Police officers nationwide flagged for racist and violent social media posts

[Littlejoe]

Whatever. You don't understand what I'm talking about, and I'm not interested in spending a lot of time explaining it. I'll bet CP knows.

Well, yeah, you're right, I don't understand since I'm not in that field, but, I'm a huge supporter of LEO's and I have a few friends that are LEO's or retired LEO's (9 that I can think of off the top of my head) one is a very close life long friend...and so, I'm not totally ignorant either. I guess, I don't understand the distinction between your situation and mine. I would be walked off the site tomorrow if I posted anything critical of the company I support...or the company that employs me. (I work for a contractor, but dedicated to a particular customer). How do you see that as different than your situation?

[Mountain Man]

Well, yeah, you're right, I don't understand since I'm not in that field, but, I'm a huge supporter of LEO's and I have a few friends that are LEO's or retired LEO's (9 that I can think of off the top of my head) one is a very close life long friend...and so, I'm not totally ignorant either. I guess, I don't understand the distinction between your situation and mine. I would be walked off the site tomorrow if I posted anything critical of the company I support...or the company that employs me. (I work for a contractor, but dedicated to a particular customer). How do you see that as different than your situation?

Even if you posted something religious or political that could put someone's nose out of joint? That seems to be what myth is talking about. It's more than just being publicly critical of his employer.

[carpedm9587]

Actually, they are saying I can't post certain things on Facebook.

No. But I'll accept they are saying, "you can't post X on Facebook and keep your job."

There are appeals court (and I believe a US Supreme Court) ruling that says I can't rant about my employer publicly on Facebook without facing disciplinary proceedings at work. They've upheld the firing of an officer who posted criticism of their agency on Facebook, because the officer couldn't prove that they did it out of concern for the public's right to know about the issues she was complaining about.

Whistle blower laws for government employees should protect people regardless of the venue in which they post. That is not the same as racist posts.

I don't have a problem with firing racist officers, I'm just saying that my freedom of speech is severely curtailed by my employer. I can't comment on police-community relations, I'm not allowed to publicly state where I work on social media, I have to be careful that anything I say about politics is mainstream enough that people won't be offended by it, etc.

If you work for me, post on Facebook that you work for me, and then post something on Facebook that runs counter to the values with which I run my business and that I perceive could harm my business, I will fire you. You chose to associate yourself with my business publicly, so now you had better positively reflect on my business. If you do not associate yourself with my business publicly, then what you say is not my concern.

Do you consider it a basic job requirement of police officers that they can't say anything substantive publicly on social media without fearing for their job?

At no point have I suggested this. But if the comment is racist, or in any way suggests that their treatment of a person will be conditioned by the identity of the person (i.e., black, Mexican, female, gay, old, etc.) then they should be dismissed or at least taken out of a public-facing position.

I don't specifically name where I work because, of all the stuff I've talked about, I'd rather not face disciplinary proceedings at work. In other words, I can only comfortably discuss these issues in public if I'm anonymous. And it's not because I'm embarrassed or afraid to express myself, it's because I have no idea how some pissed-off captain at my agency will choose to interpret our super vague social media policy.

Caution seems advisable in your circumstance.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure you're grasping the impact of the media's focus. There should be scrutiny any time an officer kills a citizen. But the media's inaccurate portrayal of the facts is damaging to both the community and the police. For one, if you went by what you see in the news, it seems like ONLY black people are killed by cops. That incorrect perception is a large part of the reason police-community relations are so bad right now.

Not all that long ago, we had an officer-involved shooting. I got there about 4-6 minutes after it happened. Dead guy is still cooling on the pavement, and my supervisor's first comment when we huddle up for assignments? "Thank God the dead guy's white." The shooting was not controversial, but if the dead guy had been black you can absolutely bet it would be been controversial. The media, and many times the community don't care about the fact set -- they care about whether or not a black person got hurt. And that's sad but true.

I don't disagree that the media reporting is skewed. But that is our own doing. We are the ones who reward media outlets with eyeballs when they sensationalize news. We are the ones who elected people that permitted laws that commercialized news reporting. The moment "news" became "big business" funded by advertising, the pressure was on to get ratings and sensationalized news stories get ratings. Every time we tune in to a 24-hour news station, we are feeding the beast. There is no way a 24 hour news station can generate attention with just those day-to-day grind stories. There is no way The Weather Channel can maintain attention with "it's going to rain." So they sensationalize, and pick stories that will get eyeballs. Every weather event is a "potential disaster." In this case, as soon as the disproportionate treatment of black citizens became public and discussed, these stories got eyeballs with the inevitable results.

Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes pioneered this "news as entertainment," recognizing the untapped power of the news cycle to form public opinion and make money. The history is well documented, and they were incredibly successful with Fox News. The problem is, now all of the other outlets have adopted the model. Then 2016 taught us that the more extreme you go - the better it is. People in Macedonia were creating websites with "fake news" about Clinton right and left. Why didn't they do that for Trump. They report that they originally did both, but they got nowhere near as many hits on the Trump fake news stories as on the Clinton fake news stories, so they focused on Clinton. Why? Because hits meant advertising dollars, and many of these sites made a fortune in 2016. The same exact dynamic is starting up as we head into the 2020 election cycle.

We, the public, get exactly what we have coming to us based on our choices.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not "hiding from the facts of history", I'm just careful about differentiating between correlation and causation.

You have failed to realize the correlation with "history" that supports causation. Like the others the "history" and roots of the racism supports causation. Your careful perspective has an agenda in this light.

None of you have addressed the "history."

[shunyadragon]

This is the kind of uncharitable reading of seer's words that I'm talking about. It's clear as day from the context that seer is not claiming that blacks are inherently more violent, but only that there is a higher rate of violence in the black community, but shuny still insists on reading his words in a manner that makes it seem seer is propagating racist ideas. Whether shuny is doing this because he has malicious intentions or because his reading comprehension is lacking I don't know, but experience leads me to believe it's probably the latter.

It is clear as day seer is directly attributing causation of being black and the stats he cites considering the subject of the thread, which in reality has no relationship of the problem of the" history" of racism from the perspective of law enforcement.

None of you have addressed the "history" and origins of racism related to the present problem in law enforcement.

[tabibito]

Seer is pointing to correlation. The distinction doesn't escape you.

[shunyadragon]

Seer is pointing to correlation. The distinction doesn't escape you.

Huh? Needs more explanation. I believe seer was arguing cause in terms of the subject of the thread. There is no other reason for seer;s argument.

[JonathanL]

It is clear as day seer is directly attributing causation of being black and the stats he cites considering the subject of the thread

No that's not clear at all. If you think he is you're seriously lacking in reading comprehension skills. Either that or your intentions are malicious and you want to unjustly paint seer as being a racist.

[Mountain Man]

No that's not clear at all. If you think he is you're seriously lacking in reading comprehension skills. Either that or your intentions are malicious and you want to unjustly paint seer as being a racist.

Or shuny and carpe are the racists, going on and on about how the data "could" be interpreted in order to fix a certain idea in people's minds without directly stating it themselves.

[carpedm9587]

Or shuny and carpe are the racists, going on and on about how the data "could" be interpreted in order to fix a certain idea in people's minds without directly stating it themselves.

My intent in posting was to do nothing more than to point to the harm done by continual repetition of the phrase (or any phrase like) "black people are more violent." The phrase reinforces an untrue stereotype that harms all of the black people who do NOT engage in violence, and contributes to our society's problem of systemic racism.

Beyond that, I have no further comment. I can only make the plea, and hope people will "do the right thing." It's a small ask: please consider making a minor adjustment to the language to avoid promoting a stereotype. I leave the rest to y'all.

[myth]

You have failed to realize the correlation with "history" that supports causation. Like the others the "history" and roots of the racism supports causation. Your careful perspective has an agenda in this light.

None of you have addressed the "history."

No, I just don't draw the same conclusions about causation as you do. You accuse me of having an agenda, but you clearly have one as well.

And I don't feel a need to address the "history". Shuny, most of the world was racist back in the day. That doesn't have much bearing on how racist specific groups of people today are, and you haven't explain why it would.

Shuny, were your ancestors 400 years ago racist? Was your grandfather a racist? And if they were, am I justified in assuming that you're a racist as well?

If you want to convince me, make a better argument. As it is, you're just going "but the police were racist 70 years ago, none of those people are still working, so the police must still be racist now". It's a terrible argument.

[seer]

It is clear as day seer is directly attributing causation of being black and the stats he cites considering the subject of the thread, which in reality has no relationship of the problem of the" history" of racism from the perspective of law enforcement.

None of you have addressed the "history" and origins of racism related to the present problem in law enforcement.

Are you wicked Shuny, or just stupid? Everyone else here understood my point...

[Mountain Man]

My intent in posting was to do nothing more than to point to the harm done by continual repetition of the phrase (or any phrase like) "black people are more violent." The phrase reinforces an untrue stereotype that harms all of the black people who do NOT engage in violence, and contributes to our society's problem of systemic racism.

Beyond that, I have no further comment. I can only make the plea, and hope people will "do the right thing." It's a small ask: please consider making a minor adjustment to the language to avoid promoting a stereotype. I leave the rest to y'all.

It's a fact that blacks in the US commit a disproportionate percentage of all crime. You can whine and complain all you want about how this can be "interpreted", but it doesn't change the fact (although I do appreciate the irony of you going to great lengths to promote and reinforce a particular interpretation all the while ostensibly denouncing it). You attribute it to "blackness", which I'm still not sure what that means, but if you're referring to black culture and not genetics then I think we can agree. In which case, the solution becomes rather obvious: change the culture.

[shunyadragon]

No that's not clear at all. If you think he is you're seriously lacking in reading comprehension skills. Either that or your intentions are malicious and you want to unjustly paint seer as being a racist.

You are seriously lacking in comprehension skills, and fail to explain why seer uses this reasoning to argue what? in this thread.