|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
You actually do have a personality disorder and also hrm I dunno should you be cheerleading a board invasion or isn't your responsibility ordinarily to put a stop to those things
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
Woozy posted:You actually do have a personality disorder and also hrm I dunno should you be cheerleading a board invasion or isn't your responsibility ordinarily to put a stop to those things What personality disorder do you think I have?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:VVV Your ideas still suck. How dense are you? I wasn't making a serious policy suggestion. I was applying the same standard of proof to the existence of "racial quotas" that you're applying to the existence of racist policing, and surprise! It's suddenly correctly identified as bullshit reasoning when it's not being used to derail and deflect any suggestion to discipline or terminate cops whose record shows a clear racial bias in enforcement. Guess what, if your opponent borrowing your reasoning makes you furious and incredulous, it's probably poo poo reasoning that insults the intelligence of anyone who hears it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:What personality disorder do you think I have? "Other". Hey remember when I asked you whether this is appropriate or even just not wildly inappropriate behavior for a mod and are you gonna answer that or what
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
What is it with you and that dumb ol' smiley, or with dodging questions, or with focusing on tiny parts of posts and ignoring the rest?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Im just checking because it seems a little weird that a mod from a forum known to run peanut galleries on D&D threads can come over here and give big sloppy blowjob posts to what I just assume you refer to as "your boys"and no one's like "hey maybe you shouldn't do that"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How dense are you? I wasn't making a serious policy suggestion. I was applying the same standard of proof to the existence of "racial quotas" that you're applying to the existence of racist policing, and surprise! It's suddenly correctly identified as bullshit reasoning when it's not being used to derail and deflect any suggestion to discipline or terminate cops whose record shows a clear racial bias in enforcement. You did make a policy suggestion, then tried to bounce to this weird derail instead of addressing the criticism that was levied against it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Woozy posted:"Other". You're right. I should follow my own advice and just not read D&D. Sorry for the derail please continue your discussions and debates 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You did make a policy suggestion, then tried to bounce to this weird derail instead of addressing the criticism that was levied against it. It's not a derail. People are objecting to using an officer's record of racially disparate enforcement because it allegedly requires them to "prove a negative" or "ignore crimes by black people to meet quotas" to not get fired. I turned it around and applied that exact same standard to firing police and suddenly everyone is flipping out that I would dare suggest anything as unfair as using a neutrally-worded policy to discipline officers for hidden reasons, and telling me that's totally unethical and something like that should not be tolerated. Which should say something about the quality of your standards. E: Here's a suggestion. Let's say the Ferguson PD actually started doing what I described in my hypothetical. How would we detect it and stop it, do you think? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While I like your idea of recording or following cops to see how many black vs white crimes they punish or ignore...how does that work for something that's up to police discretion like jaywalking? It's pretty common for cops not to enforce jaywalking for a whole mess of reasons (even if it's just that it wastes time and they might have something more important to do)...but if it's at discretion, and you're counting up episodes of enforcement to look for racial bias, then how does that not meet your definition of a quota? Obviously this kind of surveillance isn't practical on a large scale, but that's why I said you make some examples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
It's clear that from their admitted inability to treat opinions they consider too strange with respect that GiP complaints about intolerance are, consciously or unconsciously, in bad faith- even in an incredibly tolerant space for them, they wouldn't reciprocate at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not a derail. People are objecting to using an officer's record of racially disparate enforcement because it allegedly requires them to "prove a negative" or "ignore crimes by black people to meet quotas" to not get fired. I don't think anyone was suggesting that cops using their discretion to secretly go after black people was acceptable, they were arguing against your claim that the laws themselves were racist. Your display of how easily this exact abuse of discretion be replicated in a completely unrelated situation actually supports their argument not yours. Also your demonstration of the problem does nothing to address criticism of your proposed solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:That's the point, to test their discretion. I'm not expecting Ferguson police to be required to issue 29 white jaywalking citations for every 67 black ones, that would be a quota. What I'm more interested in is if they are actually ignoring white jaywalking at a disproportionate rate, and if they are at the very least demand an explanation. I said almost literally this and was told I was suggesting a quota by another name: VitalSigns posted:You don't need a quota. If the guy in question isn't being racist, then in the long run his citations will reflect the demographics and crime rates in the area. If they don't, he should probably be trained better or fired because at the very least he's doing shoddy police work and hurting efficiency. VitalSigns posted:Hypothetical: an internal report alerts you that valuable police time is being diverted from catching criminals because the force is searching people wearing red shoes at twice the rate of everyone else yet only finding illegal items half as often. Jarmak posted:A performance standard regarding the ratio of races arrested/searched/ticketed/whatever is a quota. I'm glad to hear that it's not a quota, but I think I need a formal definition of a quota so in the future I word things properly to avoid sounding like I want a quota when what I actually want is to "test discretion" Jarmak posted:I don't think anyone was suggesting that cops using their discretion to secretly go after black people was acceptable, they were arguing against your claim that the laws themselves were racist. Your display of how easily this exact abuse of discretion be replicated in a completely unrelated situation actually supports their argument not yours. No I think the response to my suggestion shows that it actually is the outcome that's important, not the hidden thoughts of the people involved. If a police chief were really dismissing officers using an inconsistently applied rule as the reason but the pattern of enforcement indicates some other underlying factor, it actually is possible to identify it and I don't think anyone here would argue that it would be wrong to tell the chief that he needs to start enforcing the rule equally or face consequences to his job, and nobody would take him seriously if he said "you're asking me to prove a negative" or "oh now I'm supposed to ignore rule-breakers?" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Well, generally you are put on trial for some form of assault (if the victim lived) or homicide (if the victim died). I am unaware of anyone being charged with "conducting a traffic stop" for shooting someone. Actually, if the trial I was on a sequestered jury for a couple weeks ago is any indication, you'd be put on trial for attempted murder for a shooting that didn't result in the victim's death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
You know that the GiP current events thread was literally labeling people in this thread as mentally ill because we thought a cop might have done something wrong, right?  Did that disrupt your ~narrative~?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I said almost literally this and was told I was suggesting a quota by another name:
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
What is it with you and your obsession with shitposting in this forum
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:You're ignoring a lot of my post. I'm not citing the "quota" as the end-all to the investigation, at best it is just the beginning. That's why I'm asking for actual evidence the police officer in question is ignoring crime of certain races, not just assuming he is because the ticketing doesn't match up with racial assumptions about crime. Sorry, didn't mean to ignore it. I snipped it because I just wanted to get that question out of the way. So if I understand you correctly, we should establish procedures to collect more evidence of an officer's record of enforcement (body cameras, better record-keeping, incident reports, complaints, etc) and if they show a racial bias that's not explained by other factors like the demographics of his beat or crime rates across race, then we launch an investigation, require an explanation, recommend him for training, or possibly if it's egregious, terminate him as an example to other officers. And this is not a quota because the follow-up investigation is what actually establishes his unethical behavior. Did I get that right? Because if so then I am in agreement with all of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I said almost literally this and was told I was suggesting a quota by another name: Those aren't remotely the same thing. "you must cite/arrest x ratio of blacks to whites a month" is a quota, "we observed you for one week and noticed that chose to cite blacks in lieu of a verbal warning/ignoring it 90% of the time but you only issued tickets to white people 10% of the time, explain yourself" is not a quota. VitalSigns posted:No I think the response to my suggestion shows that it actually is the outcome that's important, not the hidden thoughts of the people involved. If a police chief were really dismissing officers using an inconsistently applied rule as the reason but the pattern of enforcement indicates some other underlying factor, it actually is possible to identify it and I don't think anyone here would argue that it would be wrong to tell the chief that he needs to start enforcing the rule equally or face consequences to his job, and nobody would take him seriously if he said "you're asking me to prove a negative" or "oh now I'm supposed to ignore rule-breakers?" What? Of course people would take that seriously and its a constant occurrence in the working world. Management disproportionately enforces rules to get rid of employees they don't like all the loving time. The only time they generally get in trouble for it is if they do it regularly against a protected class in a way that shows a clear pattern, or the disparity of enforcement is egregious enough to be provable as exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Has anything changed or are people endlessly arguing two separate insane ideas: 1) It's okay to assault a police officer 2) It's okay for an officer to get out of his car, pursue, and gun down an unarmed man, claiming self-defense Okay, I know the answer to that, has anything meaningful happened other than That Guy being probated for continuing to be a racist dingdong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Those aren't remotely the same thing. "you must cite/arrest x ratio of blacks to whites a month" is a quota, "we observed you for one week and noticed that chose to cite blacks in lieu of a verbal warning/ignoring it 90% of the time but you only issued tickets to white people 10% of the time, explain yourself" is not a quota. I never said "you must cite/arrest x ratio of blacks to whites a month". What I meant was the second thing, that if the pattern of enforcement doesn't match up with the underlying demographics and crime rate, that we require an explanation/better training/possible termination. I apologize if I did not word it correctly and it sounded like I was advocating "you must cite exactly 76 white people and 24 black people for jaywalking in any two-week period", but I'm glad we can come to agreement on this point. Jarmak posted:What? Of course people would take that seriously and its a constant occurrence in the working world. Management disproportionately enforces rules to get rid of employees they don't like all the loving time. The only time they generally get in trouble for it is if they do it regularly against a protected class in a way that shows a clear pattern, or the disparity of enforcement is egregious enough to be provable as exactly that. And you're right that this happens in the working world, but I think the pattern of racist enforcement outlined in the DOJ report meets any reasonable standard of provability and is certainly greater than what it would take for a manager in a private company to face consequences, don't you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I never said "you must cite/arrest x ratio of blacks to whites a month". What I meant was the second thing, that if the pattern of enforcement doesn't match up with the underlying demographics and crime rate, that we require an explanation/better training/possible termination. I apologize if I did not word it correctly and it sounded like I was advocating "you must cite exactly 76 white people and 24 black people for jaywalking in any two-week period", but I'm glad we can come to agreement on this point. I'm failing to see the difference in your statement and my characterization of it, your simply basing the ratio on demographic data. VitalSigns posted:I meant "no one would take the obviously biased chief's objection seriously", obviously they would take the situation seriously. No I meant people would take the chief's objections seriously. In your particular hypothetical not as much, but only because you declared by fiat that in your hypothetical the wrongdoing was obvious and provable. VitalSigns posted:And you're right that this happens in the working world, but I think the pattern of racist enforcement outlined in the DOJ report meets any reasonable standard of provability and is certainly greater than what it would take for a manager in a private company to face consequences, don't you? Yes, but there's a difference in proving an individual did something versus proving a large group of people did something wrong in aggregate. It's certainly enough to go after the leadership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm failing to see the difference in your statement and my characterization of it, your simply basing the ratio on demographic data. No I was misunderstanding you. I get what you mean now after rereading a few times: it's not a quota if you observe a police officer, note that he encountered say 10 white jaywalkers and 10 black jaywalkers in a month, but cited 9 black and only 1 white person. Only, how can you possibly enforce this when you're not looking over someone's shoulder? I mean, no one is going to write up an incident report of a crime they ignored. Is the cop going to just straight-up admit everything by turning in a report that says "saw 10 whites jaywalking today but didn't do anything, then cited a black"? Bodycams? I wouldn't think it'd necessarily be easy to pick out random jaywalkers in the backround of a camera even if there weren't issues of the resources involved in reviewing all of the tapes for crimes that were ignored and therefore by definition aren't an obvious incident. And what do you do if you point out a jaywalker in the background and the cop says "oh I just didn't notice that guy"? Can you prove it's racism? You could keep track of how many black vs white jaywalkers he noticed I suppose, but isn't that vulnerable to your objection that this might force a cop to pretend to ignore a black jaywalker if he's afraid of exceeding a quota? I think in theory having this kind of information would be a great way to prove an individual cop is racially discriminating beyond any serious objection, but how can we practically and reliably obtain it? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I never said "you must cite/arrest x ratio of blacks to whites a month". What I meant was the second thing, that if the pattern of enforcement doesn't match up with the underlying demographics and crime rate, that we require an explanation/better training/possible termination. I apologize if I did not word it correctly and it sounded like I was advocating "you must cite exactly 76 white people and 24 black people for jaywalking in any two-week period", but I'm glad we can come to agreement on this point. You guys still aren't talking about the same thing. You are suggesting comparing the officer's citations to demographics/crime rate. He is suggesting directly observing officers. These are not the same thing, and one is not a replacement for the other. There are two problems with your approach, one is that random noise can make racist officers look non-racist, and non-racist officers look racist.* Now a big enough sample size will help with that, but you will need quite a bit of time to gather enough data to make accurate judgements about individuals rather than the department as a whole. The second, and bigger problem is that you are data about crime rates, which is taken from citations, and using that to judge those same citations. The problem with his idea is that it is really expensive, and if you're only monitoring people some of the time they can just behave when they are being observed, and go back to being racist when they aren't. *This is a joke, there are no non-racist cops in Ferguson.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I was misunderstanding you. I get what you mean now after rereading a few times: it's not a quota if you observe a police officer, note that he encountered say 10 white jaywalkers and 10 black jaywalkers in a month, but cited 9 black and only 1 white person. Only, how can you possibly enforce this when you're not looking over someone's shoulder? I mean, no one is going to write up an incident report of a crime they ignored. Is the cop going to just straight-up admit everything by turning in a report that says "saw 10 whites jaywalking today but didn't do anything, then cited a black"? If you've got bodycams on the cop and he's "not noticing" 9 out of 10 white jaywalkers then he should probably be fired for incompetence even if you can't prove it's racism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Have you ever been in a city? There are lots of people. How is that incompetence? I have jaywalked literally hundreds of times in my life and been warned exactly once. Now you're telling me that we should review hours of body camera footage, scrutinize it for every possible jaywalking, and fire any cop who didn't warn/cite enough of them? Man, I think my absurd swearing hypothetical is probably less punitive against all cops than this. We'd pretty much have to fire every cop in the country if we're going to set the bar for jaywalking enforcement at 10%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Higher rates of jaywalking citations for blacks sounds pretty bad but really I think it's more likely that it's simply a byproduct of higher black unemployment and lower income, plus a heavier police presence in black neighborhoods. No car ownership plus a lot more free time to spending hanging out/walking around, plus increased police scrutiny - I don't think you need to come up with a big conspiracy to explain the results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Higher rates of jaywalking citations for blacks sounds pretty bad but really I think it's more likely that it's simply a byproduct of higher black unemployment and lower income, plus a heavier police presence in black neighborhoods. No car ownership plus a lot more free time to spending hanging out/walking around, plus increased police scrutiny - I don't think you need to come up with a big conspiracy to explain the results. It's not a conspiracy when there is a giant rear end report about racial bias in law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
You don't need a big conspiracy to explain racism. People are quite capable of being racist all on their own. Are you denying all of the examples of racist policing in the DOJ report as conspiracy-theory fantasy, or just the 95%-black rate of jaywalking citations specifically? Because I mean there's plenty more examples to choose from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Higher rates of jaywalking citations for blacks sounds pretty bad but really I think it's more likely that it's simply a byproduct of higher black unemployment and lower income, plus a heavier police presence in black neighborhoods. No car ownership plus a lot more free time to spending hanging out/walking around, plus increased police scrutiny - I don't think you need to come up with a big conspiracy to explain the results. Yeah it's not a conspiracy or anything, just institutional racism passed down over the years that fucks blacks over at every step, from education to employment to law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Has anything changed or are people endlessly arguing two separate insane ideas: Nothing has changed. It is still two groups of people talking past each other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Have you ever been in a city? There are lots of people. In this hypothetical situation, the cop would also be very clearly noticing 9 out of 10 black jaywalkers, which about ten seconds of paying attention would have told you. If a cop is noticing, stopping and citing 9 out of 10 black jaywalkers, but inexplicably failing to notice 9 out of 10 white jaywalkers, then they're either racist or literally blind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You're right. I should follow my own advice and just not read D&D. No, keep posting, it's making people lose their poo poo even more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Dabir posted:In this hypothetical situation, the cop would also be very clearly noticing 9 out of 10 black jaywalkers, which about ten seconds of paying attention would have told you. If a cop is noticing, stopping and citing 9 out of 10 black jaywalkers, but inexplicably failing to notice 9 out of 10 white jaywalkers, then they're either racist or literally blind. "Those 10 jaywalkers I stopped were walking more brazenly and carelessly and in my situational on-the-ground judgment what they were doing was more hazardous than the 5 jaywalkers I didn't stop, and the other 5 I didn't see because there was a lot going on and I didn't have the luxury of reviewing camera footage for hours. I don't remember what color they were. I don't see race, chief, what am I supposed to do? Just ignore a hazard that could get people hurt if the person causing it has a protected and privileged skin color and I'm over my quota for the day? I'm trying to do my job here, not play social engineer. I can't protect the public if I have to be racist and treat black people doing something more hazardous equally with white people doing something less hazardous." Seriously, there's so much wiggle-room in reviewing footage and deciding if each case was (a) something a reasonable person should have noticed given the context of the situation and (b) if each situation was alike enough that racism is the only reasonable confounding factor, that what you're really arguing for here is looking at racial disparity in the outcome and assuming racial discrimination (or at least, proceeding policy-wise as if there is racism and training or disciplining the cop). Which is fine with me, obviously, but recognize that you're doing it. E: And don't get me wrong, I like the idea of monitoring cops and investigating apparent racial discrepancies that come up, especially in a place like Ferguson that's now infamous for it. But the same kind of criticisms about quotas and the unique context of every situation and traffic stop making them incommensurate are going to be leveled at this program: how do we answer them? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:No, keep posting, it's making people lose their poo poo even more. If by "lose your poo poo" you mean mild annoyance at irrelevant attempts to destroy a topic of discussion, in desperate safeguarding of institutional racism, sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You're right. I should follow my own advice and just not read D&D. you are so mentally ill ugh
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Higher rates of jaywalking citations for blacks sounds pretty bad but really I think it's more likely that it's simply a byproduct of higher black unemployment and lower income, plus a heavier police presence in black neighborhoods. No car ownership plus a lot more free time to spending hanging out/walking around, plus increased police scrutiny - I don't think you need to come up with a big conspiracy to explain the results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:No, keep posting, it's making people lose their poo poo even more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Higher rates of jaywalking citations for blacks sounds pretty bad but really I think it's more likely that it's simply a byproduct of higher black unemployment and lower income, plus a heavier police presence in black neighborhoods. No car ownership plus a lot more free time to spending hanging out/walking around, plus increased police scrutiny - I don't think you need to come up with a big conspiracy to explain the results. it's not really a conspiracy when it's widely known that the police spend more time hassling black people because the white majority of americans think it is both right and just to hassle blacks because they commit more crimes you just said this, that black people commit more crimes, because they are poor and unemployed you said that
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
if you care about inconsistent and arbitrary moderation then boy howdy something awful is not the forum for you
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:12
|
|