Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

[uke2se]

But this is the point, you can't just assume it.

Yes, I can and do.

And if they came out and clearly showed that they would be unable to act effectively as a LEO or an ICE because of their beliefs, then you could prevent them because they were not able to do the job correctly, but you can't just assume that they can't do it according to protocols.

That's simply reacting once the damage is already done. That's why there are so many racist cops in the US, and a large part of why there is such a problem with racism.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, I can and do.

No you can't, because it against the law.

That's simply reacting once the damage is already done. That's why there are so many racist cops in the US, and a large part of why there is such a problem with racism.

Should we assume that since you are strongly left wing that you wouldn't be able to do the job properly when you encounter a right wing person and ban you from being in any Governmental job that deals with people?

 

[uke2se]

No you can't, because it against the law.

Not where I am at.

Should we assume that since you are strongly left wing that you wouldn't be able to do the job properly when you encounter a right wing person and ban you from being in any Governmental job that deals with people?

No, because I'm not talking about political views. Racism isn't political (at least not foundationally so). I'm talking about concepts such as equality before the law and each person's equal worth. A racist cannot live up to those standards. A non-racist from either political wing can.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It's been a long time since I was inducted into the Army or applied for a Civil Service job, but as best I recall, both asked about associations with extremist political groups.

ETA: No one should ever be denied any rights because of their beliefs, political or otherwise, but no one has a right to a job as a policeman. We, as the employers of those whose duty is to protect all of us, not only have the right to exclude racists from the job, but the obligation to do so.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not where I am at.

We're talking about the US, so consider that law only.

No, because I'm not talking about political views. Racism isn't political (at least not foundationally so).

Racism is entirely a political view. Politics is more than which party you support, it's a systems of beliefs on how society should operate, and racism is a part of that.

I'm talking about concepts such as equality before the law and each person's equal worth. A racist cannot live up to those standards. A non-racist from either political wing can.

This is pure opinion, not fact. Please provide evidence that a racist cannot uphold the law the same as a non-racist.

 

[uke2se]

We're talking about the US, so consider that law only.

That's why I'm questioning US law. I think it's obvious that a person who represents the government should be properly vetted so that he or she doesn't hold beliefs that would hamper his or her ability to treat all persons equally.

Racism is entirely a political view. Politics is more than which party you support, it's a systems of beliefs on how society should operate, and racism is a part of that.

This is a semantics discussion I'm not interested in having. Suffice to say, I disagree.

This is pure opinion, not fact. Please provide evidence that a racist cannot uphold the law the same as a non-racist.

How many instances of racist cops do you want?

 

[Belz...]

Have fun storming the castle!

It would take a miracle.

 

[dann]

No, because I'm not talking about political views. Racism isn't political (at least not foundationally so).

The starting point of racism is almost always nationalism. Racism is the attempt to rationalize (i.e. biologize) your hate against the foreigners who (you imagine) are a threat to your jobs or 'your' country, the things that you imagine belong to you because of your nature, your genetic make-up, which (you imagine) that you have in common with your compatriots but not with the foreigners.
In the days of the Third Reich, they tried to measure this quality 'objectively' to establish who was an Aryan and who was an "Untermensch."
In Scandinavia, for the time being, religion as a criterion seems to be more popular than race among people who want to rationalize their hate against foreigners: "Medieval Muslims!"

 

[WilliamSeger]

The starting point of racism is almost always nationalism. Racism is the attempt to rationalize (i.e. biologize) your hate against the foreigners who (you imagine) are a threat to your jobs or 'your' country, the things that you imagine belong to you because of your nature, your genetic make-up, which (you imagine) that you have in common with your compatriots but not with the foreigners.
In the days of the Third Reich, they tried to measure this quality 'objectively' to establish who was an Aryan and who was an "Untermensch."
In Scandinavia, for the time being, religion as a criterion seems to be more popular than race among people who want to rationalize their hate against foreigners: "Medieval Muslims!"

Yes, and the starting point of nationalism is not mere tribalism, but tribal chauvinism and xenophobia. That's why it's so ironic that Trump accidentally but correctly identified himself as a nationalist, thinking he was merely bragging about being a super-patriot.

 

[uke2se]

The starting point of racism is almost always nationalism. Racism is the attempt to rationalize (i.e. biologize) your hate against the foreigners who (you imagine) are a threat to your jobs or 'your' country, the things that you imagine belong to you because of your nature, your genetic make-up, which (you imagine) that you have in common with your compatriots but not with the foreigners.
In the days of the Third Reich, they tried to measure this quality 'objectively' to establish who was an Aryan and who was an "Untermensch."
In Scandinavia, for the time being, religion as a criterion seems to be more popular than race among people who want to rationalize their hate against foreigners: "Medieval Muslims!"

I don't think racism stems from nationalism. I think nationalism in many ways is a way to rationalize racism.

Racism is much more a behavior that is learned rather than a belief. Beliefs are formed in order to make sense of the behavior.

This is all terribly off-topic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Unless we want to argue that people's non-political views don't influence their political views I fail to see the point in any of this, outside of this board's intellectual discussion destroying "No hair must be left unsplit!" fetish.

 

[uke2se]

Unless we want to argue that people's non-political views don't influence their political views I fail to see the point in any of this, outside of this board's intellectual discussion destroying "No hair must be left unsplit!" fetish.

My point is that I want authorities to vet potential police officers and other government agents so that racists don't get put in those positions.

Just as I want schools to vet potential teachers so they aren't pedophiles.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think racism stems from nationalism. I think nationalism in many ways is a way to rationalize racism.

I tend to agree with you.

This is all terribly off-topic.

Oh.

 

[Stacko]

Another suspicious package intended for CNN intercepted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1056914455479701505

 

[JoeMorgue]

Another suspicious package intended for CNN intercepted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1056914455479701505

I wouldn't freak out about this too much until we get more info. I figure it's only a matter of time before we get some copycats.

 

[eeyore1954]

I don’t know about not freaking out maybe a copy cat will be more adept at bomb making or more concerned about actually hurting/killing

 

[The Great Zaganza]

at least no one is bothering Republicans at Restaurants anymore -
those are the REAL victims!

 

[Steve]

Well, from over here, in what must now be surely regarded as the real world, the USA looks like an utterly dysfunctional society. I have no idea how you would go about repairing it, or if it is even possible.

In just two years, the Trump administration has undone most of the work (in progress to be sure) since World War 2, to create a fair and just society. They have wound race relations back to the 1960s, human rights back to the 1950's, and immigration back to the 1940s with their concentration camps near the southern border. That the Trump base is all just fine with this tells the world that racism and bigotry is alive and well in the US of A.

This will take a long, long time to repair.

Bears repeating.

 

[Steve]

Trump has blood on his hands.

We all do

Speak for yourself, Yankee.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I don't think you can make that assumption, many people are able to put their personal beliefs and views to one side and act professionally.

Fair as far as legitimate political views are concerned, not applicable if and when such views extend outside democracy, making them illegitimate for policy or action; for example, holding that religious law supersedes civil law in the public sphere (or private, in the case of how children/the defenseless might be treated). In this case, such a one should not hold any public office or discharge any public duty, as they are in danger of following their conscience which, in this case, would be a totalitarian act. Similar for good ole Southron boys if they regard rights as extending to one or select group(s) alone.

As actual examples of policies that, in practice, violate the basics, we have the Stand Your Ground law in FL, which in the Trayvon Martin case, was basically used to lynch a completely innocent black man and let a white man go, one who later showed exactly who he is, a violent racist. As implemented in the justice system, it is blatant institutionalized racism. Other policies would include no Sunday voting and national elections held on work days: racism dressed as "Good ole boy done thunk somethin' up, and we gotta do it, cuz gawd sed so; ain't racism, who you callin' racist?"

Someone who drastically disagrees wrt tax policy or how to address social issues is no problem; no conflict with foundational concepts, no fundamental paradox. But I most certainly disagree that trusting to a general capacity for extraordinary objectivity - loyalty to duty above beliefs that supersede that duty - is practicable in reality. Good example there is the drift toward Christian Taliban fundamentalism now blessed and encouraged by SCOTUS, such as in the Hobby Lobby case and its plague of suddenly limp-wristed cakebakers and county clerks who'd rather die than comply with civil law.

***
To stay on OP: The expression "Bully Pulpit" used to be used often. It's now being stricken from the lexicon by -- what else -- eternally panicking whine boys. Can't have anything around that might induce clarity, by golly.