EPTOn the issue on which most of his posts in the past 2 pages are about. I thought that was fairly evident, I am sorry I was not clearer.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1698
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On the issue on which most of his posts in the past 2 pages are about. I thought that was fairly evident, I am sorry I was not clearer. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On March 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote: 13 is pretty close to 12. Many Hispanics identify as white (hence non-hispanic white classification) and don't look very different from Europeans. In the case of Tamir Rice, he had an airsoft/bb gun which is visually almost indistinguishable from a real gun (unlike a cell phone). If you want to get into dis-proportionality, read my previous post. Disproportional is not always incorrect or the result of racism. It can be, but you can't constantly make that assumption if you want to make things better. And as I pointed out earlier blacks are dis-proportionally arrested in liberal cities, yet you're trying to score political points by blaming whites and conservatives. If you think they are comparable we simply disagree. I am not going to hash out the details, like the officer never said he saw a gun before firing. The police departments are the ones responsible. Most 'liberal' politicians at least recognize there is a problem and at minimum pay it lip service if not actually implement/advocate for policies intended to at least try to correct them. Not that I hold them blameless, but it's clear who's generally fighting for what. Outside of this forum most conservatives don't even acknowledge there is a problem (Serm was an example of the "Maybe it's black culture" type response that is more popular outside this forum), let alone advocate that the police changing their behavior is a key responsibility in resolving it. I would at least partially absolve the Libertarian wings of the right as while many don't recognize the race angle, they at least support the idea that the police are clearly out of control. On March 05 2015 10:08 zlefin wrote: On the issue on which most of his posts in the past 2 pages are about. I thought that was fairly evident, I am sorry I was not clearer. As is commonly the case with Jonny what his point is and how it pertains to the issue at hand isn't clear. No one disputes that white children get killed by police (although only one of Jonny's examples strictly fit that parameter). The issue at hand was that it doesn't happen under the circumstances/with the outcomes seen in the Tamir Rice case. The one I think is closest would be the 17 yo (which is a pretty big difference but whatever) except the officer heard what she suspected was a gun being racked, then saw what she thought was a gun pointed at her face with the hand holding it clinched. Maybe if he answered the door then reached for his waist and she shot him that would be close enough. But it still doesn't touch the larger issue which is the frequency with which it happens. Or the undeniable bias's that are being applied by the police whether they realize it or not. Or that even though it only comes up because of a potentially unrelated incident the black residents of Ferguson (and black and brown residents in several other American cities and towns) have largely been living under the persecution of the police rather than their protection. Attempting to put forward the "white people get shot too" argument in the context of clear racial prejudices and their impact on their victims and the surrounding community is petty-fogging at best but more likely just downright insidious.. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On March 05 2015 10:38 zlefin wrote: I disagree, I think Jonny has stated his point quite clearly. Perhaps you could paraphrase it then and blurb about how it's relevant? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On March 05 2015 10:51 zlefin wrote: I'm going to sleep soon, so not really, I was expressing support for jonny, and don't want to get into an explanation jonny himself has done, and can do, better. I'm skeptical that it should of taken you much more time to quickly sum up the point and the relevance than to write that post but I'll take your word for it I guess. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On March 05 2015 07:17 Slaughter wrote: I think the whole mentality of police has grown to be very pessimistic and more aggressive. When you dump millions of dollars into arming police to the teeth it affects your attitude. Plus police and people in general seem to think being an officer is a lot more dangerous then it actually is. Another issue I think is that officers deal mostly with criminals or suspected criminals most of their day and I think that tends to change their thinking since they deal mostly with the bad elements of society, and this gets worse as they spend more time on the force. I think this is a huge issue. Cops deal with the scum of society on a daily basis, and those people tend to react irrationally and suddenly. They're also taught to react BEFORE danger strikes, in order to protect themselves and others around them. A "threat" is defined so loosely that it can be twisted in favour of the officer very easily. Mix that with the amount of public disdain they receive from ordinary citizens (much of it unwarranted and incredibly biased), and all in all it's just not a great system. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
What was this sweet lady even thinking? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On March 05 2015 11:40 Nyxisto wrote: I think if you decide to become a cop you should kind of expect that you're going to have to deal with a few scumbags a day because that's kind of what the job is about. If you can't keep stereotypes out of your head when dealing with individual persons it's maybe time to rethink if you're still up to the task. The whole "arrest first, ask second, I am the law!" attitude seems very bad. What was this sweet lady even thinking? You see how aggressively that guy was talking on the phone walking on the sidewalk!? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
Oh you want to exercise your constitutionally protected rights? How about a gun in your face and a trip to jail instead! | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13911 Posts
On March 05 2015 07:53 Paljas wrote: or, you know, maybe it is the police fault for being a racist institution. It isn't a racist institution to protect law and order. Every county and a lot of cities have separate police departments. The majority of people that go into law enforcement are white is the problem not the organizations not having a choice of who to hire. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On March 05 2015 12:25 Sermokala wrote: It isn't a racist institution to protect law and order. Every county and a lot of cities have separate police departments. The majority of people that go into law enforcement are white is the problem not the organizations not having a choice of who to hire. How is regularly violating American's Constitutionally protected rights "protecting law and order"? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13911 Posts
On March 05 2015 11:40 Nyxisto wrote: I think if you decide to become a cop you should kind of expect that you're going to have to deal with a few scumbags a day because that's kind of what the job is about. If you can't keep stereotypes out of your head when dealing with individual persons it's maybe time to rethink if you're still up to the task. The whole "arrest first, ask second, I am the law!" attitude seems very bad. What was this sweet lady even thinking? You expect people to put their life on the line for decades at a time and not take precautions to ensure their day to day saftey? It's not the bad ol Crack war days but cops are still killed and injured severly. My own dad had to retire after being hit by a methhead in a car. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13911 Posts
On March 05 2015 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote: How is regularly violating American's Constitutionally protected rights "protecting law and order"? Who is going to protect your constitutional rights on a day to day basis other then cops? If you want to change police procedure it's up to the cities and counties to change them however they want. Stop and frisk was started by an elected official and stopped by one. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
this just popped up on my news feed. http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/union-city-fairburn/2015/03/04/fulton-county-officer-killed-in-early-wednesday-shooting/24359847/ | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On March 05 2015 12:50 Sermokala wrote: Who is going to protect your constitutional rights on a day to day basis other then cops? If you want to change police procedure it's up to the cities and counties to change them however they want. Stop and frisk was started by an elected official and stopped by one. The disproportionate stopping of black males and the violating of their rights had nothing to do with elected officials. I'll give you that the pressure to stop protecting law and order or respecting rights in order to generate revenue does have some signs of being pressed by politicians though. Part of the point is that conservative politicians have said practically nothing about there being a problem let alone solutions. On March 05 2015 12:53 dAPhREAk wrote: greenhorizon, you sound so bitter and resentful, it really takes away from your points. this just popped up on my news feed. http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/union-city-fairburn/2015/03/04/fulton-county-officer-killed-in-early-wednesday-shooting/24359847/ I'm outraged? Myself and people who look like me are getting/have had our rights regularly violated. It's ridiculous. It's repugnant. I suppose my tone reflects that. The lack of that disgust/outrage from conservatives in situations like this as opposed to their clear and loud outrage at something like the Bundy Ranch incident says a lot about who's rights get more of their attention. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 05 2015 12:50 Sermokala wrote: Who is going to protect your constitutional rights on a day to day basis other then cops? If you want to change police procedure it's up to the cities and counties to change them however they want. Stop and frisk was started by an elected official and stopped by one. The police protect constitutional rights? When was the last time you heard of the police showing up and preventing a violation of someone's first amendment rights? lol | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On March 05 2015 12:50 Sermokala wrote: Who is going to protect your constitutional rights on a day to day basis other then cops? If you want to change police procedure it's up to the cities and counties to change them however they want. Stop and frisk was started by an elected official and stopped by one. Instead of arguing about whether the cops are awful or not, it probably makes more sense to talk about how to make them more accountable. I assume everyone can get on board with increased accountability? Police have a great deal of power in their interactions with the public, and even a couple bad cops can do a ton of damage to the image of a department in a community. Mandating body cameras during interactions with the public is one idea that gets tossed around a lot which probably makes sense. Another no brainer would be having special prosecutors handle all cases of police misconduct or crimes. Local prosecutors work closely with their police departments, and it's completely unrealistic to expect them to hold police officers accountable when they commit crimes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, police need to admit that implicit bias is a thing, and train accordingly. Here's a really good article on implicit bias and its effect on law enforcement, which includes several citations to the relevant studies: It is said that implicit bias, then, includes both implicit stereotypes and implicit attitudes and is shaped by both history and cultural influences (for example, upbringing; life experiences; relationships; and all manner of media—books, movies, television, newspapers, and so on). Research has shown that a person’s previous experiences (both positive and negative) leave a “memory record.” Implicit biases encompass the myriad fears, feelings, perceptions, and stereotypes that lie deep within the subconscious; they act on those memory records and exist without an individual’s permission or acknowledgement. In fact, implicit bias can be completely contradictory to an individual’s stated beliefs—a form of conscious-unconscious divergence. ... The study of implicit bias has important implications for police leaders. Police officers are human and, as the theory contends, may be affected by implicit biases just as any other individual. In other words, well-intentioned officers who err may do so not as a result of intentional discrimination, but because they have what has been proffered as widespread human biases. ... Training can play a critical role in reducing the impact of implicit bias on behavior. Research has found that individuals who are made aware of their implicit biases are motivated and able to implement “controlled” (that is, unbiased) behaviors. Although the recommendations made here do not reduce bias—rather, they raise consciousness about them—research has suggested that in making one aware of unconscious biases, these biases, which are malleable, may be reduced. A type of “cognitive correction” is said to take place. Source To be clear, based on the DoJ report, I don't think this is what was going on in Ferguson. Rather, overt racism was and is a big problem there. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On March 05 2015 13:16 Mercy13 wrote: Instead of arguing about whether the cops are awful or not, it probably makes more sense to talk about how to make them more accountable. I assume everyone can get on board with increased accountability? Police have a great deal of power in their interactions with the public, and even a couple bad cops can do a ton of damage to the image of a department in a community. Mandating body cameras during interactions with the public is one idea that gets tossed around a lot which probably makes sense. Another no brainer would be having special prosecutors handle all cases of police misconduct or crimes. Local prosecutors work closely with their police departments, and it's completely unrealistic to expect them to hold police officers accountable when they commit crimes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, police need to admit that implicit bias is a thing, and train accordingly. Here's a really good article on implicit bias and its effect on law enforcement, which includes several citations to the relevant studies: Source To be clear, based on the DoJ report, I don't think this is what was going on in Ferguson. Rather, overt racism was and is a big problem there. Agreed. On the concept of implicit bias it would be nice for people to realize it's a lot like "The Dress" issue except it actually impacts peoples lives in ways that matter. For people who think implicit bias is real or not they may want to take this test. I'm curious about peoples results so I'd like them to post them. Only you will know whether you complete the task and report you results honestly. But I do ask even if you fake the results you post please at least take the test once totally honestly and to the best of your ability so you can at least know. My results may surprise Jonny but it doesn't surprise me at all. Created by Project Implicit, a research collaboration between scientists at Harvard, the University of Virginia, and the University of Washington, this Implicit Association Test (IAT) aims to “[measure] the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy)” that remain “outside of conscious awareness and control.” The test reveals that even the most consciously tolerant of us may hold racial biases, and while you may be surprised by the results, you’ll be in good company. The fast-moving test only takes about five minutes to complete, but regardless of your results, you’ll be thinking about your implicit associations for some time. I think it was closer to 2 1/2 minute 3 and some change tops. Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for White people compared to Black people. I also did the gay vs straight one to show I'm not just showing things that make me look favorable. Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Straight People compared to Gay People. Implicit Racial Bias Test Sexual Orientation Bias Test | ||
| ||
