Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Kirby101]

There seems to be some women outdoing the men in the "Men created everything you like so you cant talk about sexism" and are doing it with Native American's, especially these blonde obsessed ones. Many people shy away from this discussion, I know Native American's get focused on the least too in anything and are usually seen as Nazi's even to a certain end of the political spectrum.

P.

So spelling out NAs, and this makes no sense to me. Who are you talking about? Who is saying "Men created everything you like so you cant talk about sexism"? Who are the blonde obsessed ones? Who is seen as Nazis by the left?

[From The Shadows]

So spelling out NAs, and this makes no sense to me. Who are you talking about? Who is saying "Men created everything you like so you cant talk about sexism"? Who are the blonde obsessed ones? Who is seen as Nazis by the left?

Never mind.

[Gray Lensman]

No one should use acronyms on the internet without actually spelling it out at least once in the post, even when those acronyms are well known to the community on the message board. There are always new people who aren't going to get it.

[ed2962]

I apologize if I got it wrong, but I have literally seen alt-lite folks say stuff like everything good in America/Western Civilization is because of men so women shouldn't complain.

[CaptCleghorn]

No one should use acronyms on the internet without actually spelling it out at least once in the post, even when those acronyms are well known to the community on the message board. There are always new people who aren't going to get it.

Indeed. College Journalism taught me (well, the instructor did anyway that an acronym should have the full text spelled out in a story (or document) the first time it's used and thereafter can be used without spelling it out. That is probably in some style books.

[DrNewGod]

No one should use acronyms on the internet without actually spelling it out at least once in the post, even when those acronyms are well known to the community on the message board. There are always new people who aren't going to get it.

IDK, IIRC, ITT happens all the time. CMV.

[Gray Lensman]

IDK, IIRC, ITT happens all the time. CMV.

And I have no idea what those last two mean, as your post is the very first time I have seen either one.

[TriggerWarning]

NA means Native Americans.

Ok, I would have said Narcotics Anonymous if you asked me without context.

[Kuro no Shinigami]

Labor unions exist to protect workers' rights. That's what I believe. Police unions are something different. Like labor unions, they protect the cops' rights to have a higher pay and a safe work environment, but they also have something to do with police brutality.

In the United States, police unions are known to "go to battle" for their workers. While this is common behavior for unions, it can be particularly complex in the case of police officers, as they may work to protect officers who have been engaged in misconduct, harassment, or brutality.[88] In some cases, police unions have worked to restore job positions for police officers, after they have been removed from their jobs in courts, via secret court proceedings.[89] Pittsburgh City Paper reported that, when police unions appealed police terminations through arbitration, the positions were restored in about 70% of all cases.[90]

Police unions have large political influence in their communities. Politicians seek their endorsements when running for office,[91] and district attorney campaigns often receive donations from police unions.[92] Consequently, police unions have been criticized as being too powerful and working against the public interest. They have also been criticized for commanding too much money from city budgets.[38]

The text is copied and pasted from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...#Police_unions

Should police unions be allowed to remain in existence? Or should they disband?

[TriggerWarning]

Labor unions exist to protect workers' rights. That's what I believe. Police unions are something different. Like labor unions, they protect the cops' rights to have a higher pay and a safe work environment, but they also have something to do with police brutality.
Should police unions be allowed to remain in existence? Or should they disband?

Police unions also exist to ensure there is cause for firing an officer. In departments without unions officers will be fired for arresting / ticketing the mayor, council member, family member of the above, or well connected person. Having a process and actual cause to fire someone helps ensure officers can safely do the right thing when confronted with such a decision.

When union officers get their jobs back its often because departments failed to follow their own policies regarding discipline.

I can't find it on google now that I tried but roughly 5 years ago there was an officer in the St Louis area but for a small department in the area (thus no union) who made a traffic stop and got a ton of drugs and weapons off a guy and booked him for it. His mom was a city council member and had him fired the next day for it. He sued and got his job back. Fast forward a bit and he is dispatched to domestic violence call. Same bad guy and he's beaten his girlfriend. He arrests bad guy for domestic battery. He again gets fired in retaliation. Don't know if he got his job back this time or not. Regardless the message loud and clear to officers on that department is to overlook crime by anyone connected to a council member if you want to keep getting a paycheck.

Furthermore unions are the only thing keeping many agencies from gutting police officer salaries and benefits. Its already incredibly difficult to recruit quality officers and without unions it will be even harder as pay and benefits go down. Which will lead to departments forcing to accept George Zimmerman types (he was rejected from multiple depts).

[Adam Allen]

Police unions also exist to ensure there is cause for firing an officer. In departments without unions officers will be fired for arresting / ticketing the mayor, council member, family member of the above, or well connected person. Having a process and actual cause to fire someone helps ensure officers can safely do the right thing when confronted with such a decision.

When union officers get their jobs back its often because departments failed to follow their own policies regarding discipline.

I can't find it on google now that I tried but roughly 5 years ago there was an officer in the St Louis area but for a small department in the area (thus no union) who made a traffic stop and got a ton of drugs and weapons off a guy and booked him for it. His mom was a city council member and had him fired the next day for it. He sued and got his job back. Fast forward a bit and he is dispatched to domestic violence call. Same bad guy and he's beaten his girlfriend. He arrests bad guy for domestic battery. He again gets fired in retaliation. Don't know if he got his job back this time or not. Regardless the message loud and clear to officers on that department is to overlook crime by anyone connected to a council member if you want to keep getting a paycheck.

Furthermore unions are the only thing keeping many agencies from gutting police officer salaries and benefits. Its already incredibly difficult to recruit quality officers and without unions it will be even harder as pay and benefits go down. Which will lead to departments forcing to accept George Zimmerman types (he was rejected from multiple depts).

Meaning no offense, but if you tried and could not find factual references for your story, maybe resist the urge to recall it in such detail? I mean, between the cop, the council member and the son, you're kind of recalling a lot of detail about them all and their interactions with each other ... but, the most specific detail you can recall is a small department in the St. Louis area? I mean, I was just about to say there's over a million people in the area, based on having grown up there, but then I was able to do a quick check and find out there's nearly three million, at this point.

For what it's worth, I didn't assume your story was not true, and actually took a little bit of time to try and find more detail about it, myself ... but, I had no luck, and unfortunately the way you recalled this story reminded me of a conversation I had at work in the last week. A co-worker tells me that now, protesters in places like Portland are now firing tear gas at police. I ask, do you mean, like throwing canisters back or something? He says no, protesters are coming armed with their own guns and firing canisters at the police. I said I was sure that was not happening, but he insisted it was. I said I would believe him when he showed me even one story referencing this, so he went to look online. He did not find any such story, and I didn't rub it in. But, I hoped he might privately consider how certain he'd been in sharing important information with someone, when that information apparently had no basis in facts.

I think it's a good idea to try and fact-check ourselves, on a regular basis. It turns out that memory is a pretty unreliable tool, for whatever reason.

[TriggerWarning]

Meaning no offense, but if you tried and could not find factual references for your story, maybe resist the urge to recall it in such detail? I mean, between the cop, the council member and the son, you're kind of recalling a lot of detail about them all and their interactions with each other ... but, the most specific detail you can recall is a small department in the St. Louis area? I mean, I was just about to say there's over a million people in the area, based on having grown up there, but then I was able to do a quick check and find out there's nearly three million, at this point.

For what it's worth, I didn't assume your story was not true, and actually took a little bit of time to try and find more detail about it, myself ... but, I had no luck, and unfortunately the way you recalled this story reminded me of a conversation I had at work in the last week. A co-worker tells me that now, protesters in places like Portland are now firing tear gas at police. I ask, do you mean, like throwing canisters back or something? He says no, protesters are coming armed with their own guns and firing canisters at the police. I said I was sure that was not happening, but he insisted it was. I said I would believe him when he showed me even one story referencing this, so he went to look online. He did not find any such story, and I didn't rub it in. But, I hoped he might privately consider how certain he'd been in sharing important information with someone, when that information apparently had no basis in facts.

I think it's a good idea to try and fact-check ourselves, on a regular basis. It turns out that memory is a pretty unreliable tool, for whatever reason.

Here you go. I did have a few details off. It was seven years ago not five and three officers total were fired, not one. Otherwise the fact pattern is basically what I said. Its hard to find older stuff involving police because so many newer articles suck up the search hits. I had to include about 20 search terms from what I recalled to finally find it and even then it was buried.

https://fox2now.com/news/fox-files/a...l-end-up-dead/

https://leoaffairs.com/councilwoman-...d-beating-son/

A city councilwoman in a suburb of St. Louis is being investigated; not by law enforcement, but by a local news agency for interfering with police and even having officers fired. An officer has been fired, twice, for investigating incidents involving the councilwoman’s son that included dealing crack cocaine and heroin as well as domestic battery on his girlfriend.

[Jack Dracula]

Here you go. I did have a few details off. It was seven years ago not five and three officers total were fired, not one. Otherwise the fact pattern is basically what I said. Its hard to find older stuff involving police because so many newer articles suck up the search hits. I had to include about 20 search terms from what I recalled to finally find it and even then it was buried.

https://fox2now.com/news/fox-files/a...l-end-up-dead/

https://leoaffairs.com/councilwoman-...d-beating-son/

I'd argue the problem isn't necessarily a lack of a Police union, but the community failing to hold their council people responsible for corruption and abuse of power. Union or not, that council person is still going to abuse her position.

[TriggerWarning]

I'd argue the problem isn't necessarily a lack of a Police union, but the community failing to hold their council people responsible for corruption and abuse of power. Union or not, that council person is still going to abuse her position.

The problem is that the people who want police to to be reformed want officers willing to do the right and thing and step up. They also want to get rid of unions and contracts which will basically make officers at-will employees who can be fired at any time without a cause being needed. What officer is going to speak up and do the right thing if they know there is a good chance they'll be fired for it and have no grievance or appeal process?

What gets problem officers their jobs back many times is the police dept failing to follow their own rules and policies. Police contracts aren't really much different than contracts and policy manuals for many companies where there is a written out disciplinary policy that requires progressive discipline, notification of offenses, guaranteed meetings with supervisors, training, etc. Basically for lesser offenses you get counseling and written warnings followed by increasingly severe penalties if the employee doesn't approve. But then the employer fails to follow their own policies by skipping many of these steps or not documenting that they happened so suddenly something happens and they want to fire somebody and there is nothing from the employer to show a history of bad behavior except undocumented claims because they failed to follow the documenting and policies in the past. The current offense alone wouldn't be be a fireable offense but with the history it is only there is no documented history. Or the agency just skips straight to firing without going through the hearing process for political reasons as the leaders want to show instant accountability without following policy themselves. Generally the cops who draw the most complaints are the good cops who are out there making lots of good arrests and putting lots of bad guys in jail.

There is also the problem that many people just have no concept of how many false complaints get lodged against cops all the time. Filing a rudeness or use of force complaint is the go to act of revenge for many bad guys to try and deflect from their own crime or the ticket they got despite their really great excuse. A history of complaints against any officer is meaningless without context of what those complaints are. Whereas a history of no complaints is actually more problematic as it either means an officer who is just hiding out all shift watching Netflix or a department that doesn't document complaints.

[Kuro no Shinigami]

Ironically, the city council that can defund or abolish the police might be full of corrupt councilors