7 ms·

> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving specia

> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving special privileges to (or removing privileges from) a particular group of people. "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) [1] It seems that more and more Americans feel intimidated by just about anything nowadays (microagressions, etc.). So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs. I don't buy into class warfare, in my worldview police are just as fragile (no more, no less) as any other human. Holding a gun in your hand doesn't make you any less fragile, just more hazardous/dangerous. I'm sure there are plenty of people that regularly carry guns, people that (based on class/race/etc) would be considered extremely fragile. The gun doesn't change that distinction. Why wouldn't police officers be afforded the same kinds of protections from microagressions that are given to other people in this country? Doesn't a police officer have a right to a safe working environment, and aggression free interactions with 'customers' (citizens), and laws saying as much? If the answer is patriarchy or 'whiteness' (whatever that means) etc. then this is just more of the same toxic in group / out group stuff used to justify holding power over others. Is a hard working police officer allowed to be offended by songs such as "Fuck The Police"? Is that "hate speech"? Should the creators of that song be cancelled for being filled with hate directed at a particular "out group"? More and more I am bothered by the kinds of "distinctions" between people we're making in this country. You know, the kind based on race, class, education, wealth, etc. that just separates people into "this kind" and "that kind". This "this kind" gets special treatment, while "that kind" is afforded no protections, and is persecuted (don't get me started on the people who say "its OK they deserve it"). Laws like this are profoundly anti-American, going against the kinds of values we've collectively upheld for over 200 years. "Fuck the police" indeed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_colorblindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_colorblindness

mitt_romney_12 3y ago
> Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others? These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession. It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".
- lordfrito 3y ago
  I'm not sure I'm following you. I agree, I'm against these kinds of laws (see previous post). I agree with you, there are special protections given police offers, these are related to the power they are authorized by the state to wield that regular citizens cannot. I can sue you if you break down my door. But a kidnapper can't sue the SWAT team that broke down their door in the course of saving the kidnapped person inside. Meanwhile, related to civil-rights issues, and workplace related issues, "Police Officers" are still just "normal people" and should have the same basic rights as normal people. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?
  - semanticist 3y ago
    I think you're conflating someone's job with a protected characteristic in the context of anti-discrimination and hate speech law. If a cop gets special laws to prevent people smirking at them, or 'being a cop' is considered a protected characteristic, that is not "having the same basic rights as normal people", it's having extra rights that you can choose to opt-into by getting a certain job. A person cannot choose their race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, able-bodiedness, etc, that is why discriminating against them based on those grounds is inherently unfair and thus not allowed. No one is born a cop. Someone chooses to join the police, with an understanding of what the job represents and entails. If they choose to join the police when the police are widely considered corrupt and looked down upon by society (or at least some parts of it), that's on them. Anti-discrimination and hate speech laws are about ensuring the people are not mistreated for a fundamental characteristic of who they are. No one has cop DNA.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession What? There are no such things as criminal hate speech or am I misunderstanding 1A?
  - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
    You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-a-hate-crime-charge-for-stomping-on-a-back-the-blue-sign-in-ut https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-...
nathan_compton 3y ago
I mean for one thing there aren't any laws anywhere protecting anyone else from micro-aggression. I work in a context where this stuff is taken very seriously and I've never seen anyone lose a job over it. I've never been asked to attest to something at all, to say nothing of some mandatory idea. Look, what you reactionaries call "woke" and are so afraid of is the mere pointing out of structural racist shit. There is literally no legal force behind any woke policies. Governments everywhere are more conservative than ever and the supreme court is absolutely locked tight against these policies. "going against the kinds of values we've collectively upheld for over 200 years." This is one of the most positively blinkered ass sentences. We had literal chattel slavery for nearly 100 years of that history and in that time displaced by force huge parts of the native population. Half the country didn't want to end slavery so badly that they went to war over it and after they lost they did almost everything they could get away with to continue to enforce racial segregation and hierarchy. Look, I'm find if you want to hold the absurd belief that there isn't ant structural racism contemporaneously, although this is obviously wrong, but to suggest that the US has "always held" anything remotely like contemporary racial egalitarian ideals is absolutely wrong.
- moretrashplz 3y ago
  "Governments everywhere are more conservative than ever" - do you have any sources / citations to back this up? "There is literally no legal force behind any woke policies" - Politicians in Michigan have been attempting to pass a law to make harassing someone by misgendering them a felony. There are plenty of laws and policies protecting groups of people that have nothing to do with "structural racist shit". If you're looking for racism everywhere and in everything, you're probably going to find it. I find that people who focus on race and class constantly, also end up exhibiting the most racist and classist views and behaviors.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    Your only example is a law that is not currently a law? People propose crazy laws all the time. They get used by politicians to get attention and by media outlets to drive clicks from their outrage pornography addicted audience. In both cases it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
mjamesaustin 3y ago
A police officer is on duty, doing their job, and should have an expectation of professional behavior the same way ANY OTHER person doing their job does. Look at how doctors handle unreasonable patients, or how people working in service handle angry customers. Even when people are provocative or rude, the expectation is to use your skills and intelligence to navigate the situation with grace. In the case of (American) police, not only do they fail to de-escalate tense situations, they routinely escalate those situations into far more dangerous and violent ones, and are allowed to shoot and kill anyone they deem scary. Yes it would be nice if Americans at large could be taught to act with grace and humility to those serving them, but no amount of microaggressions justifies murdering someone.
manuelabeledo 3y ago
> So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs. It is not "cancel culture", just good old fashioned "consequences".
- lordfrito 3y ago
  Ahhh the old "consequences" argument. I can't tell when it's "cancel culture" or "consequences" anymore. Word seems interchangeable nowadays in the media. Seems like when it happens to the in-group it's called cancel culture, but when it's experienced by the out-group it's just shrugged away as consequences. The point I'm making is I'm tired of this kind of separation of people into groups. Bad behavior leading to "consequences" for one group should also be considered bad behavior for the other group, which doesn't get to complain about the same "consequences" as well.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > Bad behavior leading to "consequences" for one group should also be considered bad behavior for the other group, which doesn't get to complain about the same "consequences" as well. And it does. This whole "cancel culture" debate is and always has been just a poor attempt at propaganda. There is no such thing as "cancel culture", just this generational trend of using the word "cancel" interchangeably with "boycott". Boycotts have existed since the dawn of time, but there is no good way of personalizing a rival group as "boycotters", and that is the reason why we have this stupid "cancel culture" term. Now, there are a myriad of reasons why a cop should not be treated like any other individual, first of all being that they are legally and factually protected from facing many of the consequences of the same bad behaviour that would put most other people behind bars. But specifically and putting it into context, isn't having a government sponsored, paramilitary law enforcement group, that is immune to many law precepts by design, dangerous enough already? In a world where cops have all their current privileges and conserve all their rights as individuals, there is no room for first amendment rights. There cannot be.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    >Word seems interchangeable nowadays You're so close to understanding. This has always happened. When you have opinions people find objectionable it tends to make you less popular with those people. For some reason a few years ago we decided that if these ideas are coming from a particular group it's now a special thing deserving of a new term. It's a dumb term. If you want to have soft power you need to not say all your vile opinions out loud, that's how the human animal has worked for millions of years.
whoknew1122 3y ago
Safe spaces aren't a new thing. It's just now there is a vocabulary for it. 20 years ago, before people talked about safe spaces, I would hang out at comic/gaming stores because I could be my nerdy self while playing Magic: the Gathering. When I would go to bars, I'd go to gay bars. Because I could just be myself and not worry about running into the violence in the clubs that catered to teens. A safe space is about finding a place where you find yourself comfortable to be your authentic self. They've always existed, even if they weren't called safe spaces -- or castigated as part of a culture war. As an aside, I probably wouldn't use dicta from Plessy v. Ferguson, one of the worst decisions in US history, to buttress any argument. The constitution was never color-blind. It didn't explicitly reference color, but it didn't have to--everyone knew what it was talking about. > Why wouldn't police officers be afforded the same kinds of protections from microagressions that are given to other people in this country. Microaggressions are one thing. Criminalizing microaggressions is quite another. > Doesn't a police officer have a right to a safe working environment, and aggression free interactions with 'customers' (citizens), and laws saying as much? No. No cop goes into the profession expecting puppies and rainbows. Going into potentially unsafe environments with potentially aggressive people is what they signed up for. As a retail employee, you have to put up with microaggressions from customers. It's just part of dealing with the public. And those microaggressions aren't criminalized. Why do cops get to criminalize their feelings getting hurt?
- mrangle 3y ago
  >No. No cop goes into the profession expecting puppies and rainbows. Going into potentially unsafe environments with potentially aggressive people is what they signed up for. That's not how law enforcement works at all. What you are suggesting is that cops have less protections than civilians. Putting on a badge doesn't remove assault legal protections.
  - whoknew1122 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting that at all. Putting on a badge enhances assault legal protections. Assault on a peace officer is an upgraded charge from assault on a civilian. Being a cop enhances your chances of being in a volatile situation. But you also have more leeway in how you address that violence, and have the backing of legislative branches (via legal enhancements such as assault on a peace officer) and the judiciary (via qualified immunity, among other things).

mitt_romney_12 3y ago

> Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others? These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession. It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".

lordfrito 3y ago
I'm not sure I'm following you. I agree, I'm against these kinds of laws (see previous post). I agree with you, there are special protections given police offers, these are related to the power they are authorized by the state to wield that regular citizens cannot. I can sue you if you break down my door. But a kidnapper can't sue the SWAT team that broke down their door in the course of saving the kidnapped person inside. Meanwhile, related to civil-rights issues, and workplace related issues, "Police Officers" are still just "normal people" and should have the same basic rights as normal people. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?
- semanticist 3y ago
  I think you're conflating someone's job with a protected characteristic in the context of anti-discrimination and hate speech law. If a cop gets special laws to prevent people smirking at them, or 'being a cop' is considered a protected characteristic, that is not "having the same basic rights as normal people", it's having extra rights that you can choose to opt-into by getting a certain job. A person cannot choose their race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, able-bodiedness, etc, that is why discriminating against them based on those grounds is inherently unfair and thus not allowed. No one is born a cop. Someone chooses to join the police, with an understanding of what the job represents and entails. If they choose to join the police when the police are widely considered corrupt and looked down upon by society (or at least some parts of it), that's on them. Anti-discrimination and hate speech laws are about ensuring the people are not mistreated for a fundamental characteristic of who they are. No one has cop DNA.
hellojesus 3y ago
> Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession What? There are no such things as criminal hate speech or am I misunderstanding 1A?
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago
  You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-a-hate-crime-charge-for-stomping-on-a-back-the-blue-sign-in-ut https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-...

nathan_compton 3y ago

I mean for one thing there aren't any laws anywhere protecting anyone else from micro-aggression. I work in a context where this stuff is taken very seriously and I've never seen anyone lose a job over it. I've never been asked to attest to something at all, to say nothing of some mandatory idea. Look, what you reactionaries call "woke" and are so afraid of is the mere pointing out of structural racist shit. There is literally no legal force behind any woke policies. Governments everywhere are more conservative than ever and the supreme court is absolutely locked tight against these policies. "going against the kinds of values we've collectively upheld for over 200 years." This is one of the most positively blinkered ass sentences. We had literal chattel slavery for nearly 100 years of that history and in that time displaced by force huge parts of the native population. Half the country didn't want to end slavery so badly that they went to war over it and after they lost they did almost everything they could get away with to continue to enforce racial segregation and hierarchy. Look, I'm find if you want to hold the absurd belief that there isn't ant structural racism contemporaneously, although this is obviously wrong, but to suggest that the US has "always held" anything remotely like contemporary racial egalitarian ideals is absolutely wrong.

moretrashplz 3y ago
"Governments everywhere are more conservative than ever" - do you have any sources / citations to back this up? "There is literally no legal force behind any woke policies" - Politicians in Michigan have been attempting to pass a law to make harassing someone by misgendering them a felony. There are plenty of laws and policies protecting groups of people that have nothing to do with "structural racist shit". If you're looking for racism everywhere and in everything, you're probably going to find it. I find that people who focus on race and class constantly, also end up exhibiting the most racist and classist views and behaviors.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  Your only example is a law that is not currently a law? People propose crazy laws all the time. They get used by politicians to get attention and by media outlets to drive clicks from their outrage pornography addicted audience. In both cases it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

mjamesaustin 3y ago

A police officer is on duty, doing their job, and should have an expectation of professional behavior the same way ANY OTHER person doing their job does. Look at how doctors handle unreasonable patients, or how people working in service handle angry customers. Even when people are provocative or rude, the expectation is to use your skills and intelligence to navigate the situation with grace. In the case of (American) police, not only do they fail to de-escalate tense situations, they routinely escalate those situations into far more dangerous and violent ones, and are allowed to shoot and kill anyone they deem scary. Yes it would be nice if Americans at large could be taught to act with grace and humility to those serving them, but no amount of microaggressions justifies murdering someone.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs. It is not "cancel culture", just good old fashioned "consequences".

lordfrito 3y ago
Ahhh the old "consequences" argument. I can't tell when it's "cancel culture" or "consequences" anymore. Word seems interchangeable nowadays in the media. Seems like when it happens to the in-group it's called cancel culture, but when it's experienced by the out-group it's just shrugged away as consequences. The point I'm making is I'm tired of this kind of separation of people into groups. Bad behavior leading to "consequences" for one group should also be considered bad behavior for the other group, which doesn't get to complain about the same "consequences" as well.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Bad behavior leading to "consequences" for one group should also be considered bad behavior for the other group, which doesn't get to complain about the same "consequences" as well. And it does. This whole "cancel culture" debate is and always has been just a poor attempt at propaganda. There is no such thing as "cancel culture", just this generational trend of using the word "cancel" interchangeably with "boycott". Boycotts have existed since the dawn of time, but there is no good way of personalizing a rival group as "boycotters", and that is the reason why we have this stupid "cancel culture" term. Now, there are a myriad of reasons why a cop should not be treated like any other individual, first of all being that they are legally and factually protected from facing many of the consequences of the same bad behaviour that would put most other people behind bars. But specifically and putting it into context, isn't having a government sponsored, paramilitary law enforcement group, that is immune to many law precepts by design, dangerous enough already? In a world where cops have all their current privileges and conserve all their rights as individuals, there is no room for first amendment rights. There cannot be.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  >Word seems interchangeable nowadays You're so close to understanding. This has always happened. When you have opinions people find objectionable it tends to make you less popular with those people. For some reason a few years ago we decided that if these ideas are coming from a particular group it's now a special thing deserving of a new term. It's a dumb term. If you want to have soft power you need to not say all your vile opinions out loud, that's how the human animal has worked for millions of years.

whoknew1122 3y ago

Safe spaces aren't a new thing. It's just now there is a vocabulary for it. 20 years ago, before people talked about safe spaces, I would hang out at comic/gaming stores because I could be my nerdy self while playing Magic: the Gathering. When I would go to bars, I'd go to gay bars. Because I could just be myself and not worry about running into the violence in the clubs that catered to teens. A safe space is about finding a place where you find yourself comfortable to be your authentic self. They've always existed, even if they weren't called safe spaces -- or castigated as part of a culture war. As an aside, I probably wouldn't use dicta from Plessy v. Ferguson, one of the worst decisions in US history, to buttress any argument. The constitution was never color-blind. It didn't explicitly reference color, but it didn't have to--everyone knew what it was talking about. > Why wouldn't police officers be afforded the same kinds of protections from microagressions that are given to other people in this country. Microaggressions are one thing. Criminalizing microaggressions is quite another. > Doesn't a police officer have a right to a safe working environment, and aggression free interactions with 'customers' (citizens), and laws saying as much? No. No cop goes into the profession expecting puppies and rainbows. Going into potentially unsafe environments with potentially aggressive people is what they signed up for. As a retail employee, you have to put up with microaggressions from customers. It's just part of dealing with the public. And those microaggressions aren't criminalized. Why do cops get to criminalize their feelings getting hurt?

mrangle 3y ago
>No. No cop goes into the profession expecting puppies and rainbows. Going into potentially unsafe environments with potentially aggressive people is what they signed up for. That's not how law enforcement works at all. What you are suggesting is that cops have less protections than civilians. Putting on a badge doesn't remove assault legal protections.
- whoknew1122 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting that at all. Putting on a badge enhances assault legal protections. Assault on a peace officer is an upgraded charge from assault on a civilian. Being a cop enhances your chances of being in a volatile situation. But you also have more leeway in how you address that violence, and have the backing of legislative branches (via legal enhancements such as assault on a peace officer) and the judiciary (via qualified immunity, among other things).