while i can see good intent behind this, it definitely seems like a significant overreach, and not particularly helpful for actually solving real issues.
Human beings are biased so how the hell is this going to be enforced?
“fire everyone who dissents”, probably
Removed by mod
Keep it in good faith
Removed by mod
There’s plenty of communities where your level of discussion is appreciated. We are not one of them.
Oh my god do I hate that you still can’t pause GIFs. It was a thing for so long, and then browsers broke it on purpose, for no sensible reason. You have video support now. Just treat them like MJPEG. Stick a little pause button on there and stop looping, I am trying to read.
Anyway:
The news says it means groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, but the actual rule is written to be all encompassing of anything the Left doesn’t like.
[Any organization that] advocates for systematic illegal prejudice, oppression, or discrimination, including disparate treatment, against an individual or group on the basis of any protected class under federal, state, and local law, including race, color, sex, gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, military status, source of income, credit history, criminal record, or criminal history."
No, this is just the Babylon Bee lying by implication.
The policy is about bigotry.
As it should be.
Obviously.
This language makes it so officers can’t comment on things like opposing drag queen story hour, abhorring transing kids at schools, supporting parental rights, stopping illegal immigration, not letting felons vote, etc.
Yeah man, because those are examples of bigotry. You’re describing police endorsing the harassment of queer people, police supporting reactionary micromanagement of other people’s children, and police being opposed to criminal rehabilitation. Some of that is not their job, and some of that is the opposite of their job.
Just blanket labeling dissent as bigotry doesn’t make it so, no matter how desperate you are to try and claim it is
Labeling bigotry as bigotry is what words mean, no matter how softly you peddle it by calling it dissent.
A man in a dress is not somehow indecent, if a woman would not be. Saying otherwise is obvious sexism.
Your kids have rights, independent of you. They’re not property. There are limits to what you can expect of them and aspects of their being you cannot change. Trying to beat the gay out of them would fucking obviously be an act of intolerable bigotry - and trying to scare the trans out of them is not far off.
Talking about immigration and voting aren’t directly racist, but they are plainly racism-adjacent, in the context this policy addresses. Even in Chicago - they’re not talking about Canadians.
Jesus, your entire comment is just the most brazen of strawman arguments. Do better next time.
Labeling a blow-by-blow list of things “the language makes it so officers can’t comment on” strawman arguments doesn’t make it so, either.
This is the subject. What else are you talking about?
You’ve intentionally go a through and provided a series of strawman arguments about basically every topic touched. Nothing you said even remotely reflects what people on the right actually believe regarding any of those subjects.
Oh I’m sorry, did you want to get into the details of how anti-drag nonsense is rife with calling queer men “groomers” for having anything whatsoever to do with children? Or the 1950s moral panic over the unremarkable literature involved, when they volunteer their time, reading to children?
Or maybe you think “don’t say gay” discriminatory abuse is totally unrelated to forcing teachers to report on children’s preferred nicknames and get written permission to use them? As if this policy that is explicitly about “systematic illegal prejudice, oppression, or discrimination” can be dismissed entirely, because they later used that evil no-no word “bias?” … in the same context and severity as “specific criminal organizations?”
Or maybe you could say a damn thing besides ‘nuh-uh.’
What this policy is about is right there, in black and white. Pearl-clutching about ‘but what do they mean?!’ is willful ignorance. People don’t want the police openly promoting organizations dedicated to dehumanizing people. We have a concept of protected class for a reason - why would it not apply to the government? Why would it not apply to the agents of that government who walk among us with handcuffs and guns?
These remain the exact points proposed in the article you posted.
The Babylon Bee pulls out the following scenarios, by name:
-
Officers not being allowed to comment on opposing “drag queen story hour.” An event where men in dresses read to children, and that’s bad somehow. All criticism I’m aware of is on a spectrum from tacit anti-LGBT bigotry to outright, libelous, fearmongering anti-LGBT bigotry.
-
Officers not being allowed to “abhor transing kids in schools.” Which is that libelous anti-LGBT bigotry. Verbing the word “trans” as if it’s something being done to children, and not something queer kids have to fight for recognition of, is fucking obviously anti-trans bigotry. It is naked fearmongering. Unambiguous think-of-the-children horseshit, in the tired formula of ‘them queers are coming fer yer kids.’
-
Officers not being allowed to “support parental rights.” Which is, at the very least, relevant to current anti-LGBT laws, where some kids can’t even use shortened names without written approval. The explicitly stated goal being: to out trans kids. Any measurable impact will be a headcount of queer children kept in the closet through fear. That is why it is crucial to make people understand - children have rights. It’s not the school, the parents, and mouthy pets. We are talking about developing and vulnerable human beings. All demonstrably individual persons. If an organization’s opinion of “parental rights” amounts to “systemic prejudice, oppression, or discrimination,” you’re damn right I don’t want to see law enforcement officers endorsing that bloodless violence.
-
Officers not being allowed to oppose “illegal immigration.” Which this policy doesn’t do. The article’s just lying. The standard is, again, “systemic prejudice, oppression, or discrimination.” There’s a lot of racist shit that will be glibly misrepresented as “opposing illegal immigration,” but if Officer Joe Bagodonitz has strong opinions about overstayed visas, nobody cares.
-
Officers not being allowed to oppose “letting felons vote.” Which is only true because the policy specifies “criminal record” as a protected class. (Note how it could have added “immigration status” - but doesn’t.) This is the only point the author raises that’s even worthy of argument. Which is why I only noted that it’s a dog-whistle.
That’s ALL ONE SENTENCE. I’m not gathering quotes from across the article. I am addressing the disingenuous bullshit contained in literally one sentence of this blog, which is in my original comment. There is no excuse for pretending it’s some off-topic ass-pull. This is the central thrust of the article you posted. These are things the Babylon Bee made up, to ignore how the actual policy says “systematic illegal prejudice, oppression, or discrimination.”
But because the policy summarizes agents of “prejudice, oppression, or discrimination” as “criminal or biased organizations,” that miserable tabloid latches onto the word bias, and ignores the explicit focus on bigotry. That fnord makes the headline - but the prejudice, oppression, and discrimination do not.
This is a country where the Nazi party is a completely legal association. Actual Nazi paraphernalia would not be covered under “criminal organizations.” But it’s plainly what this policy is talking about, and if any police officers feel their opinions lean too close to that - the least they can do is keep their mouths shut.
Lmao you must be really pissy, considering that you waited out your ban just to double down on it
-