@no1marauder saidDespite your claims to the contrary your solution of explicit preference for certain races is in fact racism and should under all circumstances never be permitted.
A 2011 DOJ investigation of the Seattle Police Department found its officers to have consistently engaged in illegal use of force and raised serious concerns regarding discriminatory enforcement. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf
IF there are to be police layoffs, retaining officers from before that date shoul ...[text shortened]... not be sacrificed.
That's not "racism", that's trying to address the problem of systemic racism.
@quackquack saidSorry, but no matter how much right wingers try to pervert the language, measures meant to alleviate the effects of invidious discrimination based on "race" are not "racism" merely because they take into account the effects of invidious discrimination in their remedy.
Despite your claims to the contrary your solution of explicit preference for certain races is in fact racism and should under all circumstances never be permitted.
On the other hand, those who oppose any measures that would have any real chance of minimizing the effects of invidious discrimination are supporting racism whether they admit it or not.
@no1marauder On the other hand, those who oppose any measures that would have any real chance of minimizing the effects of invidious discrimination are supporting racism whether they admit it or not.
"invidious discrimination"? fancy that.
Is that wording including in the law? No. It mentions race, gender, ethnicity,
place of origin. Nothing about invidious discrimination.
So you can break the law (or think it is Ok to) and call yet someone an invidious
discriminator, even though it is not illegal.
Very interesting. Man, you lawyers have a way.
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidActually it is.
@no1marauder On the other hand, those who oppose any measures that would have any real chance of minimizing the effects of invidious discrimination are supporting racism whether they admit it or not.
"invidious discrimination"? fancy that.
Is that wording including in the law? No. It mentions race, gender, ethnicity,
place of origin. Nothing about invidiou ...[text shortened]... ous
discriminator, even though it is not illegal.
Very interesting. Man, you lawyers have a way.
"Invidious Discrimination is treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. If there is rational justification for the different treatment, then the discrimination is not invidious. The criteria delineating the groups, such as gender, race, or class, determine the kind of discrimination."
https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invidious-discrimination/#:~:text=Invidious%20discrimination%20generally%20refers%20to,results%20of%20IQ%20testing%2C%20age
The term has been used in SCOTUS cases as far back as 1942 and in dozens, if not, hundreds since then. "Invidious discrimination" violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The Constitution, in case you are unaware, is "the supreme law of the land".
A more complete definition:
"nvidious discrimination refers to the arbitrarily different treatment of a class of persons by the government. Discrimination is said to be invidious if the law’s classification does not rest on a reasonable and just relation to its aims, whatever those aims may be. Discrimination animated solely by bias or prejudice is invidious.
Though the principle of equal protection of law stands as a constitutional commitment to the like treatment by the government of all similarly situated persons, it does not render every legislative classification invalid. Indeed, nearly every law discriminates in some way by differentiating on its face or in its effect between similarly situated persons—between those who will benefit from the law and those who will be burdened by it. As interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court, however, equal protection forbids only invidious discrimination."
https://uscivilliberties.org/themes/3979-invidious-discrimination.html
@no1marauder saidNo matter how you phrase it, your leftist power grab is unjustified explicit racism.
Sorry, but no matter how much right wingers try to pervert the language, measures meant to alleviate the effects of invidious discrimination based on "race" are not "racism" merely because they take into account the effects of invidious discrimination in their remedy.
On the other hand, those who oppose any measures that would have any real chance of minimizing the effects of invidious discrimination are supporting racism whether they admit it or not.
From a moral point of view, using race as the basis to decide who keeps their job and who loses their job should always be illegal. If you truly believe someone discriminated, find those people, and punish them. Instead (either because you are lazy or without evidence) you, without proof, assume all white people committed an injustice to all minorities -- even those who were not employed or seeking jobs at the time of the alleged offense. While I'm not surprised that a low character human such as yourself would demand a racist solution, I am somewhat surprised that you don't even want to determine who was racist (if indeed anyone was) and discipline or replace them.
@quackquack saidRace is not a thing.
No matter how you phrase it, your leftist power grab is unjustified explicit racism.
From a moral point of view, using race as the basis to decide who keeps their job and who loses their job should always be illegal. If you truly believe someone discriminated, find those people, and punish them. Instead (either because you are lazy or without evidence) you, without proo ...[text shortened]... u don't even want to determine who was racist (if indeed anyone was) and discipline or replace them.
As a “leftist”, but more correctly “a communist” I totally disagree with anyone suggesting sacking all white people, all black people, all women or whatever.
However, seemingly the story is more an exaggeration and has never been implimented.
This is another example of the polarization in your society getting in the way of normal debate; indeed, interfering with normal ways of talking with each other.
Take a step back from the edge.
1 edit
@quackquack saidSince the philosophy behind remedying societal wide discrimination has been explained to you at least a hundred times on this Forum, I have to presume that you are just deliberately lying at this point.
No matter how you phrase it, your leftist power grab is unjustified explicit racism.
From a moral point of view, using race as the basis to decide who keeps their job and who loses their job should always be illegal. If you truly believe someone discriminated, find those people, and punish them. Instead (either because you are lazy or without evidence) you, without proo ...[text shortened]... u don't even want to determine who was racist (if indeed anyone was) and discipline or replace them.
Remedying such discrimination doesn't assume anything about "all white people"; it just acts on the overwhelming evidence that invidious discrimination and systemic racism impair the ability of some minorities to achieve "traditional qualifications" while saying nothing about their actual abilities on a fair playing field (which the United States of America 2020 is not).
I think you know this which is why you have to stoop to low class personal attacks and parroting the same nonsense over and over and over again which never addresses the actual issue i.e. how to remedy societal wide discrimination and systemic racism (which you obviously have no interest in doing).
@shavixmir saidWell, I have to disagree; having a diverse police force is advantageous and IF Seattle and other cities are going to reduce the number of police they should do so in a way that does not reverse gains in diversity:
Race is not a thing.
As a “leftist”, but more correctly “a communist” I totally disagree with anyone suggesting sacking all white people, all black people, all women or whatever.
However, seemingly the story is more an exaggeration and has never been implimented.
This is another example of the polarization in your society getting in the way of normal debate; indeed, interfering with normal ways of talking with each other.
Take a step back from the edge.
"As the Task Force recognized, increased diversity within law enforcement agencies – defined not only in terms of race and gender, but also other characteristics including religion, sexual
orientation, gender identity, language ability, background, and experience – serves as a critically important tool to build trust with communities. This finding is bolstered by decades of research confirming that when members of the public believe their law enforcement organizations represent them, understand them, and respond to them – and when communities perceive authorities as fair, legitimate, and accountable – it deepens trust in law enforcement, instills public confidence in government, and supports the integrity of democracy. This trust is essential to defusing tension, to solving crimes, and to creating a system in which residents view law enforcement as fair and just.
Victims and witnesses of crime may not approach or engage with law enforcement if they do not perceive such authorities to be responsive to their experiences and concerns. This trust – and the cooperation it facilitates – also enables officers to more effectively and safely perform their jobs.
Research further suggests that increased diversity can make law enforcement agencies more open to reform, more willing to initiate cultural and systemic changes, and more responsive to the residents they serve. Some have pointed to increased diversity as a catalyst for reform, enabling officers and law enforcement leaders alike to become more introspective and reflective about problems in their departments. A more reflective and open-minded culture in an agency can help drive reform across a range of areas, including civilian oversight, community policing, and racial bias. In addition, while greater workforce diversity alone cannot ensure fair and effective policing, a
significant – and growing – body of evidence suggests that diversity can have a positive influence on specific activities and practices of law enforcement agencies. "
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/900761/download
@earl-of-trumps saidi scrolled through this thread to see who was the first to point out what you're lying about (Omission is also a form of lying). I would not have guessed mchill. it's usually No1marauder who takes the time to wade through the garbage you post.
Institutional "legalized" racism by leftists.
Seattle City Council Member Suggests Firing White Officers in Massive Reduction of Police Department
[i]The Seattle City Council is facing something of a dilemma in its popular pledge to cut the police budget by 50 percent. To do so would require firing a significant number of police officers, which is also pop ...[text shortened]... eattle-city-council-member-suggests-firing-white-officers-in-massive-reduction-of-police-department/
@no1marauder saidI totally agree that a policeforce has to be a reflection of the community they serve.
Well, I have to disagree; having a diverse police force is advantageous and IF Seattle and other cities are going to reduce the number of police they should do so in a way that does not reverse gains in diversity:
"As the Task Force recognized, increased diversity within law enforcement agencies – defined not only in terms of race and gender, but also other characteris ...[text shortened]... ces of law enforcement agencies. "
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/900761/download
However, the diversity can’t, under normal circumstances, be forced down the throats of the sitting workforce.
It should be achieved in the hiring and training phase.
And it should not lead to a lower competency or effectiveness.
What you are arguing is that these aren’t normal circumstances and surgeory has to be carried out.
And then I must fall back on my previous posts:
- make sure people losing their jobs are re-educated and move to a new job (otherwise you only create more problems than you solve).
- do it as much as possible on a voluntary basis.
- don’t lie. Make sure the workforce knows why you are doing it and get their imput on the matter and the consequences.
So, basically, you’re looking at a 4 year plan of recruitment and training.
@no1marauder
Great!
So the question is, - is the Seattle City Council pol exhibiting this invidious
discrimination when she calls to fire all white cops?
You have no where to hide on this issue.
@shavixmir This is another example of the polarization in your society getting in the way of normal debate; indeed, interfering with normal ways of talking with each other.
Not exactly that.
It does show that the people who are perpetually screaming racism are in fact
extreme racists. And... they VOTE! scary
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidYou're seriously arguing that Lisa Herbold is suggesting that the Seattle police force retain its level its level of diversity because she believes whites are inferior to blacks?
@no1marauder
Great!
So the question is, - is the Seattle City Council pol exhibiting this invidious
discrimination when she calls to fire all white cops?
You have no where to hide on this issue.
I looked at the original article and it failed to actually quote what Herbold (who is white) said or give any context. But I'm always willing to help:
"On Wednesday, SPD released a detailed diversity breakdown of current officers and recruits to show the impact of that proposed cut. According to the policy, they would lay off the most recent hires first.
SPD said that would mean laying off 46 Asian officers, 47 Black or African American officers, 56 Hispanic or Latino officers and 59 biracial or multiracial officers, among others, as well as 526 white officers.
Councilmember Lisa Herbold called a similar diversity breakdown of the proposed cuts “a threat” on Twitter.
She wrote that the “Chief can request the Public Safety Civil Service Commission Executive Director to lay off out of order” when doing so is in “the interest of efficient operations of his or her department,” citing the commission’s rules.
Herbold went on to tweet that “this means Chief doesn’t have to fire the newest hired first. Chief says firing BIPOC members of the SPD would be harmful and I agree. I know she can argue just as convincingly that maintaining the employment of BIPOC officers is in the interest of efficient operations of the SPD.”
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-police-chief-fires-back-suggestion-lay-off-officers-out-order/VLMWOYSO4JH7DPBPTS7UU3YZUM/
So it was the Police Chief who brought up the subject of race and Herbold replied that rather than just using seniority as a basis of reducing police personnel, that maintaining that diversity would promote "the interest of efficient operations" (as to why, see the DOJ report on diversity I referenced).
So where in Herbold's position is any sign of "bias or prejudice"? Is not the object of a diverse police force a "reasonable" one that serves a "compelling state interest"?
So the answer to your question is "no", Herbold is not exhibiting "invidious discrimination" (https://uscivilliberties.org/themes/3979-invidious-discrimination.html).
And I have no need to "hide on this issue". Her position has been twisted (I see nowhere she said ONLY whites should be fired) but even if what she did say is unpopular, it is a reasonable position and the Police Chief is playing politics by threatening to reduce diversity IF the City reduces police funding.
EDIT: Here's Best's letter to the Mayor July 10th: https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2020/07/10/chief-bests-message-to-officers-mayor-city-on-potential-cuts-to-police-budget/
Scroll to the bottom and you'll see that she claims 65% of Hispanics and 90% of "mixed race" would be laid off under the present seniority system assuming a 50% cut in funding.
@shavixmir saidI agree with you that race should not be a thing -- it should not be a basis to exclude an individual and it should not be a basis to prefer an individual.
Race is not a thing.
As a “leftist”, but more correctly “a communist” I totally disagree with anyone suggesting sacking all white people, all black people, all women or whatever.
However, seemingly the story is more an exaggeration and has never been implimented.
This is another example of the polarization in your society getting in the way of normal debate; indeed, interfering with normal ways of talking with each other.
Take a step back from the edge.
This is no a fringe issue. The democrats have mandated that the VP be female -- I have no problem if they pick a female because that is their best candidate but I do have a problem with excluding everyone from a group for any job . Affirmative action for job and colleges gives huge preference to members of certain group over members of other groups.