Should being a racist/bigot/anarchist disqualify you from Police/Military/Office service?

As to the OP. No, I don't think being racist/bigot/anarchist etc should prevent you from serving anymore than being homosexual should prevent you from being a priest. Acting on your urges should.

That said, going on public social media, or any public platform and expressing those views should prevent you from serving because at that point you have in fact acted upon those feelings by promoting them.

Saying it was on their time and their privacy doesn't fly simply because facebook, twitter and you tube are not private and you obviously are not in control of those views and are letting them control you.

 

I agree with you that racist behavior cannot be tolerated, but I disagree with you that racist or other ‘unapproved’ believes can be a reason for job discrimination.
If a cop behaves not according to rules he should be fired, does not matter is he is racist, BLM member or follower of Mother Theresa.
If racist believes is the reason for not hiring a cop, what about nominating a judge who is Christian, Jew or Muslim? Can we assume that he/she will follow the Bible/Quran and not the Constriction?
And what about a gay cop serving a religious community? It is OK not to hire a gay/transgender cop because the community he/she is serving is deeply Christian/Jewish/Muslim?

 

I thought we were debating about whether his non work related behavior, ie what he says and does off the clock, off the premises, out of uniform, his speech, his posts, his affiliations, his 'right to protest', what he said at the bar last Tuesday, what he wrote in his letter to the editor, might frame a basis to refuse to hire, to fire, to discipline or demote him as an employee of the police department or the District Attorney's Office or the Municipal Court.

If instead you are asking whether in a interview for the job, his reply to a direct question "are you a racist' is affirmative, should that be the basis to refuse to hire him. I think it is fair to assume if he answers you 'yes' in the job interview, he will have said 'yes' the same thing to others, and will again and for the interviewer to decide that the public perception would eventually again be tainted by his own admissions.

There is no blood test for racism, its what he says and does that provides the public its evidence, and the police department its evidence of the problem. If he never tells or shows his racism or his homophobia and it stays trapped inside his own head, like nuclear waste inside a its copper vessel under Olkiluoto bedrock, its none of anyone's business. I don't care what he thinks. I care where what he thinks leaks.

 

True.

 

I agree with you about this.
The sentence "To serve and protect" is not completed by a note saying ... "only the persons of my race, my religion, my sexual orientation ...".

P.S. About the relation between homosexuality and Catholic priests I could fall into religious satire [the same about pedophile!], but it would be out of topic.

 

I never said otherwise,

 

A DIAGNOSIS of PTSD has very specific and rigorous DIAGNOSTIC criteria. Read that slowly, and try your best to grasp it. It means that you cannot have the condition in the absence of the events and situations quantified as causative stressors. Those stressors are very specific, and far more 'dramatic' and traumatic than simply being insulted or having your feelings hurt. Even repeated insult won't do it.

Ill informed .... LOL.

 

If people learn that they can get out of a military draft, if that ever happens again, there would suddenly be a lot of racists/bigots all of a sudden. A very unfriendly thing. Let's not go there.

 

Okay, under informed will do.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...he most common events leading,Sexual violence
Kinds of traumatic events

The most common events leading to the development of PTSD include:

• Combat exposure
• Childhood physical abuse
• Sexual violence
• Physical assault
• Being threatened with a weapon
• An accident

 

Precisely my point.

 

So tell me, if you suffer from PTSD, are there any number of external stimuli that can trigger an episode?

 

What are you talking about? What do episodes have to do with it?

This is about the aetiology of PTSD.

 

Yes, we are debating whether non work related LEGAL behavior, ie what someone says and does off the clock, off the premises, out of uniform might frame a basis to refuse to hire, to fire.
IMHO an interview for the job, the questions like ‘are you a racist', ‘are you communist’, ‘are you a BLM member/follower’ should be illegal.
I see we both agree that racist is bad, but what about a police candidate, a BLM member/follower with an opinion he/she is publishing on social media that looting stores by BLM demonstrators and confrontation with police will lead for faster eradication of systemic racism – should he/she be hired? IMHO – yes.
What about a police candidate, a communist member/follower with an opinion he/she is publishing on social media than the means of production should not be private and we need a revolution to fight poverty and inequality – should he/she be hired? IMHO – yes.

I am just a strong believer that the 1st Amendment cannot be reason for jobs discrimination.

 

Back in your day? Why are you posing as an "old person" and making references to Christian fellowship to me?

I also have no idea why you are role playing what your response was intended to mean but I would assume you feel the need to challenge my challenge to you.

however I never stated good and evil were totally binary. Things that co-exist do not have to be "totally binary". Y ou might dstart right there. The assumption all of us have the potential to do negative or positive things is not n ecessarily wokeism and I have no idea where you pulled your definition of wokeism from and why you even raise it as its not something I advocated. In fact you misrepresent wokeism, what I actually stated, then projected your own subjective opinion of what you think I said back to me, not to mention your definition of wokeism or your use of the term "woke" and "non woke" are right out of a 13 year old's vocabulary with due respect.

During adolescence it is very common as a child's frontal lobe suddenly expands from the size of a pin head to a large watermelon their thought process and various chemicals will cause many chanes including picking up numerous contradictions in things they see which will appear exclusive and irreconcilable. This is party of a psychological process where a child learns to separate from their family by creating alternative families or belief systems to test the ones they were otherwise brought up in. They engage in a protracted debate and the debating or challenging of what are presumed to be pre-existingv "unfair" or "evil" or "wrong" ideas of others come to the forefront and yes I assume you are in that category not to stereotype you but because I assumed you have not yet arrived at a stage of awareness where you can reconcile contradictions. I can see though it triggered a response in you to feel the need to pose as an elder person who has been there and done that.

In fact the responses I raised have nothing to do with wokeism or Christian fellowship.

What I stated and I state again and again challenge you about is your use of rigid extreme all or nothing arguments to perceive the world around you. I argued and I argue they are elitist, sheltered and naive. The fact the world varies in many opinions that you do not agree with does not mean those opinions are good or evil and to assume that is elitist because you assume you know better than others and are in the position to judge them morally not to mention the moral code you use is based on your world or the bubble you live in which makes it elitist.

This comment you made thay wokes are good or non wokes are evil, is with due respect a simplistic code for stereotyping anyone you disdagree with. I again argue that it is clear from your responses you live in a black and white world where people agree or do not agree with you and you will define them in such narrow rigid terms.

Calling me young because I contend you are as ugly as anything you see in others is not an age specific concept but would probably not be a head space where adolescents would be at and I may be stereotyping you of course when I state you write and sound like an angry kid about to have his bar mitzvah.

It is probable with age of life comes failure and so the realization we as individuals are everything we think we seein others when we see failure, a concept I do not think you can grasp. Let me put it in simple terms-if you see evil and think its completely dettached from you and not being triggered by something you see in someone else that reminds you of what is in you, you might be mistaken.

You and I have a lot of preconceived ideas that may or may not be accurate. The real difference between us is that as I have aged I am much more reluctant to judge others or call them out as evil. I have now witnessed directly war, terrorism, death, failure in myself and others. It hasn't made me angry. It hasn't made be adapt wokeism whatever you meant by that. It has lent me to a path where I can see everything I challenge in others equally can be challenged for. So in that respect I am as angry, judgemental and elitist as you and when someone like you writes in assuming you know what is evil in others I say, look inside yourself not because I am arrogant but because I am as ugy as you and it aint something to pose as knowledge.

As for age, there is all kinds of age. Spiritually I do not know how many lives I have lived and how many conflicts I have experienced to know how enlightened I am. I would not assume I am enlightened at all.

Biologically I am 65. I know people of ALL ages including adlosecence who are great spiritual guides for me. I also know some people who age get stuck in anger and hatred when they feel they can not control the world around them so when that happens assign others negative stereotypes representing their own unresolved conflicts.

Now have a nice day. I doubt you understand but I just proved I could just as easily kill you as I could forgive you and because of that I am not either or both-I am like you unpredictable in what expression may come out. Period.

You clearly are at a stage of awareness where you see things in absolutes. Try another person aty our stage of awareness. War, conflict, dealing with people in distress, failing at things, these all have taught me humility and the realization I am as ugly as anyone I think I see who is ugly so as I age now I am more likely to think before I assume I know what others think or Judge them.
.

 

1) Sure, but that's not an age thing. We all probably know more people under the age of 65 who are utterly inflexible, than those over 65. In fact, your average twenty year old college student is likely to be as angry as it gets, when it comes to not being able to control the world. They're worse than religious fundamentalists. Not sure what their unresolved conflicts are, but they must be legion! On the contrary, most older people have made peace with the fact that we're all different, and have no pressing need to micromanage others out of their 'wrong' opinions.

2) Doubtful. I'm considerably more comfortable with a wide range of political thought, than I was at age 30. Back then, I wouldn't have given the other side even five minutes of respectful consideration. No idea what you mean by 'people in distress' etc, sorry.

 

1-I know idiots at all ages. If anything I might be able to understand it better with teens or kids not adults who have choices.
2-In fact I have been a part-time Professor and lecturer for over 20 years and I have seen more inflexible, angry administrators and professors than I have seen students but that is not proof of anything its just subjective and anecdotal and I do not use it to stereotype people.
3-Your generalization that most older people have made peace is another subjective assumption you make and you and I can not speak for others in such generalized terms.
4-While you say you are more comfortable with a wide range of political thought than when you were 30, that again is your subjective self description-you came across as a rigid, inflexible know it all, lol, takes one to know one.
5-I will openly admit I am and can be as much of a crank as you but I throw it back in debate because don't pose as a flexible open minded person, neither you or I are. We can be as opinionated as anyone else and our biases do blind us. I challenge me as much as you for the identical reasons.
6-My original point is that the military does have a psychological and other screening processes and in any recruitment process there is some sort of screening process, BUT= there is no one fool proof way to screen out persons with serious mental illnesses. In fact a proper psychiatric diagnosis to even determine an actual mental illness can take years not even weeks or months because working wirth the DSV Diagnostic Manual is not something you can pull out and apply with ease-I defer to Psychiatrists on that.
7-Some persons with border-line personality disorders, sociopathic personality, and other conditions can remain invisible and not become an issue until a crisis or incident long after recruitment has taken place.
8-to be able to dettach and compartmentalize stress and trauma as specific special forces soldiers can do is not standard human behaviour lay persons would term "normal", its actually abnormal and hard to find and/or train in people-specially trained forces can not be compared in the same breath as "normal" people nor for that matter should soldiers or front line workers like police, fire, medics, energency room physicians, nurses, anyone front line with immediate lfie threatening issues. To learn to work with your body's hyper-vigilante state is not easy and it is almosy impossible to know how good people are at it until you emerse them in the kind of stressful situations you want them to function in.
9-So no one in that sense can remain "normal" and with any front line crisis worker including the military they look for people less likely to question orders and more likely to be able to conform and assimilate into a larger collective identity but yet at the same time be able to improvise-that by no means is an easy thing to find in anyone.
10-The average human can not kill someone whose face they can see and so freeze and have to learn to use a gun to shoot to kill without freezing.
11-Any human under stress no matter how well trained could snap or freeze or panic-there is no absolute way of knowing if they would or if they did it once whether they would do it again.
12-I have seen grown men who have more testosterone in one nose hair than I will ever have freeze up.
13-So I make no claim to judge anyone and challenge stereotypes.
14- In the grand scheme of things I clean toilets. Some days its harder than others. Depends on the crap needing cleaning up.
15-My heroes if we use that word are ordinary men and women who returned from being asked to do extraordinary things and who now judge themselves and suffer in silence. I wish they knew some of us do not judge them and can only witness their pain and nothing else.

 

Rigid? I don't have a problem with Conservatives, or Centrists, or Religionists, or "Homophobes", or the Military, or Nationalism, or Patriotism, or Socialism, or Communism. Let me know when you find others here with that array of comfortables, and I'll flip them a welcome.

 

Why make a package deal out of racism and anarchism though?

 

Yer a role model for tolerance. Thank you.

 

Couldn't find anyone, huh?

 

Yes, you evidently. Was that a trick question?


huh
interjection

a grunt articulated as a syllabic m or n with a voiceless onset or as the syllable ˈhə or ˈhəⁿ, often ending in a glottal stop, and uttered with a range of intonations ; often read as ˈhə \

 

If it's an elected position then no. That should be up to The People.

 

And who decides who that person is?

Who watches the watchmen?

The left scream racist at the right and the right scream racist at the left in the end there will be only one person left that qualifies and she's in her late 90's