if a crime is merely committed there. Have a customer that deals drugs on your property, but don't know it...they can sieze the property...IRREGARDLESS whether you knew or not...in some areas).
I know one cop shop that can get you whatever make, color, and type of vehicle you want within a month.
To me...THIS ONE ITEM is far more criminal and results in MORE THEFT than many other criminals that they convict.
Most police officers I think are in it for the good of society and try to do the right thing...but laws like these...are BAD and create a criminal element out of the police force.
Something even worse, is if the crime has a monetary penalty...the MAXIMUM AMOUNT that can be seized, property or otherwise, should be whatever that penalty is. If the property is worth MORE than that penalty...no way, no how, is it forfeit. Doing otherwise is theft in my book, which is what some departments have resorted to because they bring in "funding" though these measures.
It's just created a bigger mafia in places which didn't have that mafia previously.
And, since it's on Black Agenda Report, I may as well link:
Anklebiter, this stuff belongs in the other thread.
Do they? I could've sworn there were tons of posts above about police brutality and streetcrime vs. Wall Street crime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vital part is that we get cameras on ALL the politicians, 24 hours a day.
Anywho, back to 'CIS privilege.' It's interesting how much, as a white straight dude, I find myself disliking the assumptions that come with being identified with such, and how I even find myself knee-jerk disliking the term 'CIS' in general, finding it off-putting and dehumanizing, in a way.
I dislike the politically correct idea that the labels are the problem and that changing them is going to do anything.
No one minds a label when the label isn't something bad. Irish are a minority in America, but no one minds being called irish because irish isn't a bad thing anymore. If the group being identified is seen as negative they will simply "wear through" the label and acquire another one: Like the progression of the correct term from negro to black to african american to... has this moved on to anything else yet? I feel old.
The way english works is that you don't add qualifiers for the normal. You don't specify a 4 legged dog, a cat with fur, an owl with two eyes.
Being not normal doesn't have to be bad. Genius for example is a label, but we don't have one for being of average intelligence. Fine, the brain doesn't match the plumbing. Whatever people think of that is going to determine how they feel about the label, not the other way around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the politically correct idea that the labels are the problem and that changing them is going to do anything.
No one minds a label when the label isn't something bad. Irish are a minority in America, but no one minds being called irish because irish isn't a bad thing anymore.
I'm just going to keep plugging Theodore Allen and Noel Ignatiev.
Also, having spent a lot of time with guys from South Boston, many of whom had family members in law enforcement and ooh! the stories I could tell (but they'd all be hearsay and anecdotes), and that, for at least the Southie Irish, who may not be representative of the whole lot, I agree, "Irish" is like "Jew;" it can be either the correct word or a slur depending upon the intonation of the utterer.
Also, I haven't seen much 30 Rock but everything I've seen has been brilliant, and I am reminded of when Tracey Morgan and the other brother were forced to attend sensitivity training. The woman running the program says "What other kinds of things are inappropriate in the work place?" and they go 'round a circle "Sweaty balls!" "I don't even know what!" and they get to a guy who screws his face and, oozing disgust, says "Person of color." The woman stops, pauses for a beat, and replies, "Well, yeah, I guess, if you say it like that."
Except that some of us think cops are basically good and cameras help stop the bad ones and others think they are basically all corrupt and need this to keep them in lineAndrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
I think most cops are good. Or at least not bad (Lawful Neutral)
I think the question is to how many are bad, and what's an acceptable level of badness.I have a very low tolerance for bullshiznit within a police force. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel for me. They should be held to a higher standard, if for no other reason than to justify their ridiculous pay.
I'd say maybe 4% of cops are just terrible people gaming the system and extorting money or favors, and another 15-20% are probably too lazy or stupid to be reasonably considered for the position.
YMMV, of course, but every cop I run into always wants to rub his balls in my face (metaphorically) and be the alpha dog.
I suspect the 'bad apple' number is 1% or less. However, that is still a lot of bad apples thanks to the large number of officers. Knowing that is why none of us begrudge IAD for doing what they do, so long as they don't poke at the little stuff (like too many officers at a single location for dinner).
jaywalking or making a right on red or letting their dog run around at the park without a leashThese are actually some of my biggest pet peeves. If you don't have your dog on a leash I should be able to shoot it in the face without repercussion. Same if you're jaywalking, I ain't honking.
Turning right on red is legal in my state, so I actually get REALLY pissed at out of staters who don't comprehend that. F*+%ing FIBs.
It's illegal by me, so I hate the people from out of state who cause accidents on a regular basis. What's a FIB?
Anywho, back to 'CIS privilege.' It's interesting how much, as a white straight dude, I find myself disliking the assumptions that come with being identified with such, and how I even find myself knee-jerk disliking the term 'CIS' in general, finding it off-putting and dehumanizing, in a way.I dislike the politically correct idea that the labels are the problem and that changing them is going to do anything.
No one minds a label when the label isn't something bad. Irish are a minority in America, but no one minds being called irish because irish isn't a bad thing anymore. If the group being identified is seen as negative they will simply "wear through" the label and acquire another one: Like the progression of the correct term from negro to black to african american to... has this moved on to anything else yet? I feel old.
The way english works is that you don't add qualifiers for the normal. You don't specify a 4 legged dog, a cat with fur, an owl with two eyes.
Being not normal doesn't have to be bad. Genius for example is a label, but we don't have one for being of average intelligence. Fine, the brain doesn't match the plumbing. Whatever people think of that is going to determine how they feel about the label, not the other way around.
"Irish" is actually commonly used as a qualifier for "American." In fact, the only people who don't get a qualifier in some way are British in origin.
But, IIRC, it was actually the Irish who started the whole qualifier mess, leading to the modern massive overload of qualifiers for "American" that exists today. Which pretty much carries the implication that if you're not of British descent, you're not pure American. I'm certain the Native Americans would have something to say about that.
I suspect the 'bad apple' number is 1% or less. However, that is still a lot of bad apples thanks to the large number of officers. Knowing that is why none of us begrudge IAD for doing what they do, so long as they don't poke at the little stuff (like too many officers at a single location for dinner).Except that some of us think cops are basically good and cameras help stop the bad ones and others think they are basically all corrupt and need this to keep them in lineAndrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
I think most cops are good. Or at least not bad (Lawful Neutral)
I think the question is to how many are bad, and what's an acceptable level of badness.I have a very low tolerance for bullshiznit within a police force. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel for me. They should be held to a higher standard, if for no other reason than to justify their ridiculous pay.
I'd say maybe 4% of cops are just terrible people gaming the system and extorting money or favors, and another 15-20% are probably too lazy or stupid to be reasonably considered for the position.
YMMV, of course, but every cop I run into always wants to rub his balls in my face (metaphorically) and be the alpha dog.
your thoughts on Anklebiters links then? And the links posted by others? Few and far between? Less than 1 percent? That number seems laughable. Unless you feel that media is sensationalizing things.
I dislike the politically correct idea that the labels are the problem and that changing them is going to do anything.
No one minds a label when the label isn't something bad. Irish are a minority in America, but no one minds being called irish because irish isn't a bad thing anymore.
I'm just going to keep plugging Theodore Allen and Noel Ignatiev.
Also, having spent a lot of time with guys from South Boston, many of whom had family members in law enforcement and ooh! the stories I could tell (but they'd all be hearsay and anecdotes), and that, for at least the Southie Irish, who may not be representative of the whole lot, I agree, "Irish" is like "Jew;" it can be either the correct word or a slur depending upon the intonation of the utterer.
Also, I haven't seen much 30 Rock but everything I've seen has been brilliant, and I am reminded of when Tracey Morgan and the other brother were forced to attend sensitivity training. The woman running the program says "What other kinds of things are inappropriate in the work place?" and they go 'round a circle "Sweaty balls!" "I don't even know what!" and they get to a guy who screws his face and, oozing disgust, says "Person of color." The woman stops, pauses for a beat, and replies, "Well, yeah, I guess, if you say it like that."
I think of that scene every single time there's discussion of socially acceptable minority labels. I also think that if you're telling a person why your term for them is acceptable, rather than using the one they prefer, you're doing it wrong.
My grandmother used the n-word as a matter of course, without intending any insult, but that just means her entire mindset was offensive, instead of just her vocabulary.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your thoughts on Anklebiters links then? And the links posted by others? Few and far between? Less than 1 percent? That number seems laughable. Unless you feel that media is sensationalizing things.
Well of course they are. "Normal cop fails to abuse power" isn't a headline that sells newspapers.
Well of course they are. "Normal cop fails to abuse power" isn't a headline that sells newspapers.
Dunno -- it sure sells a lot of conservative talk-radio air time. "Those stupid liberals have no respect for the men and women in unform who put their own lives in harm's way to serve and protect! The sense of entitlement from those people is exactly what's wrong with society today!"
Black and white guy both try to break into the same car.
White guy sets off the alarm for 30 minutes straight, cop drives by.
Black guy has 2 officers on him in 2 minutes and over 6 cops show up.
Black and white guy both try to break into the same car.
White guy sets off the alarm for 30 minutes straight, cop drives by.
Black guy has 2 officers on him in 2 minutes and over 6 cops show up.
There were a few things wrong with the experiment, as it was two different neighborhoods and the police were called for the black guy due to a bystander. I want to see it redone in the same neighborhood with no police being actively called.
There were a few things wrong with the experiment, as it was two different neighborhoods and the police were called for the black guy due to a bystander. I want to see it redone in the same neighborhood with no police being actively called.Black and white guy both try to break into the same car.
White guy sets off the alarm for 30 minutes straight, cop drives by.
Black guy has 2 officers on him in 2 minutes and over 6 cops show up.
Yes, it is completely non-scientific. But at the same time, the cops initial reaction to the situation is violent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Time for White Americans To Wake the Hell Up! sez Thom Hartmann.
Thom Hartmann's story is nice... but misses the other bit of racism. The bit the African American community, and the media, pulled with the Trayvon Martin case.
George Zimmerman is hispanic. They're casting the case as white on black violence. Considering that hispanics are a different racial group from whites, that is a pretty serious case of sheer racism.
It's also why it is most hispanics I know are saying that the African American community needs to sit down and shut up... because they just got told they are the same as a different race, despite their different heritage, and they're not taking it well.
Consider that this is also Black History Month. I have had to repeatedly explain to the hispanics and asians I know that African Americans are not a "special snowflake race" (their words, not mine) and that the month is about dealing with all of the injustice in African American history.
They pick up a history book, read who introduced the Europeans to the idea of enslaving Africans in the first place, and tell me to shove it. So I'm not having a lot of luck on this front.
May just be localized to people I know, but it's still going to be a long-term problem. And stories like the one Thom Hartmann wrote only add fuel to that fire and only help increase the growing bitterness towards the African American community.
I kinda doubt that bringing attention to the Trayvon Martin case will help African Americans... mainly because it makes them look like an entire race of racists and hypocrites for complaining about all of the racism they've received over the years from whites. After all, if you're going to talk about race-on-race crime, at least make certain you have the races of both people correct. Tends to destroy your position when you don't.
Edit: Note I am aware that African Americans are not hypocrites and most aren't racist (every race has bad apples). But unfortunately, appearances are everything in this modern world and truth doesn't seem to matter as much. Especially given this is a case where the truth of one man's race was ignored in favor of campaigns about racism involving a race that had no members directly involved in the tragedy. So to some degree, I understand that arguing the truth on this one is pointless for those who are offended, mainly because it is the lack of truth that caused the offense to begin with.
Feel free to join me in the Facepalming Olympics whenever this topic comes up.
Video: Police Shoot Family’s Service Dog Outside 9-Year-Old’s Birthday Party
Of course the dog is going to bite you. You're going onto HIS Property and it doesn't know you. Or i don't know, call the house and ask the owner to come out.
If he had half a brain, he would have said its a noise complaint, its not worth shooting anything over. Call dispatch and wait.
Man up and use the nightstick if you're worried about a golden retriever. If a shot to the rib or nose doesn't work, put the nightstick down along the length of your arm and use it as a shield. You'll get nipped but nothing you can't peroxide off.
So no heart no brain and no... courage. This guy should be sent to jail dressed like Dorothy.
Well Zimmerman's dad is white. So he is white.
Well Zimmerman's dad is white. So he is white.
Doesn't work that way. If it did, then Obama is white as well. It would also mean that, given genetics, up to one half of the current African American population would also be white, due to the fact they have white ancestors.
Note that population is also the population, for the most part, that were slaves. Which would mean that, in order for you to be right, African American slavery would be mostly something that didn't happen past a certain point in time. Well before it was abolished, I'll add. Which, in turn, would mean that African American History Month is, in part, detailing a series of events that didn't actually happen when it talks about the post-slavery era. It also means the Jim Crow laws weren't discriminatory, since under your logic they would also affect whites.
Do I need to go on with the unfortunate implications of what you said?
Well, hispanic is already a mix of native american, black, and spanish, so that + a white father is definitely white enough to be terrified of black people apparently.
Not really.
Get into the history of racial relations between hispanics and African Americans in the U.S. The two groups have a history, especially in the modern era, of conflicting with each other.
In turn, the hispanics also have a history of conflicting with the asians and whites. And the asians have a history of conflicts with whites and African Americans.
So, pretty much, the U.S. is one hateful little family where it comes to racial issues.
This new trend is a rather disturbing one for an entirely different reason; it's not the normal racial conflicts.
Well Zimmerman's dad is white. So he is white.Doesn't work that way. If it did, then Obama is white as well.
Obama's dad is black. So he is black.
Obama's dad is black. So he is black.Well Zimmerman's dad is white. So he is white.Doesn't work that way. If it did, then Obama is white as well.
His mother is white. Unless, of course, you are being sexist against women with your argument... please tell me you're not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jewish status is passed down through the mother, not the father. Assuming that mother and father are equally important in all aspects is an enlightened attitude, but not one shared by everyone.
Not really.
Get into the history of racial relations between hispanics and African Americans in the U.S. The two groups have a history, especially in the modern era, of conflicting with each other.
You're not saying anything that effectively contradicts me. Zimmerman's dad is a retired judge. Culturally he's as white as you can get and physically he's close enough for state work.
I've got to give you props for that. I favorited your post.
Thank you. I was getting too deep into this one, and to have my chain pulled is refreshing and reminds me to pull out of my tunnel vision.
After all, as the Joker asks, "Why so serious?" ;)
Not really.
Get into the history of racial relations between hispanics and African Americans in the U.S. The two groups have a history, especially in the modern era, of conflicting with each other.
You're not saying anything that effectively contradicts me. Zimmerman's dad is a retired judge. Culturally he's as white as you can get and physically he's close enough for state work.
Admittedly, it's mostly seen in gang wars, but hispanics have been convicted of hate crimes against African Americans. But not always.
Then again, latinos are not innocent either.
Note the Mexican one I originally found labeling them as hispanics... but it was a Fox News article. Needless to say, I didn't choose it for obvious reasons. Still, it might fit in this case. Especially since the news articles can't decide if the crowd is hispanic or latino. But, for completeness sake, here's one from the same source that calls them hispanics.
What it shows is that there is definite violence between those two races, without one being "white enough" for fear to be involved. So it should come as no surprise that, no matter which side of Zimmerman's blood you look at, there's a history of racial problems with African Americans. Plus, he claims to be hispanic on his voter registration.
Fallacy of composition. Just because zimmerman has a hispanic mother does not place him in some ages long gangsata fued between blacks and Hispanics. He sounds exactly like any other angry old white guy playing dirty harry.
BNW, the same fallacy applies to your post. Just because his father is a white judge does not place him in the same racial or social category as far as his interactions with the rest of society go. And the only proof you have is what neighborhood he lived in and what kind of people tend to live in that neighborhood, while the only proof I have is what race he claims and that the race he claims doesn't necessarily have a good relationship with the African American community.
And at the end of the day, we're both arguing as though racial interactions are inherently tied to race, which is yet another fallacy.
So, we're at an impasse, since neither of us has any evidence that supports our arguments.
Edit: Just checked. Zimmerman apparently ended up homeless at some point after the trial. So, the social category bit definitely no longer applies if it ever did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, the same fallacy applies to your post. Just because his father is a white judge does not place him in the same racial category as far as his interactions with the rest of society go.
His father is not only white but a judge.
He was a wanna be copHe was known to the police, so whatever friendly relations white people normally have with the police he had in spades.
He was on the neighborhood watch
I've heard his phone calls to the police- he sounds like like a scared racist white guy.
I mean seriously, if your typical latino gang member shoots someone do they stick around to TALK to the police? Hell no.
In so much as white culture is a thing he was a part of it and we have evidence of it.
BNW, the same fallacy applies to your post. Just because his father is a white judge does not place him in the same racial category as far as his interactions with the rest of society go.His father is not only white but a judge.
He was a wanna be cop
He was known to the police, so whatever friendly relations white people normally have with the police he had in spades.
He was on the neighborhood watch
I've heard his phone calls to the police- he sounds like like a scared racist white guy.I mean seriously, if your typical latino gang member shoots someone do they stick around to TALK to the police? Hell no.
In so much as white culture is a thing he was a part of it and we have evidence of it.
So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?
People who are not part of the white culture cannot want to be cops?
People who are not part of the white culture cannot be known and friendly with police?
People who are not part of the white culture cannot form a neighborhood watch?
People who are not part of the white culture cannot be well spoken, scared, and racist?
Seriously, your argument is that people who are not part of the white culture simply do not want to make society better, enforce laws, keep their neighborhoods safe, be scared and racist, or speak English with any degree of command? And thus, Zimmerman must be part of white culture?
You really are going for the "minorities are badly-spoken crime-lovers" stance to defend your position? Please show me I'm wrong. Please show me your stance is not that. Because, really, that is the gist of your argument right now. And I really, really want to have misunderstood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To my thinking, one human being shot another human being to death. Out of all the reasons he might have done so, it may be that the victim's race had something to do with it. It strikes me as a supremely stupid reason to kill someone. Things get far better if you see your fellow humans as HUMANS, and refuse to play into the crap that is identifying people primarily depending on whatever group you think is relevant. It's always a bad idea to apply race goggles to everyone. Discrimination in its original meaning means about the same as "distinguish from". That in and of itself is the worst problem with racism, not WHO gets treated badly due to race. Of course, it is UNDERSTANDABLE that being victimized results in aggression... but doing the same back improves nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it would help to stop speaking of different races when people just look different? It's an outdated concept anyway.
There is that, too.
Ah, found it.
"They called themselves the Munrungs. It meant The People, or The True Human Beings.
"It's what most people call themselves, to begin with. And then one day the tribe meets some other people, and gives them a name like The Other People, or, if it's not been a good day, The Enemy. If only they'd think up a name like Some More True Human Beings, it'd save a lot of trouble later on."
- The Carpet People, Sir Terry Pratchett
Partly true, thejeff. Thing is, bigots (who are pretty much by definition people with a low self-image) can't do this well without support from above. There is always something that promotes it in the communication from those in power. And here's the thing: The bigshots WANT various groups to mistrust one another, so they keep providing that minimum. Today, we see it in various endorsed debates about which race group that is worst off, who of which race should be allowed to pass the queue for university, how drugs/cop violence/whatever impacts a specific race, and so on and so forth. It KEEPS PEOPLE FOCUSING ON RACE. If nobody talked about race at all, any such talk would be delegitimizing for the person presenting it. Much like how the Klan lost its PR battle through people frowning. Another important part to this is that race is not the only way to discriminate. Age groups, nationals vs illegal aliens, which immigration group someone comes from, educated vs uneducated... it's all food for the gristle mill that is divide and conquer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Of course that was what I meant. You soooo got me. =)
If someone is beaten up by a cop, that's a complaint that should be followed up. If someone is more qualified than other applicants and doesn't get a job, same thing goes. There ARE ways to deal with it that do not include treating people as anything but people. If cops did face consequences for not following the rules, they would follow said rules. If complaints about landlords in poor areas were not ignored, said landlords would adapt or find other work. Most of the victimization done to people based on race would be much easier to handle IF ONLY OTHER PARTS OF THE SYSTEM WORKED AS THEY SHOULD. Money simply can't be an objection in a country where nobody actually knows how many anti-terrorism authorities actually exist.
Also, anonymity should be used as far as humanly possible. Anonymous applications for jobs and educations are difficult to make biased on race.
But, as I say, the people in charge do not want racial tensions to end, because it plays into their strategy.
I find your last paragraph questionable, thejeff. I could say the very same thing: If we just let the government sponsor ENOUGH race theory and statistics, that'll screw the man. If we just let the government work in every detail of our lives to ban racism, we'll be in a land of ponies and rainbows.
The thing is, Jeff, that you play into the racists' hands if you keep using "race" to describe groups of people that are not races. The concept simply isn't true when it comes to human beings.
'Racism' is another problematic word. The phenomenon it describes exists, of course, but it's to narrow to use it to explain things like 'Homophobia' or 'Islamophobia', even if its definition has been expanded to encompass those phenomena as well.
These 'phobias' are problematic words, too. Sure, fear is a big motivator for people to reject other people. But it's not the only reason.
However, we need a word or a term that describes all of the above, because they are essentially the same: the rejection of people because of a perceived common attribute. German scientists came up with the word monster "Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit" (basically: "group-related hostility towards people"). It's very accurate, but difficult to say or write.
I think it is silly to assume that people are going to stop classifying groups of people based on perceived characteristics shared within the group.
That is exactly how we as humans understand the world. When a child is learning about animals, they have to learn that both their housecat and the lion at the zoo are cats. They have to see the characteristics they share and notice that some other animals do not share these characteristics. They then need to understand that lions are not the same as housecats even though they are both cats. And they have to recognize those differences.
What is a chair and what is a table? Is a stool a chair or a table? Why is it a stool and not a chair?
The way we understand these things is to classify them. It is not an issue of low self esteem, but a natural part of how we as humans understand the world. We will never understand how to combat these prejudices as long as we act as if classifying groups of things based on perceived characteristics is inherently wrong, because we are just denying our natural method of understanding the world.