This is why they kneel

[valade16]

First: I have no idea what you’re referring. How do I prove police cannot violate someone’s rights for any reason, including racism? Laws... I mean police “can” violate someone’s rights. I’m saying it’s illegal and we can’t stand for it

Second: public sector unions are not all unions. While I don’t like private unions because I believe they harm the economy, that’s different than public sector unions which have a philosophy which contradicts their purpose- to be civil servants.

Third: but there is ambiguity in what is racist and what is not. The word has become deflated in its impact because everything is racist. That’s why Rights and violating them are important. Because rights are objective. Racism is subjected. It’s possible to be racist and not violate someone’s rights.

Fourth: This shows you don’t understand the difference between something that is objective and something that is subjective. Rape and child sex trafficking are objective violations of someone’s rights. Racism is subjective. Racism also mostly exists in someone’s mind or heart. To use your example, it’s like a 40 year old guy who dates or likes 18/19 year old girls because he likes them young. Perfectly legal to do but kinda creepy.

Fifth: Rights. The compromise is rights. Because those are objective measures which can be impacted through legislation. Wanting to ban both the police and teachers unions seems like a compromise to me as both industries have a negative impact in the inner cities.

First, again, you actually stood and defended it for Stop and Frisk. So while you profess the idea that police shouldn't be allowed to violate people's rights, you argue for the opposite.

Second, This is the heart of it. You don't care about any of these issues, you're just using it as a way to get what you want politically (the abolishment of Unions).

Third, Sure, there's ambiguity in what is racist, but I hope we all objectively agree that racism in broad terms is bad and should be abolished. You're confusing the specifics with the over-arching ideology.

Fourth, When I speak about racism, I'm talking racism that objectively negatively impacts communities. Your problem is that you cannot comprehend abstract concepts. If you don't see the paint-by-numbers A to B, you don't believe it's happening. If someone rapes someone else, you can see the effects. But if it's an indirect effect, it doesn't count.

I have posed this hypothetical on here several times, but it's illustrative of the stunted way in which you view the problem. Suppose a police officer sees two identical vehicles speeding down the road at identical speeds, with the only difference being one was a black driver and one was a white driver. Who does the officer pull over? The answer is: it doesn't matter. Both are breaking the law, so he can randomly pull over either. Suppose he randomly pulls over the black driver. No problem there. Now suppose this same scenario plays out 100 times and in all 100 instances the police officer "randomly" pulls over the black driver. Is that racist?

According to your thinking, it isn't. Because even though it is so statistically unlikely that police could randomly pull over the black guy 100 straight times it is for all intents and purposes impossible, there is no direct evidence that what he did was racist. So you say "it's not racist". Then when people bring up the discrepancy of how often the black guy is pulled over than the white guy you say "well the reason he is pulled over more is he speeds more, just look at how many times he's been pulled over for speeding" thereby cementing your circular reasoning.

Fifth, People's rights are being compromised, that's what people are protesting/rioting about. So the idea that rights are an objective measures is erroneous because you disagree the notion that those rights are being violated.

And yes, that is technically a compromise, but it's not a compromise related to this issue. It's adding irrelevant political goals into a debate and then demanding a compromise include those. It'd be like me saying "fine, we lower the weeks at which you can get an abortion, but in exchange you have to pass the Green New Deal". That compromise isn't actually a compromise of the situation, it's extracting a separate political win

Which goes back to my original point: there can be no compromise on this issue because you don't actually believe in the issue. That's why you have to add in other political goals, because there is no compromise when your position is non-existent.

[valade16]

Union contracts pay members at various levels the same pay. If you have 100 people making the same opay for the same job, it stands to reason that someone must be better than the others.

Union members also show more loyalty to their union than they do to their employer (you know, the guy that is actually paying them.) Non union members would tend to have more company loyalty. And this point should not be understated. Loyal employees are usually contented employees and contented employees are more productive.

Unions produce an us vs them mentality. "That's no my job. that's not in the contract. I don't have to do that. I'm entitled to XXX."

This does not work well in my opinion.

First, yes some are better than others. But those better ones... get better jobs or more responsibility. Which is exactly how you explained private businesses without Unions pay their employees more. So, what's the difference?

Perhaps the reason Union Members show more loyalty to the Union is that if the Union goes away, their pay goes down. So who is really ensuring they get paid, the company that's itching to pay them less, or the Union ensuring they get paid the amount they're currently getting paid?

But the bolded is really your end goal: you want employees dependent on employers to the point where they'r so grateful no matter how little they get. You want all employees to shut up, accept the meager pay you deign to dole out, and thank them so much for their generosity.

[ewing]

Vlade is on fire


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGGG-Men]

This is pretty funny: https://imgur.com/gallery/X0wVOrj

[spliff(TONE)]

That was pretty funny.

[joeyc77]

They might be similar in a couple ways/issues but are not the same and it is not the sector I repeatedly was mentioning previously with you responding but not sharing any proof (firefighters, USPS, garbage).

You keep saying "the concept of unions is bad in the public sector" and then generalizing points that are not necessarily true. Governments still care about money and balancing budgets, there is still plenty of the same pressures to produce cost effectively. This was covered already and people didn't respond to that aspect either. They have a budget as you say and negotiated good salaries due to the unions, without them they might start making tons of cuts around pay/safety of employees to get more out of said budget in other ways. I agree, sometimes there are issues like a bad teacher and we should work on creating better standards around these individual issues within each sector.

The concept is your opinion and you have regularly only looked at this one way based on that opinion while ignoring everything else and have provided no proof at all in any way of reality of those other sectors being bad. This is why you never went in depth or provided real detail as I noted. You are just using association of the worst aspects of some unions, inserting your extreme opinion of all must be bad due to it and not providing anything else.

I feel like I repeat myself multiple times with responding to you. Here goes....

Again, the reason we don’t here about issues within other industries/unions such as firefighters and USPS is because those industries don’t have such a direct impact on the general public. That being said, most small town fire companies are volunteers so no union. USPS is struggling. Whether you believe it should continue or not, I think everyone can agree it’s struggling. Salaries are part of that issue. And when I say salaries I’m including benefits and pensions. Technology and the private sector are obviously killing USPS. But it’s because it’s budget can’t handle it.

While I agree governments care about their budget, can we agree that unlike private sector they are not motivated by profit or even staying out of the red. As others have pointed out, the negotiators on the side of the government are not negotiating with their own money or feel no direct impact in a negotiation going poorly. This is different than negotiators (CEO, lawyers) for a corporation. Can we agree on these differences? Furthermore, if police or teachers go on strike, this can negatively impact the career of a politician negotiating on the side of civilians. In other words, they are motivated to give into the demands of unions. CEOs or lawyers careers are directly impacted on their bottom line- their profits.

I’m stating public sector unions are a problem and specifically police unions contribute if not drive the issues of poor policing within inner cities if not everywhere.

[dbroncsinmo]

Doesn't excuse what happened to his son at all, but Jacob Blake is a racist piece of ****.

[joeyc77]

First, again, you actually stood and defended it for Stop and Frisk. So while you profess the idea that police shouldn't be allowed to violate people's rights, you argue for the opposite.

Second, This is the heart of it. You don't care about any of these issues, you're just using it as a way to get what you want politically (the abolishment of Unions).

Third, Sure, there's ambiguity in what is racist, but I hope we all objectively agree that racism in broad terms is bad and should be abolished. You're confusing the specifics with the over-arching ideology.

Fourth, When I speak about racism, I'm talking racism that objectively negatively impacts communities. Your problem is that you cannot comprehend abstract concepts. If you don't see the paint-by-numbers A to B, you don't believe it's happening. If someone rapes someone else, you can see the effects. But if it's an indirect effect, it doesn't count.

I have posed this hypothetical on here several times, but it's illustrative of the stunted way in which you view the problem. Suppose a police officer sees two identical vehicles speeding down the road at identical speeds, with the only difference being one was a black driver and one was a white driver. Who does the officer pull over? The answer is: it doesn't matter. Both are breaking the law, so he can randomly pull over either. Suppose he randomly pulls over the black driver. No problem there. Now suppose this same scenario plays out 100 times and in all 100 instances the police officer "randomly" pulls over the black driver. Is that racist?

According to your thinking, it isn't. Because even though it is so statistically unlikely that police could randomly pull over the black guy 100 straight times it is for all intents and purposes impossible, there is no direct evidence that what he did was racist. So you say "it's not racist". Then when people bring up the discrepancy of how often the black guy is pulled over than the white guy you say "well the reason he is pulled over more is he speeds more, just look at how many times he's been pulled over for speeding" thereby cementing your circular reasoning.

Fifth, People's rights are being compromised, that's what people are protesting/rioting about. So the idea that rights are an objective measures is erroneous because you disagree the notion that those rights are being violated.

And yes, that is technically a compromise, but it's not a compromise related to this issue. It's adding irrelevant political goals into a debate and then demanding a compromise include those. It'd be like me saying "fine, we lower the weeks at which you can get an abortion, but in exchange you have to pass the Green New Deal". That compromise isn't actually a compromise of the situation, it's extracting a separate political win

Which goes back to my original point: there can be no compromise on this issue because you don't actually believe in the issue. That's why you have to add in other political goals, because there is no compromise when your position is non-existent.

First, this is what I’m talking about with an SJW creating a predetermined narrative in your head and debating with it. I was against stop and frisk from a rights perspective. However, I stated on several occasions that as a means to an end, if I was a non criminal black person (of which we know there are many) I would support this effort in inner cities as something has to change. Do you honestly not care about black people being killed in inner cities? I do... I’ve seen it firsthand. I’ve had friends killed for really no reason. Something has to change.

Second, I’m actually very anti political. I rarely post in other threads for this reason. Again, police unions typically support Republican candidates. Teacher unions typically support democrat candidates. Seems pretty fair/reasonable to want to abolish both. You see an issues with education, yet you don’t want to make any changes. I see the issue as systemic unionism.

Third, I said this in a previous post but I don’t believe being racist is going to lead to much success in life. In other words, racists are typically losers. At least imo. The difference is, I don’t believe you can legislate people to not be racist because of its ambiguity. If someone wants to walk down the street and hate someone because of their race, they can.

Fourth, you are talking about the subjective reasoning you have placed on disproportionate issues of society. Evidently, you don’t know what the word objective means. We can take measures to objectively impact those Issues. But again, you sound like a person on the religious right who wants to “pray the gay away.” You cannot force someone to not be racist. It’s literally impossible just like it is to force someone to stop being gay.

Using your hypothetical, if the area is predominantly black, I would expect more black people to be pulled over than white. But obviously not 100%. But using your example, in current society, if this racist cop were to be called in to be reprimanded for his racist behavior, his union rep would accompany him and argue that he was just doing his job. The cop would only receive a mild slap on the wrist, if anything. In the world I’m advocating, superior officers eventually leading to ones appointed by politicians would have complete discretion to reprimand the type of officer. But for political purposes (that it might start a barrage against unions) you do not want this type of society. You want a society with a hive mind. Unfortunately, this is reality.

It’s a compromise because both aspects negatively impact inner cities, which is the broader discussion. You don’t believe education or lack there of has anything to do with crime in inner cities?

[ewing]

Doesn't excuse what happened to his son at all, but Jacob Blake is a racist piece of ****.

What did he say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spliff(TONE)]

Doesn't excuse what happened to his son at all, but Jacob Blake is a racist piece of ****.

What did he say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like he got his marching orders from Donald Trump Jr. and is now spreading the word.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcoh.../#6d3ff8a83afc

[ewing]

Looks like he got his marching orders from Donald Trump Jr. and is now spreading the word.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcoh.../#6d3ff8a83afc

So he didn’t say anything but garbage people are bringing up ****** things he said on Facebook years ago immediately after his son got shot 7 times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbroncsinmo]

Looks like he got his marching orders from Donald Trump Jr. and is now spreading the word.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcoh.../#6d3ff8a83afc

Anytime someone says anything other than Trump is bad, you make a pretty broad brushed assumption.

No, I had absolutely no idea junior said a single thing about it.

People can actually be conservative without getting their marching orders from Trump. Nice try though.

[valade16]

First, this is what I’m talking about with an SJW creating a predetermined narrative in your head and debating with it. I was against stop and frisk from a rights perspective. However, I stated on several occasions that as a means to an end, if I was a non criminal black person (of which we know there are many) I would support this effort in inner cities as something has to change. Do you honestly not care about black people being killed in inner cities? I do... I’ve seen it firsthand. I’ve had friends killed for really no reason. Something has to change.

Second, I’m actually very anti political. I rarely post in other threads for this reason. Again, police unions typically support Republican candidates. Teacher unions typically support democrat candidates. Seems pretty fair/reasonable to want to abolish both. You see an issues with education, yet you don’t want to make any changes. I see the issue as systemic unionism.

Third, I said this in a previous post but I don’t believe being racist is going to lead to much success in life. In other words, racists are typically losers. At least imo. The difference is, I don’t believe you can legislate people to not be racist because of its ambiguity. If someone wants to walk down the street and hate someone because of their race, they can.

Fourth, you are talking about the subjective reasoning you have placed on disproportionate issues of society. Evidently, you don’t know what the word objective means. We can take measures to objectively impact those Issues. But again, you sound like a person on the religious right who wants to “pray the gay away.” You cannot force someone to not be racist. It’s literally impossible just like it is to force someone to stop being gay.

Using your hypothetical, if the area is predominantly black, I would expect more black people to be pulled over than white. But obviously not 100%. But using your example, in current society, if this racist cop were to be called in to be reprimanded for his racist behavior, his union rep would accompany him and argue that he was just doing his job. The cop would only receive a mild slap on the wrist, if anything. In the world I’m advocating, superior officers eventually leading to ones appointed by politicians would have complete discretion to reprimand the type of officer. But for political purposes (that it might start a barrage against unions) you do not want this type of society. You want a society with a hive mind. Unfortunately, this is reality.

It’s a compromise because both aspects negatively impact inner cities, which is the broader discussion. You don’t believe education or lack there of has anything to do with crime in inner cities?

First Bolded: But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. Here was your comment earlier:

I stated just a few posts ago that especially police cannot violate a persons rights for whatever the reason, including racism.

So you say you don't think police should violate people's rights for any reason but then for Stop and Frisk you're "well I disagree with them violating people's rights, but I'm OK with it because it's a means to an end".

That is the exact opposite belief from the sentiment you expressed earlier. And it's definitely not some SJW special where I'm arguing some point you aren't making, because you just affirmed exactly what I claimed you said...

Second Bolded: I'm saying people who hate someone because of their race shouldn't be able to be cops. You seem to be arguing they should be so long as they don't treat people differently, which is functionally impossible if you're truly racist.

Third Bolded: First, I never said I don't want that type of society. I just don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, nor do I know why getting rid of all public sector Unions must be a prerequisite to getting rid of police unions (or functionally gutting/altering them). The very fact you demand I give up something (all other public sector Unions) means you don't want to get rid of Police Unions absent some other benefit. If we're both against Police Unions... why don't we just get rid of Police Unions?

That being said. Then answer this question based on your response to how your society would handle this.

Do you think the cop in my scenario should be reprimanded or fired for pulling over 100 black men in a row and not the white guy? Yes or no and why or why not?

[mngopher35]

I feel like I repeat myself multiple times with responding to you. Here goes....

Again, the reason we don’t here about issues within other industries/unions such as firefighters and USPS is because those industries don’t have such a direct impact on the general public. That being said, most small town fire companies are volunteers so no union. USPS is struggling. Whether you believe it should continue or not, I think everyone can agree it’s struggling. Salaries are part of that issue. And when I say salaries I’m including benefits and pensions. Technology and the private sector are obviously killing USPS. But it’s because it’s budget can’t handle it.

While I agree governments care about their budget, can we agree that unlike private sector they are not motivated by profit or even staying out of the red. As others have pointed out, the negotiators on the side of the government are not negotiating with their own money or feel no direct impact in a negotiation going poorly. This is different than negotiators (CEO, lawyers) for a corporation. Can we agree on these differences? Furthermore, if police or teachers go on strike, this can negatively impact the career of a politician negotiating on the side of civilians. In other words, they are motivated to give into the demands of unions. CEOs or lawyers careers are directly impacted on their bottom line- their profits.

I’m stating public sector unions are a problem and specifically police unions contribute if not drive the issues of poor policing within inner cities if not everywhere.

The reason you always have to repeat yourself is because you can't actually do it and provide evidence when I ask but don't want to admit it. There are no clear examples like police over and over is the reason you aren't using them and everyone knows/can see it.

The USPS is struggling, you haven't connected it to unions in any way in reality though and can you go in depth on how salaries/benefits/pensions of employees are the biggest issue? You can reference something struggling and not tie it to the unions in reality, great. You don't think there might be any bigger reasons it is struggling than that?

The idea that they don't fear losing money is ridiculous, you are using "struggling" in that manner above and tying it to unions being bad loosely. As was addressed by Valade as well this point on the who's money it is that is often true in the public sector as well. You just use as many loose associations and ignore common sense like that government still cares about $. We agree there are differences like I said from the start but you have yet to make any real connections here besides that there are differences and you will use your bias to associate the worst. Politicians are also under demands of people to balance the budget and not waste money ("we can't afford this" is so common). You just look at everything through only one lens as I keep pointing out there is more context than what you give and ignore this to keep pushing the same points. So to be clear we agree there are many differences, we disagree you have in any way made a clear connection to it being bad/destructive as a whole.

I think they have problems but are not necessarily problems in and of themselves the way you are making it out to be. There is corruption all over this country and I think given your focus and my opinion of them the police forces are a huge aspect/example. They definitely have issues but you are making broad claims without any real connections outside your opinions on the topic (and previously questioning me what unions do until I answered). They have many of the same reasons/benefits for existing as normal unions but also have a few more issues/complications involved too is my point. I haven't been denying some of the problems I just am not associating it to the whole without real reasoning/evidence to do so.

[spliff(TONE)]

Anytime someone says anything other than Trump is bad, you make a pretty broad brushed assumption.

No, I had absolutely no idea junior said a single thing about it.

People can actually be conservative without getting their marching orders from Trump. Nice try though.

First of all: it's "your", not "you're". Secondly, you sure get pushed out of shape and resort to insults easily.

I'm sure you regurgitating this crap has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump Jr. and you simply did the research on Blake Sr.'s social media yourself. Because, you know, you're totally not the type of guy that ferociously latches on to partisan BS simply because it was uttered by a Trump or some other wonderful conservative source.