Racism on display at University of Virginia

ThatRobGuy said:

Many of the drug laws racist intent...and in some cases, the authors of such policies didn't even hide it.

Nixon's own domestic policy advisor had this to say:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Click to expand...

No offense, but even far left wing sources like Vox dismiss that idea...

Was Nixon's war on drugs a racially motivated crusade? It's a bit more complicated.

But Ehrlichman's claim is likely an oversimplification, according to historians who have studied the period and Nixon's drug policies in particular. There's no doubt Nixon was racist, and historians told me that race could have played one role in Nixon's drug war. But there are also signs that Nixon wasn't solely motivated by politics or race: For one, he personally despised drugs — to the point that it's not surprising he would want to rid the world of them. And there's evidence that Ehrlichman felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after he spent time in prison over the Watergate scandal, so he may have lied.

More importantly, Nixon's drug policies did not focus on the kind of criminalization that Ehrlichman described. Instead, Nixon's drug war was largely a public health crusade

So a bitter former adviser trying to tarnish his legacy isn't the best source....especially when we have the words of Nixon himself.

This link also has an interesting take on the matter:
Crack vrs. Powder Cocaine: One Drug, Two Penalties

Click to expand...

I already read that...which is why I asked for evidence. You're the one who says motives matter.

Why Blue Lives Matter Is Just as Dangerous as White Lives Matter

The growing political support for White Lives Matters and Blues Lives Matter has ironically occurred in a period in which the deaths of police officers in the line duty are down 8% in 2016 compared to previous years. In fact— contrary to criticisms that Black Lives Matter incites violence against cops and what critics perceive as U.S. President Barack Obama's lack of support for law enforcement—police fatalities incurred in the line of duty between 2009 and 2015 are at the lowest levels in more than 30 years. Data collected on police fatalities simply does not show a growing crisis of mortal attacks on law enforcement.

The cooptation of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" for Blue Lives Matter and White Lives Matter by those opposing the Movement for Black Lives and by a national organization of police officers and their supporters epitomizes a willful ignorance about racist policing. Using the “Lives Matter” formulation rallies people wedded to the idea that police are under attack in an unprecedented way.

Click to expand...

Police are under attack. Harassment and abuse hurled at police just doing their job is a relatively common event now.

If the lack of murders of police somehow delegitimize Blue Lives Matter....then the lack of police murdering black people delegitimizes Black Lives Matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...he-real-cause-of-soaring-black-homicides/amp/

"In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest.

Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer."

So as far as narratives go...who has the legitimate cause for concern?

Yes, and when that process fails repeatedly, people lose faith in that process and seek accountability via legislative means rather than judicial/executive ones.

Click to expand...

You're acting like I wasn't alive for all of this...

A black man would be shot by police and in a couple of days there would be a protest. Don't tell me they just wanted accountability, when the investigation had barely begun...they had already reached their conclusion.

The "we investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrong doing" by the departments themselves hasn't shown to be particularly effective.

Click to expand...

How do you know that?

The court angle hasn't been very effective (it's the same system that found Brailsford innocent after executing an unarmed man who was on all 4's crying please don't shoot while outnumbered by armed cops 3-to-1), and then allowed the police force to re-hire him for 20 days, just so they could grant him a medical discharge so he could get his pension.

Click to expand...

They also found OJ innocent...nobody is claiming the justice system is perfect.

Look at the number of times when a judge clears the officer in a criminal case, then weeks later, a civil suit is filed and the police force was found to be guilty of wrongdoing, then it's taxpayers who get to pay for it when the city settles with the family.

Click to expand...

Ok...I don't really have to explain the difference between civil law and criminal law, do I?

Being found liable for a civil suit doesn't make one guilty of a crime.

Anecdotes are not evidence, obviously, but based on the feedback I've heard from my family members in the profession, if you're a cop and get pulled over and are "a little tipsy", as long as you're not completely wasted, the normal operating procedure is to give "professional courtesy". There are news stories that cover such events occurring as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah...what does that have to do with the public though?

You can even look at documented statements from officers on the matter from interviews:
This is from a pro-police publication that interviews officers and gauges attitudes on a wide variety of topics (sort of like a gallup poll for cops)


“I feel there are two things to consider: 1. An off-duty officer will help you if he is driving by and you need help. 2. We should treat our brother/sister officers like we want to be treated. If we would want professional courtesy when we get pulled over then we should pay the same respect back. The bottom line: we should not be giving other cops tickets, period.”
— Officer Anthony Signore, Redding (Conn.) Police Dept.


“I'm a Sgt. with my department with 18 years of service. Normally, I do not give other officers traffic tickets, but I have done so in the past.”
— Sgt. Guy Finney, La Coste (Texas) Police Dept.


“Law enforcement officers need to stick together, now more than ever! Petty nonsense like writing other cops is ridiculous and it should be taught in all police academies that you don’t write [up] cops!”
— Detective Gary Olivier, Rye (N.Y.) Police Dept.


“I’ve got more important things to do than cite a fellow officer. I haven’t found a need to do so in 37 years on the job.”
— Sgt. Brian Stover

“I thought ‘blue was blue’ but it appears from the poll that isn't the case anymore! Glad I'm retired after 31 years in LE. The job isn't the brotherhood it used to be.”
— Ken Frisbie, Retired from Chicopee (Mass.) Police Dept. since Sept. 2003

“Sorry, but to the officers that issue citations to other officers, I have to say: If you’re on a traffic stop and you’re getting your butt kicked, you had better pray an off-duty officer is driving by. We need to take care of each other because the general public is most likely not going to.”
— Officer Mike Ely, Aurora (Ill.) Police Dept.

Do these kinds of statements (combined with 38% officers responding opening saying "no, I don't ticket other officers, and over half saying it depends") give you a lot of confidence?

Click to expand...

Confidence in what? Cops don't give cops tickets for speeding. They also let a multitude of civilians slide for various traffic violations.

What are you suggesting? That they not be given this discretion?

I heard that PandaExpress gives all their employees a free meal per shift. I heard Walmart offers a small discount to employees...and so does Amazon. Cops basically have one benefit they're allowed to exploit while they're cops and you're upset about it?

You realize that if they lost the ability to use their own discretion....there would be no more "warnings" for you and anyone else. Just tickets from that point on.

ThatRobGuy said:

I've never heard anyone refer to Metalheads or Punks as "Thugs", Punks are usually just called "punks", and metalheads are more likely to draw terms like "burnout"/"slacker"/etc...nor have I ever heard that term being used to describe greasers (granted, didn't have a lot of experience with greasers being popular in my time, I think that fad fizzled out about 10-15 years before I was born)

Since the late 70's/early 80's, "Thug" (with regards to way to describe what someone's dressed like) has almost always been used as a reference to whatever style is popularized by young black men or popularized by the hip-hop scene (which obviously skews mostly black).

The google image search algorithm doesn't lie, it's built off of heuristic logic that builds up what people click on after searching for a particular term, and slowly bubbles those results up to the top of the list. (thus establishing at pattern of what people are looking for when searching for a particular term)

Search for "dressed like a thug"...

Not seeing any skinheads, greasers, rudeboys, punks, or bikers coming back high on the list.

It's all pictures of young black people and whatever fashion style is prevalent at the time (or pictures of white guys trying to copy that style)

Click to expand...

And where did that style come from and how did it become popular? Its roots are from gangsta rap which glorified violence, drugs and abuse of women. Gangs adopted the clothing and it moved mainstream. If you were clothes that identify with certain elements then you have to be willing to accept that people will see you that way.

If I wore a sheet and a pointy hat I have to be willing to recognize I may be seen as a racist. Preppies wear certain types of clothes, Emos do the same. So did hippies and punk rockers. So if you don't want to be seen as a certain thing don't wear things that identify with them.

If you don't want to be seen as a Trump supporter don't wear a MAGA hat.

ThatRobGuy said:

You're pulling a bait and switch there..."how many generations after X should black people be treated equally?" wasn't the original question you asked, so that wasn't the question I answered.

Your original question was:
How many generations after segregation is it gonna be used as an excuse for a lack of success, bad behavior, and bigotry from black people?

To that, I provided the stats showing that, in the US, it takes 5 generations to break the poverty cycle according to OECD.

So, given that we've both acknowledged that laws of the past have been responsible for the initial state of poverty much of the black community was placed into, and that under normal conditions, it would take 5 generations to break that cycle, racist laws from pre-1968 aren't an "excuse" for a lack of financial success, they're a valid reason/explanation for a lack of success.

Meaning, it's quite feasible for a black person, still in sub-par economic conditions in the south in 2020, to lay blame on the entities that made the laws that created initial condition of poverty in the first place.

The resentment and anger starts to kick in when people (who aren't in that situation, or have been one of the folks fortunate to be in that 10% of folks who've enjoyed upward mobility from their prior generation) tries to tell them that their reasoning isn't valid and their situation is their own fault. (regardless of whether or not it's coming from a place racial bigotry)

That's not just on racial lines either...same goes for all poverty. (it just so happens to be that a substantial portion of black poverty was largely created out of racist environments years ago, as to where other forms of poverty can be attributed to various unfavorable market conditions)
The same way it'd be unreasonable for me (who was fortunate enough to have grandparents who had decent incomes, and have benefited from that) to drive to the trailer park 20 miles away, and tell them "this is your own doing, the reason you don't have a nice house like me is because you haven't worked hard enough, or because there's some sort of culture problem in the trailer park".

Me being secure enough to admit that the disparity (that's tipped in my favor) isn't 100% the result of my own doing doesn't diminish the fact that I did/do work hard for what I have, it just acknowledges the fact that my current standard of living compared to theirs is partly due to the benefits of generational income patterns that are out of both of our control.

Click to expand...

What will break the poverty cycle for any group is going to school, graduating, going to college. Stop having babies out of wedlock. That's what keeps unwed mother's poor. There's more but that's a start.

ThatRobGuy said:

..that's why my reply to the other poster mentioned looking for the impetus behind creating the laws in the first place.

Just as an example:

If I'm a city council member, and have had a history of having some "not so great things" to say about Irish Americans. And go out of my way to find a "crime of moral turpitude" that I know they're statistically engaging in more often, and go out of my way to make sure that particular crime is a disqualifier for voting,

It'd be pretty clear what I was trying to do there, and simply saying "it's not prejudiced, anyone who commits that crime gets the same punishment" is just trying to leverage some sort of deniability.

If you look at the history behind Jim Crow era disenfranchisement, the people behind those laws weren't even coy about their motivation for making them.

'To Disenfranchise Every Negro That I Could'

The very fact that the only concern with some of the disenfranchisement laws is that "they may reach too many white men as well", and that's the only reason they didn't make them even more sweeping than they did.

Click to expand...

So which laws on the book today specifically focus on black people?

ThatRobGuy said:

You're still asking two different questions here "how long is it going to be an excuse for lack of success?" vs. "when are you gonna start treating us as equal?" are addressing two different things.

Click to expand...

First of all, I said success, bad behavior and bigotry. Why are you only focusing on success and trying to ignore bad behavior and bigotry? And success is not limited to wealth.

Then I clarified by suggesting when you don’t apply the same standards to black people that you apply to everyone else, you are not treating equally.

My question is about equal treatment, not money or wealth. Care to try again?

Ana the Ist said:

Confidence in what? Cops don't give cops tickets for speeding. They also let a multitude of civilians slide for various traffic violations.

Click to expand...

You asked "what are they looking the other way on", so I provided examples showing percentages of how many officers refuse to ticket other officers, as well as quotes from actual officers:

“Law enforcement officers need to stick together, now more than ever! Petty nonsense like writing other cops is ridiculous and it should be taught in all police academies that you don’t write [up] cops!”
— Detective Gary Olivier, Rye (N.Y.) Police Dept.

"It should be taught in academies that you don't write up other cops" doesn't sound like a "we want discretion" stance, it sounds like a "we're special and shouldn't have to play by the same rules" stance.




If a substantial number of officers put the "blue brotherhood" above all else, to the degree that they consider it unthinkable for one of their blue brothers to get something as trivial as a $70 speeding ticket, do you you really think they're going to "turn rat" when other more serious infractions are taking place.

There's a reason why internal affairs is the least popular department among police officers.

Ken-1122 said:

So which laws on the book today specifically focus on black people?

Click to expand...

Ken-1122 said:

First of all, I said success, bad behavior and bigotry. Why are you only focusing on success and trying to ignore bad behavior and bigotry? And success is not limited to wealth.

Then I clarified by suggesting when you don’t apply the same standards to black people that you apply to everyone else, you are not treating equally.

My question is about equal treatment, not money or wealth. Care to try again?

Click to expand...

I've already stated that everyone should be treated equally. If the typical number of generations to break a cycle of poverty among a group is 5, then that's the expectation I have for all groups that were deliberately put in a state of poverty from factors outside their own control...that goes for all races religions, etc...

As far as "bad behavior", much of that comes along with (and is a side effect of) poverty. So poverty/"lack of financial success" is still at the root of it.

Hi risk and criminal behavior is always more prevalent among lower income communities than it is in wealthy ones, regardless of race.

As far as the racial animus (bigotry), I would absolutely apply same standards in the same situations.

For instance, if there was a group, that was deliberately put in a state of poverty due to malice from another group, I would be affording them the same leniency (with regards to understanding certain resentments they may hold toward the other group). For instance, I would afford the same leniency to Asian Americans who may hold resentments after having their property seized during WW2, and Jewish people as a result of what they experienced.

You may say I'm engaging in "unequal treatment", I'd argue that the opposing side of the debate is engaging in "unequal expectations", which is a form of unequal treatment. As it expects one group to "let bygones be bygones" (after decades of abysmal treatment), yet justifies outrage from some folks about a girl saying something mean on a cell phone video hurting their feelings.

Seems like this entire thread (especially if you consider the track record of the OP) is another one of those desperate attempts to promote the myth of equivalency as a means to to act as if there's any merit to the sentiment "White Christian Men are the true victims in society".

rjs330 said:

What will break the poverty cycle for any group is going to school, graduating, going to college. Stop having babies out of wedlock. That's what keeps unwed mother's poor. There's more but that's a start.

Click to expand...

Single parent homes also exhibit a multi-generational pattern as well. So one could make a cogent argument that if anything was done in the past few generations that created more single parent homes (like say, locking up young fathers for non-violent drug offenses at a disproportionate rate), that can start of a cycle that's tough to break.

Furthermore, the things you mention cost money (going to college, pregnancy prevention), and to the best of my knowledge, many of the people in the "you just need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, this is all on you" party are also the same one's who insist on not having any programs to assist in accomplishing those things. (IE: actively fighting against measures to provide contraception and affordable post-secondary education)

Ana the Ist said:

They also found OJ innocent...nobody is claiming the justice system is perfect.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would have the expectation of perfection...they just want there to be one system instead of two.

There's the version that rich and government-connected people (including LEOs go through), and there's the version that the rest of us go through.

The issue with that is when you have a criminal justice system that's skewed against lower income folks (IE: your chances in court are substantially impacted by how good of lawyer you can afford...or if you're in a law enforcement position and have a cozy relationship with prosecutors), that's going to disproportionately impact demographic groups that have a higher overlap with "low income" groups.

While that's not directly "racially motivated", it does produce racially disparate outcomes...and from the perspective of the person going through it, I doubt it offers much comfort to them that they're getting screwed over because they're poor, not because of any racial aspects.

ThatRobGuy said:

I've already stated that everyone should be treated equally. If the typical number of generations to break a cycle of poverty among a group is 5, then that's the expectation I have for all groups that were deliberately put in a state of poverty from factors outside their own control...that goes for all races religions, etc...

As far as "bad behavior", much of that comes along with (and is a side effect of) poverty. So poverty/"lack of financial success" is still at the root of it.

Hi risk and criminal behavior is always more prevalent among lower income communities than it is in wealthy ones, regardless of race.

As far as the racial animus (bigotry), I would absolutely apply same standards in the same situations.

For instance, if there was a group, that was deliberately put in a state of poverty due to malice from another group, I would be affording them the same leniency (with regards to understanding certain resentments they may hold toward the other group). For instance, I would afford the same leniency to Asian Americans who may hold resentments after having their property seized during WW2, and Jewish people as a result of what they experienced.

You may say I'm engaging in "unequal treatment", I'd argue that the opposing side of the debate is engaging in "unequal expectations", which is a form of unequal treatment. As it expects one group to "let bygones be bygones" (after decades of abysmal treatment), yet justifies outrage from some folks about a girl saying something mean on a cell phone video hurting their feelings.

Seems like this entire thread (especially if you consider the track record of the OP) is another one of those desperate attempts to promote the myth of equivalency as a means to to act as if there's any merit to the sentiment "White Christian Men are the true victims in society".

Click to expand...

There sure is a tie in with bad behavior and poverty. The tie in is bad behavior, and criminality are a huge chunk of the reason why they are poor. Being poor dies not have to lead to bad behavior and criminality. You do NOT have to have bad character because You're poor.

I've heard too often, well dealing drugs makes you more money than working. People of good character would rather work and make less money than be a drug dealer and being involved in everything that entails.

So bad character is NOT a side effect of poverty. Especially in the US where there is help everywhere and these days there are jobs everywhere.

You don't see Asian Americans dealing with the same issues as the African Americans. You see the Jews being prosperous. The Irish were treated badly as well, but they are doing okay.

And your last sentence is pure Hokum. The real point is there is that no one should be racist and all racism should be condemned, not understood.

ThatRobGuy said:

Single parent homes also exhibit a multi-generational pattern as well. So one could make a cogent argument that if anything was done in the past few generations that created more single parent homes (like say, locking up young fathers for non-violent drug offenses at a disproportionate rate), that can start of a cycle that's tough to break.

Furthermore, the things you mention cost money (going to college, pregnancy prevention), and to the best of my knowledge, many of the people in the "you just need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, this is all on you" party are also the same one's who insist on not having any programs to assist in accomplishing those things. (IE: actively fighting against measures to provide contraception and affordable post-secondary education)

Click to expand...

I thought planned Parenthood gave out contraceptives. And whose running the post secondary education? Liberals are for the most part. So why don't they get that under control? You know how much University presidents make?

rjs330 said:

There sure is a tie in with bad behavior and poverty. The tie in is bad behavior, and criminality are a huge chunk of the reason why they are poor. Being poor dies not have to lead to bad behavior and criminality. You do NOT have to have bad character because You're poor.

I've heard too often, well dealing drugs makes you more money than working. People of good character would rather work and make less money than be a drug dealer and being involved in everything that entails.

Click to expand...

If you look at sociological data, it's the other way around. Growing up in a poverty stricken environment does increase the likelihood of bad behavior as a side effect, the poverty is not the result of bad behavior. Not sure where you got the idea in bold above, but it's factually incorrect.

There are not large numbers of middle class people becoming poor because they committed crimes, and low income communities certainly aren't filled with former middle class people who got busted.
The Poverty-Crime Connection

Anyone who says that "dealing drugs makes you more money than working" is clearly misinformed on that topic. Street level dealers aren't living the Escobar life.

Your average street level dealer who works for himself makes about $20k/year
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittVenkateshAnEconomicAnalysis2000.pdf

...about $10-15k if they work for someone else and have higher level people they have to answer to.

When you grow up in an environment with fewer options (this goes for all races when it comes to poverty), certain paths (that most people wouldn't ever consider) become more appealing.

rjs330 said:

I thought planned Parenthood gave out contraceptives. And whose running the post secondary education? Liberals are for the most part. So why don't they get that under control? You know how much University presidents make?

Click to expand...

They try to when they're not getting their funding cut.

When you say "liberals are running colleges"? What exactly are you referring to here? Because most professors skew left? They're not the ones setting the price point for how much colleges cost.

In most states, it's a combination of multiple entities that are collaborating on where to set the price point.

https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/04/71/10471.pdf


For your question on how much university presidents make? That varies widely between private and public institutions and between states. However there's no data to suggest that lowering a presidents salary would even begin to address the issue of rising tuition costs. You could make them work for free and evenly divide their salary among all the students tuition, and it wouldn't make much of a difference

Ana the Ist said:

"In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest.

Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer."

So as far as narratives go...who has the legitimate cause for concern?

Click to expand...

Obviously if these stats are correct, then the police would be more likely to be concerned for their lives...however, I'm pretty sure most officers new their job would put them in more danger than many other vocations when they signed up, yes?

However, as agents of the executive branch (thus representing the government), they're held to a higher standard in the public eye (something else they also knew when they signed up).



Is the meme a bit snarky, sure...but it does highlight an entitlement mindset from the police.

When it comes to misconduct, it's quite telling that the "not all cops are bad" talking point has to be used almost daily to defend the profession and promote the "just a few bad apples" narrative

I've never heard anyone have to use the logic of "not all firefighters are bad" in a debate. That fact is self evident. Nor has any substantially sized portion of the population felt the need to form a social movement to call for accountability for EMTs and Paramedics.

When a doctor screws up, they lose their medical license
When a lawyer screws up, they face disbarment
When a police officer screws up, they put on administrative leave (with pay) while a police union tries to make a deal with the prosecutors office to get them qualified immunity

It only takes a quick search to uncover that, in the developed world, the US is the standout with regards to police using lethal force on citizens, even when compared to other countries were police officers are routinely armed.

ThatRobGuy said:

You asked "what are they looking the other way on", so I provided examples showing percentages of how many officers refuse to ticket other officers, as well as quotes from actual officers:

Click to expand...

I assumed that it would have something to do with racism....you know, to stay somewhat relevant to the topic.

"It should be taught in academies that you don't write up other cops" doesn't sound like a "we want discretion" stance, it sounds like a "we're special and shouldn't have to play by the same rules" stance.

Click to expand...

It's also one guy's opinion.

If a substantial number of officers put the "blue brotherhood" above all else, to the degree that they consider it unthinkable for one of their blue brothers to get something as trivial as a $70 speeding ticket, do you you really think they're going to "turn rat" when other more serious infractions are taking place.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty unreasonable false equivalency. Do I think that cops probably let other cops get away with speeding? Sure. Does that mean they are going to let each other get away with murder? Lol no...of course not.

Cops get disciplined and fired all the time for all sorts of behavior, policy infractions, and mistakes....the fact that it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen often.

There's a reason why internal affairs is the least popular department among police officers.

Click to expand...

According to your favorite Lethal Weapon movie?

ThatRobGuy said:

I've already stated that everyone should be treated equally. If the typical number of generations to break a cycle of poverty among a group is 5, then that's the expectation I have for all groups that were deliberately put in a state of poverty from factors outside their own control...that goes for all races religions, etc...

As far as "bad behavior", much of that comes along with (and is a side effect of) poverty. So poverty/"lack of financial success" is still at the root of it.

Hi risk and criminal behavior is always more prevalent among lower income communities than it is in wealthy ones, regardless of race.

Click to expand...

I don’t think poverty is at the root of it. I know several black people who make good money, live in nice neighborhoods, and their kids, rather than wanting to follow their parents lead, they wanna be gangsta and act like thugs; getting in trouble with the law, they are attracted to the criminal element. This is a cultural problem; not a financial one. The Hip Hop culture will celebrate Jay-Z, or Michael Jordan as billionaires striving to be like them, but don’t even notice Robert Smith, or David Steward, who could buy Michael and Jay many times over, most don’t even know who they are! It is almost like the white richest (Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg) everybody knows who they are and young white kids will look up to them as role models of success, but black kids will ignore the black richest and focus on the entertainers who are just rich. IMO a culture change and priority change is in order, and no amount of “blame the white man” is gonna fix it, and blaming current poverty on the injustices of the past will not get us anywhere either. I truly believe that the quickest route to failure in life is to insist other people need to change in order for you to move foreword because when you place the responsibility of your success into the hands of others, you will have no motivation to change. Our biggest problems are not the crimes of the past, but the priorities of today.

ThatRobGuy said:

Obviously if these stats are correct, then the police would be more likely to be concerned for their lives...however, I'm pretty sure most officers new their job would put them in more danger than many other vocations when they signed up, yes?

Click to expand...

Sure....but we're talking about competing narratives. If people are marching around shouting that the police are terrorists unjustly killing a group of people because they're racist....it's valid to point out that it's more likely for the police to be murdered by that race than the other way around.

However, as agents of the executive branch (thus representing the government), they're held to a higher standard in the public eye (something else they also knew when they signed up).

Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean by "higher standard" but sure...generally speaking I'd agree with that.

View attachment 272283

Is the meme a bit snarky, sure...but it does highlight an entitlement mindset from the police.

Click to expand...

Lol a bit snarky? It's entirely delusional. It says "uh oh they're fighting back" as if the cops are automatically the aggressors. There's this weird mindset some people have that unless they believe they're doing something wrong....they don't need to obey any orders from the police at all. Law enforcement doesn't really work that way.

The irony is I've never heard a cop express any surprise at the dangers inherent to their jobs like that....but I have seen the family of criminals do it. I actually posted a thread a little while ago where the family of a young black man who was shot and killed during the course of an armed robbery....was trying to blame and sue the store for defending themselves. It sounds like an article from the Onion...but they were completely serious. They felt that even though their brother was pointing a gun at the face of an employee and demanding money....the employees had no right to shoot him first.

I've tried to understand how people like that...and apparently the creator of this meme...can get to the point where they relate to and sympathize with criminals more than the police. The best answer I can come up with is that since the relative crime rate is so high compared to other western countries...people are more likely to have friends and family who are criminals than who are police. This is probably more likely in those communities where the crime rates are higher.

Also I've never understood the problem people have with paid leave. If a cop gets into a situation where they have to use force...people want it investigated, right? That's what accountability is all about, isn't it? Well as that investigation happens...it makes sense to not have that cop performing police duties. You don't want a potential murderer or violently aggressive cop dealing with the public....or really working with the other police in any way.

You can't fire them....they may very well have only been doing their job. Nobody would be a cop if they just got fired for defending themselves.

Investigations can take time....people need to be interviewed, evidence gathered, reports written. Denying them payment would be another type of punishment and again....what kind of job punishes the people who do it correctly?

Paid leave is really the only reasonable option. I get that some people think that's unfair....but it seems as if those people are simply biased against police and have already assumed the cop is guilty.

When it comes to misconduct, it's quite telling that the "not all cops are bad" talking point has to be used almost daily to defend the profession and promote the "just a few bad apples" narrative

Click to expand...

That's going to happen when people use a few select examples to generalize about the entire group. You're going to get people pointing out the fact that they are the exception and not the rule.

My guess is that you probably think it's wrong for people to generalize about an entire group based on a minority of examples.

I've never heard anyone have to use the logic of "not all firefighters are bad" in a debate. That fact is self evident. Nor has any substantially sized portion of the population felt the need to form a social movement to call for accountability for EMTs and Paramedics.

Click to expand...

If you were given stories every week about a firefighter who made a mistake or an EMT who failed to follow proper procedure...you probably would.

People aren't interested in those stories though....because experiences with firefighters are largely positive. They show up to keep your house from burning down. EMTs don't punish someone for overdosing on illegal drugs....they simply try to save someone's life.

Cops show up when people have broken the law...and their job revolves around determining who broke a law and then reacting accordingly. It's a much different interaction than the other two.

When a doctor screws up, they lose their medical license

Click to expand...

Not really...no. Doctors screw up all the time. Have you never been misdiagnosed?

A mistake that incurs damages will typically be covered by malpractice insurance (because we accept that doctors are human and sometimes make mistakes). Obviously, if a mistake is serious enough it might result in the loss of license...but certainly not every time.

When a lawyer screws up, they face disbarment

Click to expand...

I can see you're trying to come up with a comparable job to try and paint police in a negative manner....

There isn't one I can think of. I can't think of any type of lawyer that faces unexpected split second lawyering with potentially fatal consequences. It's not that being a lawyer isn't a high stress job....it's just not the same kinds of stress/stakes.

When a police officer screws up, they put on administrative leave (with pay) while a police union tries to make a deal with the prosecutors office to get them qualified immunity

Click to expand...

I can see you're the type that jumps to conclusions about guilt.

Qualified immunity exists for the same reason your meme above jokes about. Policing is an inherently dangerous job.

It only takes a quick search to uncover that, in the developed world, the US is the standout with regards to police using lethal force on citizens, even when compared to other countries were police officers are routinely armed.

Click to expand...

It is....it's also a standout amongst those same nations in regards to the number of police killed and assaulted on the job. You should also look at the public reactions when their police are killed....you see a lot of shock, outrage, and an outpouring of public support. It's not uncommon to see demands from the public that something is done to stop the criminals.

You don't really see this apathetic "oh well, police get killed sometimes" attitude you tend to see over here.

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't think anyone would have the expectation of perfection...they just want there to be one system instead of two.

There's the version that rich and government-connected people (including LEOs go through), and there's the version that the rest of us go through.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here in regards to police....because it could be several things. I don't really want to guess.

The issue with that is when you have a criminal justice system that's skewed against lower income folks (IE: your chances in court are substantially impacted by how good of lawyer you can afford...or if you're in a law enforcement position and have a cozy relationship with prosecutors), that's going to disproportionately impact demographic groups that have a higher overlap with "low income" groups.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to say that a "relationship with a prosecutor" never influences the justice system....but I don't think it's got a big impact.

There's at least a couple of things in regards to police that influence their outcomes in court. Things like training, experience, and the fact that they're given authority. Experience is relatively easy to understand...you have a mechanic, or weatherman, or chef, or anyone with a specific body of knowledge....and that person's testimony is given more weight regarding that topic than a lay person's. You may know how to cook a steak, but if you and a chef and you have different testimony on that topic...it would make more sense to give the chef's testimony more weight.

You may think that doesn't necessarily apply to relatively new cops....and you're right. That's where training comes in. As long as a rookie cop follows his training, it would be difficult to find him guilty After all, the government trained him...it would be hard to blame him for doing as he was instructed. We can find fault in the training, but that just means another party is guilty (like the police department for example)

Authority is a trickier subject....but think of it this way, the cop is given the power to enforce the law. It's a necessary power for the law to mean anything. That's why in practical terms, in the absence of evidence, a cop's testimony has more weight than a civilian'e. Let's say a cop is driving along at the 50mph speed limit....a car rolls by him at about 60mph....and he gives them a ticket. He doesn't have hus radar or any other physical evidence of the person speeding. The person challenges the ticket...basically making it the cop's word vs the driver's word.

Why does the court believe the cop? Because he was given the authority to enforce the law. Does that power have a potential for abuse? Of course it does...just about any power does. If a nurse is supposed to administer pain medication to a patient....and instead of giving it to the patient, she just decides to eat it herself because her back hurts or she wants to have fun....she can probably get away with it. She just logs down giving the patient the medication and takes it herself. There's a potential for abuse...but that doesn't change the fact that the hospital has to trust someone with that power. They can't just have every patient grab whatever meds they want. It's cumbersome to have someone follow around the nurse all day to ensure she does her job....and if someone did, their job would then have the potential for abuse of power.

There's no real way of getting around the fact that at some point, someone will have to be entrusted with the authority of enforcing the law.

While that's not directly "racially motivated", it does produce racially disparate outcomes...and from the perspective of the person going through it, I doubt it offers much comfort to them that they're getting screwed over because they're poor, not because of any racial aspects.

Click to expand...

Here's what I don't understand....

You seem to think that...

-people should acknowledge and not dismiss incidents of racism, even those that happened in the past.
-racism of all kinds can have a negative impact on its victims and can make them angry or resentful or upset
-including racism in the past or racism that didn't directly affect you...just someone of your race
-even incidents or disparities people suspect are racist can make people upset (like getting pulled over by the police) even if we can't be certain racism was a factor at all
-when people are angry or upset because of these things we shouldn't tell them not to be angry or upset

Those are the beliefs that I'm seeing you explain....yet when it comes to the OP...

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that it's racism...even though she's clearly trying to exclude whites because of their race. You don't want to acknowledge the impact or potential impact regardless of how large or small you think it is. You don't seem to think that the white people who appear concerned about it are legitimately concerned...you seem to think they shouldn't be.

It's not even some distant event from the past that affected different white people...it happened to white people this month.

Every time I try and get you to explain the difference....why you're holding this double standard....you seem to go further into this explanation of why this girl's hypothetical anger over hypothetical racism is justified. It's as if you're completely unaware that we can take those exact same justifications and apply them to any white person concerned about this racism against whites.

Ana the Ist said:

There's at least a couple of things in regards to police that influence their outcomes in court. Things like training, experience, and the fact that they're given authority. Experience is relatively easy to understand...you have a mechanic, or weatherman, or chef, or anyone with a specific body of knowledge....and that person's testimony is given more weight regarding that topic than a lay person's. You may know how to cook a steak, but if you and a chef and you have different testimony on that topic...it would make more sense to give the chef's testimony more weight.

You may think that doesn't necessarily apply to relatively new cops....and you're right. That's where training comes in. As long as a rookie cop follows his training, it would be difficult to find him guilty After all, the government trained him...it would be hard to blame him for doing as he was instructed. We can find fault in the training, but that just means another party is guilty (like the police department for example)

Click to expand...

Even with veteran cops, a lack of knowledge of the law is commonplace. There's a reason why in order to represent someone in court in legal matters, you need to have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. ...and not just a 5-month peace officer training program.

There's nothing about a police officers credentials that would suggest that their testimony should be given more weight than that of the person they're against in court...apart from the fact that they're depicted as "the good guys" in most cases.

Ana the Ist said:

You seem to think that...

.............

Those are the beliefs that I'm seeing you explain....yet when it comes to the OP...

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that it's racism...even though she's clearly trying to exclude whites because of their race. You don't want to acknowledge the impact or potential impact regardless of how large or small you think it is. You don't seem to think that the white people who appear concerned about it are legitimately concerned...you seem to think they shouldn't be.

It's not even some distant event from the past that affected different white people...it happened to white people this month.

Every time I try and get you to explain the difference....why you're holding this double standard....you seem to go further into this explanation of why this girl's hypothetical anger over hypothetical racism is justified. It's as if you're completely unaware that we can take those exact same justifications and apply them to any white person concerned about this racism against whites.

Click to expand...

I've said multiple times that what she said was wrong.

...but the explanation "that I keep going further into" to explain varying levels of anger are an important part of the discussion. Nuance seems to be escaping folks (not directing that at you).

Many students at that university (if they've been there for more than 2 years) haven't just experienced hypothetical "distant history" racism...they had a front row seat for the "Unite the Right" rally that took place there not long ago that culminated in a white supremacist firing a gun into a crowd, and another running down people with a car. Many of the same folks who desperately tried to find reasons why that event "wasn't all that bad" (or tried to dismiss the outrage over it...the whole "good and bad people on both sides" trope) are seemingly more agitated about this girl saying something mean on a cell phone video than people marching around a college town with swastika & confederate flags, and guns.

I think that's reflective of the environment these kids are dealing with...where they're being held to this sterling level of anti-bigotry standard "otherwise you're the ones who are racists", but when instances of racism are occurring that target their community, they're supposed to just keep they're supposed to just take it on the chin, and keep quiet about it in the name of "progress".

So, to clarify again, what she said can certainly be viewed as racist, I acknowledged that. But what needs to be acknowledged from other folks is that unaddressed (or under-addressed) racism coming from the other side can create "reverse racism" if left unchecked for long enough.

Just like the two little siblings example I mentioned before. All hitting is wrong, but if one kid is hitting the other one repeatedly, and mom either ignores it, or barely punishes the kid for it, it's only a matter of time before the other kid starts reacting with similar behavior.

Ana the Ist said:

I assumed that it would have something to do with racism....you know, to stay somewhat relevant to the topic.

Click to expand...

It does...if police officers are willing to look the other way on infractions during official stops. Do you really think they're going to not do the same in matter where they're both on the job and one acts unethically?

Ana the Ist said:

It's also one guy's opinion.

Click to expand...

Based on the police survey data, that attitude is shared by over 1/3 of the people in that profession, so he's not alone.

Ana the Ist said:

Cops get disciplined and fired all the time for all sorts of behavior, policy infractions, and mistakes....the fact that it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen often.

Click to expand...

Many times, even after an attempted termination, they end up getting their job back, or getting rehired for police work in another location.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/police-fired-rehired/

The police union is a powerful one, and when you try to fire a police officer, there's a big powerful machine behind them doing everything they can to make sure that person stays employed.

Ana the Ist said:

According to your favorite Lethal Weapon movie?

Click to expand...

Police Internal Affairs Duty Is Unpopular, a Survey Shows

Ken-1122 said:

Black people are not a part of a marginalized group

Click to expand...

Say what?

Ken-1122 said:

Jim Crow laws and racism from the past did not make white people financially successful

Click to expand...

In addition to the job competition examples given by @ThatRobGuy, whites also enjoyed advantages (i.e. less competition) in a variety of other areas. While those advantages may not have guaranteed any one white person's success, they certainly provide a leg up to those given preferential treatment for things like access to and valuation of housing, access to and pricing of financing, access to education and lucrative employment, and favorable treatment from law enforcement and politicians.

Ken-1122 said:

Thus in holding black people back, white people were holding themselves back also.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think in ways you might not. As anti-black discrimination shifted from being overtly targeted at blacks to being more targeted at poverty in general, austerity policies favored by (typically conservative) whites started catching more and more whites. It's no coincidence that the regions of this country with the worst histories of depriving blacks of access to society now also have the weakest safety nets for poor whites, too.