Tweet
Originally posted by BlueNGold
View Post
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
With all due respect, this seems like an overreaction. And nobody here wants the U.S. to fail (not succeed).I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano Zapata -
Yes. There some discussion of that in the link. Balko's book (Rise of the Warrior Cop) also describes the role of recruiting that you mention. I agree. It really is shifting the culture/structure. And you hit the attitude on the head. Not presupposing guilt/probable cause/necessity of force. Sorry if this is clear, but it's not in what you quoted but a post from before that. EDIT - Maybe you are familiar w/ book.Originally posted by Bball View PostLast edited by D-BONE; 06-27-2020, 09:36 PM.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
No worries. There's too many people who don't want to burn down everything...especially away from the left coast.Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
I think what is being sought varies.
It's so funny when I here people say "re-imagining policing". What they are seeking is a complete change and this isn't a fringe view. It's a view espoused by many people.
The problem is that bad policing isn't the cause of the problem but a reaction to the problem. There's such confusion here about cause and effect. The problem is poor choices (relationship and otherwise), bad parenting, disrespecting authority, etc. It is NOT poverty. That is an excuse because able bodied people really can get life sustaining jobs. I've seen it time and time again. Let me get right to the point. People are poor for the same reasons....poor choices.
Since many don't do the right thing, this leads to more people committing crimes especially at a young age...getting that on their record, making it tough later....which leads to the need for more police who are blamed for it all. People just do not want to take responsibility (they never have). Until they do that, this cycle will never end.
There is just no rainbow on the other end of police reform. Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. You can adjust what the police do somewhat but they still have to deal with the young man in the video...or Brooks fighting with them. Nothing really changes here because at the end of the day, these cops are human and they will make mistakes. People will die. People will protest. Nothing will really change because people are really not capable of looking in the mirror at the problem.Comment
-
As much as I have agreed with you lately I could not disagree more. Especially in the summer of 2020 I can not think of a more dangerous job (I guess military, firefighter, etc)Originally posted by Bball View PostComment
-
Some of this makes some sense, but this is not the entire picture and you are not being fair/consistent. On one hand you say people should be perfect, everybody should be able to get a job, keep a job, etc. but for that you need a system as a society that keeps people from taking the wrong turn. If life throws a curveball and your situation is unstable, you expect people to just 'get over it' and fall in line. While in essence I agree with you there, it is not black or white, it is grey. If the system that you have as a society does not allow you to deal with this curveball, than there needs to be something that does. You can strive for the right moves and decisions, but hey, people aren't perfect. They will makes mistakes, just like other people (who happen to be cops) do.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
So yes, people should be taking responsibility, but as a society you need to try and put people in a situation where they will start doing this more often.Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!Comment
-
There are lots of examples, including in this thread, where people do not want “a complete overhaul” but instead want changes to a broken system. There are literally tons of posts in here that talk about example after example of problems with the system.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
You literally just blamed EVERYONE except the police.The problem is that bad policing isn't the cause of the problem but a reaction to the problem. There's such confusion here about cause and effect. The problem is poor choices (relationship and otherwise), bad parenting, disrespecting authority, etc. It is NOT poverty. That is an excuse because able bodied people really can get life sustaining jobs. I've seen it time and time again. Let me get right to the point. People are poor for the same reasons....poor choices.
Add to that - I could not disagree with you more. Socioeconomic issues most definitely impact communities, and its been proven time after time that its a whole lot easier to get ahead if you start in the middle-middle class or upper middle class than if you start below the poverty line. We have all seen folks succeed from poverty (hell, we are posting on a NBA forum where athletes literally talk about going from rags to riches) but to say folks are only poor because of “poor choices” is a cop out. That is certainly one possible reason, but not the only reasons folks are poor.
Again you blame everyone except the police. Perhaps the cycle will end when police officers are not doing this:Since many don't do the right thing, this leads to more people committing crimes especially at a young age...getting that on their record, making it tough later....which leads to the need for more police who are blamed for it all. People just do not want to take responsibility (they never have). Until they do that, this cycle will never end.
Three Cops Have Been Fired After Their Racist Rants About Black People Were Caught On Tape - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...t-black-people
Two NYPD detectives accused of raping teen in their custody won't get jail time- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...me/2166015001/
Bolded part QFT - perhaps one day we will see folks ask LEO and the criminal justice system to look in the mirror at the problem (and address it)There is just no rainbow on the other end of police reform. Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. You can adjust what the police do somewhat but they still have to deal with the young man in the video...or Brooks fighting with them. Nothing really changes here because at the end of the day, these cops are human and they will make mistakes. People will die. People will protest. Nothing will really change because people are really not capable of looking in the mirror at the problem.Comment
-
While there is a correlation between poverty and crime, I think they have shared roots rather than one being the cause of another. The shared roots are poor choices.Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
There are lots of poor choices. Maybe the biggest one is out-of-wedlock births where the mother has to try to make the money and supervise the kids. This is precisely at the heart of this correlation of poverty and crime. If she has an unruly kid, and there are lots of them, that kid will have to be disciplined by the police. Unfortunately, without a dad around, they do not end up respecting women nor are they often disciplined. They try to figure out how to be a man without a role model and that's a recipe' for disaster. If you think reforming the police makes even a dent into this problem, you are going to be sorely disappointed. There is no substitute for a dad.
Also, the reason why I'm not blaming the cops is because they are getting far more blame than they should right now. One of them kills one person while dealing with this unruly society and the country blows up. Yet people are getting shot up all the time in the cities and there isn't a peep from BLM or the rest of the left. Until there is more concern for that I think the acronym should change to BTP. That is, Blame The Police....because the vast majority of lives don't matter at all. What matters is finding a scapegoat because you don't want to accept any responsibility at all.
I support some changes and even stated that in this thread. But I don't see any reciprocation. How about we "re-imagine parenting and marriage"?
The bottom line is, there is a solid wall of denial by the public. Absolutely a one-way monologue on the topic. We hear nothing about shared reflection, share accountability, etc. It's all about how the criminal justice system needs fixed, not what changes the public needs to make to actually fix the problems.
Now, if you think the criminal justice system isn't doing anything or is in denial, ignore the things they have been doing for years to improve with evidenced based practices, body cameras, community policing, etc.
Links:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/commp.pdf
https://bja.ojp.gov/program/body-wor...-bwcs/overview
https://www.jrsa.org/projects/ebp_br..._april2014.pdfLast edited by BlueNGold; 06-28-2020, 09:20 AM.Comment
-
Even though these types of changes don't directly address underlying causes, they carry substantial symbolic power. It's unbelievable it's taken this long, but it's good. Another powerful symbolic change would following through on putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill ASAP.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
Confederate monuments need to be removed whether initiated at local or federal level. Updated polling I've seen has shown those in favor now over 50%, up from low 40%s about two years ago.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
The US is literally declining right now and all it took was your boy to do it.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
Also turnoff Fox News.@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
No dad = road to ruin: The many successful lesbian parents and single-parent families beg to differ with this. Two parents is better, IMO, b/c parenting requires a lot of effort and time, but no dad by no means equals automatic failure.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
Re-imagine parenting/marriage: What are you suggesting here? Legislating morality and personal choice? How is that enforced - having a child if not married to a man? Fine? Forced adoption to a home with a father? Controlling people's bodies? Forced abortion? Sterilization? Sounds like something from a dystopian novel about an oppressive regime. Frightening.
This unruly society: Nobody's denying there are serious social problems to deal with, as there always are, but this representing of wild west lawlessness tearing down the country is an massive exaggeration. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if you really want to talk destabilization, keep resisting serious calls for social change that bubble up from the people. There are times when society clearly is set on change. Failure to respond to that is the recipe for disaster.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
It is getting harder and harder to post in this thread. I think it took me like 15 minutes to get the page to load on my end.
Also, its not lost on me you ignored every example I posted In more previous post.
I have friends who have two parents (GLBTQ community) of the same sex who turned out just fine. They would argue with your logic, and frankly they would find it offensiveOriginally posted by BlueNGold View Post
At least you are honest. You refuse to blame the police, even when they are at fault.Also, the reason why I'm not blaming the cops is because they are getting far more blame than they should right now. One of them kills one person while dealing with this unruly society and the country blows up. Yet people are getting shot up all the time in the cities and there isn't a peep from BLM or the rest of the left. Until there is more concern for that I think the acronym should change to BTP. That is, Blame The Police....because the vast majority of lives don't matter at all. What matters is finding a scapegoat because you don't want to accept any responsibility at all.
It may be a one way dialogue now, but that’s because those communities feel like they have not been heard for hundreds of yearsThe bottom line is, there is a solid wall of denial by the public. Absolutely a one-way monologue on the topic. We hear nothing about shared reflection, share accountability, etc. It's all about how the criminal justice system needs fixed, not what changes the public needs to make to actually fix the problems.
So basically doing the bare minimum should be good enough. Sorry, I don’t buy that. The link from the racist police in my last post proves the systems still has its warts. Saying you want the system to improve is not the same as saying “its not doing anything” nor does it make one “in denial”Now, if you think the criminal justice system isn't doing anything or is in denial, ignore the things they have been doing for years to improve with evidenced based practices, body cameras, community policing, etc.
Links:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/commp.pdf
https://bja.ojp.gov/program/body-wor...-bwcs/overview
https://www.jrsa.org/projects/ebp_br..._april2014.pdfLast edited by vapacersfan; 06-28-2020, 11:28 AM.Comment
-
Others have already spoken on how scary of a thought this sentence is. With that said I will say one area I agree we should focus on parenting/teaching better would be home economics/financial managementOriginally posted by BlueNGold View Post
My high school did not offer either (I think we had one class where they taught us how to write a check) and my wife’s high school cut home economics the year after she took it; they did offer one financial management class (a one day course that went over check writing and checking versus savings account).
I would LOVE to see a mandatory class, in high school or college (or both), that went over: taxes, checks, credit cards, interest rates, loans, loan penalties, early loan payoff advances and disadvantages, credit cards, mortgages, mortgage amortization, credit cards, etc
While I had no problems with credit cards I was shocked how many young folks get suckered into credit cards and how they pay for it for years. A bad choice for sure but one where the school system (and parenting) has failed us.
Comment
-
“Re-imagining parenting” is code word for Christian sharia law, there is a reason why this same people love their Mike “Christian sharia law” Pence.@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!Comment
-
OK since it appears that we are at a impasse I have an olive branch for some of you.
we are seeing cities like Seattle and Minneapolis considering completely overhauling their police. I recommend they do that in Chicago and Detroit. Then monitor that over the next five years and see how that works for them.
keep in mind these cities have been run by democrats forever. So they’ve had the opportunity to completely overhaul how they govern for decades. This is especially true in Illinois because state government controls The criminal code along with all of the courts.
so you are on deck Illinois. Prove out where are the issues really exist And if those are identified we can all follow suit.Comment
-
One question. If systemic racism (not individual) is the main issue why does Chicago have such serious problems? More specifically why have not Democrats who claim to have the answers fixed it by now after decades of being in power at the state and local level?
The same question could be posed for other liberal cities. See it’s not just that they haven’t fixed it but it’s actually much much worse in those cities. Fact is Not many conservatives even live around there where the biggest problems are.Comment
Comment