|
Bel Shazar posted:Society... that's kinda the definition of "socially" But I don't agree with you. Am I not part of society?
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Pomp posted:http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/12/graffiti_artist_demz_dies_from_injuries_after_police_car_ran_him_over_in_wy.php Wait so which is this - he ran from the police or he jumped out in front of the unmarked police car? E: It occurs to me that one of the ways to fix a few things would be to make "resisting arrest" not a crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Cole posted:If we are allowed to judge all cops based on what is relatively a few bad apples (which a lot of posts do), why can't we do that for every group of people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Cole posted:But I don't agree with you. Am I not part of society? You are indeed, though perhaps in the minority in this case? You will need to work harder to bring more people to your way of thinking to change those social mores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Cole posted:If we are allowed to judge all cops based on what is relatively a few bad apples (which a lot of posts do), why can't we do that for every group of people? Do you think that cops always infiltrate protests on their own initiative, or that they're sometimes carrying out an instutional policy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:You are indeed, though perhaps in the minority in this case? You will need to work harder to bring more people to your way of thinking to change those social mores. Can you prove I'm in the minority? Because otherwise you have no idea if its a stereotype, if a majority vote is what it takes to decide a stereotype (slavery was once a majority thing, was it ok only until it wasn't?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Perhaps there is some sort of difference between stereotyping those who lack social and institutional power and face many problems because of it and stereotyping those who voluntarily associate themselves with a occupation which carries a great deal of social and institutional power and benefit from it greatly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Perhaps there is some sort of difference between stereotyping those who lack social and institutional power and face many problems because of it and stereotyping those who voluntarily associate themselves with a occupation which carries a great deal of social and institutional power and benefit from it greatly. I gave two other examples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Do you think that cops always infiltrate protests on their own initiative, or that they're sometimes carrying out an instutional policy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Infiltrating a protest is fine. Standing around making sure people are safe is fine. A cop stepping outside his bounds and actually interfering with a legal protest is not fine. But are you really going to tell a cop "no you can't stand here" at a protest?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Cole posted:Can you prove I'm in the minority? Because otherwise you have no idea if its a stereotype, if a majority vote is what it takes to decide a stereotype. Sorry, at this point I only have anecdote. I have been unable to locate a study that compares the acceptance of stereotyping police in negative ways compared to that of stereotyping, say, a minority. There are numerous studies about how people actually feel about the police, but that does't actually relate here. Cole posted:(slavery was once a majority thing, was it ok only until it wasn't?) It was legal... so... socially OK, morally bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Cole posted:If we are allowed to judge all cops based on what is relatively a few bad apples (which a lot of posts do), why can't we do that for every group of people? Because the problems with police are systemic and not due to individual choices by 'bad apples'. This shouldn't be at all surprising or confusing to anyone with the slightest degree of awareness of the subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Sorry, at this point I only have anecdote. I have been unable to locate a study that compares the acceptance of stereotyping police in negative ways compared to that of stereotyping, say, a minority. There are numerous studies about how people actually feel about the police, but that does't actually relate here. So things are ok if they are found legal? The same people who decided slavery was ok, and therefore socially acceptable, are the same type of people who decide its legal for cops to shoot black kids, which in turn makes it socially ok that Michael Brown got shot and killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
Cole posted:So things are ok if they are found legal? The same people who decided slavery was ok, and therefore socially acceptable, are the same type of people who decide its legal for cops to shoot black kids, which in turn makes it socially ok that Michael Brown got shot and killed. Yes, a good chunk of society thinks killing black people is a-ok, your point?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:So things are ok if they are found legal? The same people who decided slavery was ok, and therefore socially acceptable, are the same type of people who decide its legal for cops to shoot black kids, which in turn makes it socially ok that Michael Brown got shot and killed. Depends on what you mean by OK. In the absence of some type of absolute truth metric to compare against, I can only speak for my own personal beliefs (no, not OK) or comment on whether society allows it or not (which seems to indicate that slavery was quite OK at the time). It is my hope that the continued protests against police brutality turn more of the public opinion against the current state of affairs where it is OK that Michael Brown got shot and killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Yes, a good chunk of society thinks killing black people is a-ok, your point? If its ok to base your opinion of everyone in a group based on a few people's actions, then you shouldn't be shocked or offended when people do it for other groups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Cole posted:If we are allowed to judge all cops based on what is relatively a few bad apples (which a lot of posts do), why can't we do that for every group of people? "Police" are a powerful institution with power structures and patterns of conduct that promote and excuse gross excesses of power. Bad cops are given the benefit of the doubt, and often let off with the lightest of punishments even when the evidence is strongly stacked against them. "Black people" are not. In fact, they are the opposite: frequently incarcerated for relatively minor crimes, assumed guilty by the populace, and regularly murdered by police on the mere suspicion of a crime. What on earth would even make you think minorities are comparable to police officers in this context?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Cole posted:If its ok to base your opinion of everyone in a group based on a few people's actions, then you shouldn't be shocked or offended when people do it for other groups. Well, I'll agree with you on the shocked bit, but why exactly should I not be offended?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:"Police" are a powerful institution with power structures and patterns of conduct that promote and excuse gross excesses of power. Bad cops are given the benefit of the doubt, and often let off with the lightest of punishments even when the evidence is strongly stacked against them. I also gave two other examples. This is the second time I've said this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Well, I'll agree with you on the shocked bit, but why exactly should I not be offended? For the same reason I shouldn't be offended by a thread saying all cops are bad people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:09
|
|
Cole posted:If its ok to base your opinion of everyone in a group based on a few people's actions, then you shouldn't be shocked or offended when people do it for other groups. Except they are not, try again.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Cole posted:Infiltrating a protest is fine. Standing around making sure people are safe is fine. I didn't ask if it was "fine," I asked if they were carrying out an institutional policy. Again: hepatizon posted:Do you think that cops always infiltrate protests on their own initiative, or that they're sometimes carrying out an instutional policy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
So in case ya'll don't know, Seattle had some really bad police problems in the past. Racism, brutality, etc, pretty much everything this thread goes over. The Justice Department was eventually called in by the City Council/inquest reports ( police crime in Seattle isn't investigated by the police for obvious reasons, instead it's handled by external agencies/inquest http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Casey-Seattle-gets-it-right-on-police-killings-5955169.php. After a particularly bad incident, the inquest sent for the Justice Department. ) , and they fired pretty much everyone who they thought wasn't fit for duty based on previous reports, and forced all the remaining officers to go through extreme empathy training. On top of that, they've changed the training exercises for Washington police officers into a new program designed to put the citizens before the cops. ( http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021389398_policeacademyxml.html ) Since then, the City Council has spent more money on dash cams/body cams then they have military gear for our cops, which has led to a pretty decent amount of videos. The problem was they couldn't figure out a proper pipeline to give these videos to the public, despite public inquiry, since many videos had faces/SS numbers/the interiors of peoples homes inside. After a particularly bad inquest by a Seattle citizen asking for literally every video they had so he could reupload them on youtube, they decided to instead turn to the tech/programming community of Seattle for help, asking them to come up with programs to get around these issues. The requester came up with a quick hack version, and they've since given him access to a decent chunk of the videos, which you can find on youtube now ( https://www.youtube.com/user/policevideorequests ). The SPD is hosting a hackathon later this month specifically to try and fix this issue entirely, so they can just offer an open pipeline of police cam videos to the public without them sifting through to make sure everything is safe to view by the public first. On top of this, Ferguson/national outcry has convinced Seattle it needs to get better at recording it's information. They recently bought several advanced cams and gave them to 16 officers that volunteered to test them, all of different makes and models. Once they've chosen which ones work best, they'll be spending all that money that'd normally have gone to assault rifles on outfitting every officer with his own camera, which has to be on at all times. The Chief of Police, several police unions, and multiple officers have all mentioned they are excited for these things to go into effect, because it completely removes all questions from what happened. Instead you can just watch the video and see who was in the right. For once, activist organizations and the police are trying to get something into circulation as soon as possible, as it benefits both sides. There's also smaller things they've done as well. They realized their public information channel wasn't very good, so they hired police watchdogs/investigate journalists to take over their twitter/facebook page, which has led to the SPD twitter/app being SUPER useful. All events in the city are immediately recorded and brought up, and they give constant advice during times of tragedy. During the SPU shooting earlier this year, the twitter/app buzzed into action, warning parents not to call loved ones, as it could set their phones off during a bad time, to not rush to the university, but to meet the police at a nearby area where the evacuations were happening, etc etc. Pretty much everyone I know that lives in Seattle follows that twitter, just because it's such a useful tool for keeping safe. Why am I saying all this? Because it's all worked great. The public opinion isn't fully changed yet, but to be fair they are attempting to change years worth of bad behavior here, and it's only been 3 years. I'd bring up the numbers here, but "police brutality seattle" only seems to bring up protest stuff, so you'll have to trust me on this until I can find it again, but crime hasn't risen, more cops haven't died, but police brutality reports have gone down considerably. We've always been able to charge the "bad apples" thanks to our inquest system, but fewer and fewer bad apples show up every year, probably because they've stopped being welcome, and now they realize they can't pull their stunts as easily anymore. And that's the thing. You can say bad apples all you want, they aren't the problem. The problem is the system isn't designed to find them and remove them from the overall basket of proverbial officers, and there is little to no reason not to be a bad apple. Trusting individual officer morality has led to tragedy after tragedy, and doesn't seem to give any benefit to the police force in their day to day job. Oversight, mixed in with proper support structures and accountability protocols have already shown massive changes here in Seattle, and will likely clean up the problem entirely within the next few years. So uh, why not just do it? Why not adopt these principles over the entire country?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I didn't ask if it was "fine," I asked if they were carrying out an institutional policy. And I have a feeling if I say yes, you'll say "that proves its the institution, not the person" which you would spin into me admitting the entire institution is corrupt. If the policy is to stand at a protest in plain clothes to ensure safety, which it probably was because I don't think now is the time for policies to be written saying anything that could look like it's green lighting abuse, then its fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Except they are not, try again. They're not what, offended? Shocked? Basing their opinions? Why are you being such a dick? Just because I disagree with you? You loving suck at discourse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Cole posted:For the same reason I shouldn't be offended by a thread saying all cops are bad people. I can't speak for everyone, but it's ok by me if you are offended. That came out wrong. I'm not cheering on your offense, but you can totally feel offended if you wish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I can't speak for everyone, but it's ok by me if you are offended. That came out wrong. I'm not cheering on your offense, but you can totally feel offended if you wish. I guess the way I meant to phrase it is if you aren't guilty of anything wrong by stereotyping one group of people, then nobody else is wrong for stereotyping any group of people. And if you disagree I would just like to know where the jury is that draws the line on what stereotypes are fine and which aren't, and why stereotyping anyone is ok at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Cole posted:And I have a feeling if I say yes, you'll say "that proves its the institution, not the person" which you would spin into me admitting the entire institution is corrupt. I would settle for you admitting that some institutions are corrupt, and we can go from there. Also, you know, the truth is important even if you're worried about spin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Cole posted:If its ok to base your opinion of everyone in a group based on a few people's actions, then you shouldn't be shocked or offended when people do it for other groups. lmao this is the most disingenuous horseshit ever posted in the sea of disingenuous horseshit that is D&D. Bro maybe, just maybe, a person's chosen profession has a lot more predictive power than whatever protected class you're trying to equivocate with. Like whoa judging people based on the job they do isn't actually even in the same loving ballpark as judging them based on the color of their skin or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Woozy posted:lmao this is the most disingenuous horseshit ever posted in the sea of disingenuous horseshit that is D&D. Bro maybe, just maybe, a person's chose profession has a lot more predictive power than whatever protected class you're trying to equivocate with. Like whoa judging people based on the job they do isn't actually even in the same loving ballpark as judging them based on the color of their skin or whatever. This is a really stupid, unproductive line of argument. So what if you establish that stereotyping police is ethical? What problem would that solve?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Woozy posted:lmao this is the most disingenuous horseshit ever posted in the sea of disingenuous horseshit that is D&D. Bro maybe, just maybe, a person's chosen profession has a lot more predictive power than whatever protected class you're trying to equivocate with. Like whoa judging people based on the job they do isn't actually even in the same loving ballpark as judging them based on the color of their skin or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I would settle for you admitting that some institutions are corrupt, and we can go from there. Also, you know, the truth is important even if you're worried about spin. Absolutely. One institution I brought up was the NFL. That's one of the most corrupt business in the public eye. I will even go as far as saying there are entire cities who have corrupt police forces. Someone in here gave me some info on NOPD and holy poo poo. The problem is, and this is where i believe we are having the disconnect, any type of stereotyping is a negative. You only gently caress over the actual good people because you immediately cast them in a bad light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Cole posted:BRO BRO GET THIS LMAO HOLY poo poo I gave two other examples that are profession based the first time this was brought up but HOLY poo poo DONT PAY ATTENTION YOU GET THAT BURN IN BRO LMFAO You posted this: Cole posted:Why is this any different? in response to this: Bel Shazar posted:You totally can. It's just in some cases you'll be flagged as a bigoted rear end in a top hat and in others you won't. Can you maybe not pretend like the equivalency you're tap dancing around has anything to do with professions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Woozy posted:You posted this: E: nevermind you're right. Cole fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Cole posted:Absolutely. One institution I brought up was the NFL. That's one of the most corrupt business in the public eye. I will even go as far as saying there are entire cities who have corrupt police forces. Someone in here gave me some info on NOPD and holy poo poo. The NFL comparison doesn't reassure me that you understand the problem. Their explicit purpose is to make money, and they are not charged with upholding the law. Their corruption is much less likely to cause widespread suffering. NOPD -- that's more like it. If your point is that reforms should target demonstrably bad policies, and not stereotype-based ideas of policies, then I don't think anyone would disagree. However, I don't think stereotype-based police reforms have ever happened in real life. It seems like the stereotype discussion is all about individual perception, which doesn't seem to have much bearing on reform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:I guess the way I meant to phrase it is if you aren't guilty of anything wrong by stereotyping one group of people, then nobody else is wrong for stereotyping any group of people. I do not believe that stereotyping is inherently wrong in the abstract, but I do believe that it is wrong in certain circumstances determined by the groups involved and the motivations of the individuals involved. Cole posted:And if you disagree I would just like to know where the jury is that draws the line on what stereotypes are fine and which aren't, and why stereotyping anyone is ok at all. The court of public opinion, sir, and within every individual. Or, when these things are codified into law, literally the jury.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
that was just a terrible way to try to make the point to try to back up what I'm saying. My point still stands: any stereotyping, whether its cops, black people, celebrities, etc is negative and counter productive to what you want done. If you treat every cop as a bad cop then there is no incentive to be the good cop anymore, whether or not the institutional pressures are there (and I've already admitted that i know there are corrupt cities out there), and when you're trying to pull a career, some people just give in to it. Institutional pressure to be corrupt + everyone saying you are corrupt + wanting a career Does that equal success? Because you're a part of that math problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:35
|
|
Cole posted:They're not what, offended? Shocked? Basing their opinions? They are not basing their opinion on a few people's actions, they are basing them on the actions of the whole system and its history. The so called "good" cops might not be out abusing and murdering the public like the bad ones, but they will happily protect the bad ones and they will do whatever they can to destroy any cop who does decide to blow the whistle on bad behavior. So yeah, I'm willing to look at the police in the US as an institution that needs to be destroyed, root and branch, and then rebuilt with the idea that policing is about reducing harm to society instead of it just being an old-boys club and an excuse to treat anyone who is not of the right social standing like poo poo with little to no consequences.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
I can't really feel much sympathy for cops who feel stereotyped, because A) That stereotyping never is something they actually have to face in their day to day lives, since everyone is scared shitless of cops in America B) The stereotype that police organizations are corrupt and willing to break laws and morals to protect their own doesn't actually seem like a stereotype to me C) They have a carte blanche license to kill if they actually feel threatened, something that other stereotyped groups don't possess. Oh and D) You actually choose to become a cop. I man lawyers don't seem to whine that much about being stereotyped as soulless moneyfuckers. That's only American cops though. Finnish cops are great and I've had nothing but positive interactions with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
hepatizon posted:The NFL comparison doesn't reassure me that you understand the problem. Their explicit purpose is to make money, and they are not charged with upholding the law. Their corruption is much less likely to cause widespread suffering. Are you aware of the NFLs ongoing efforts to downplay concussions and CTE and the public health risk that it poses
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:37
|
|
