Carfacemandog wrote: » Interesting idea over rethinking policing in the US, from Illinois' attorney general - make police officers licenced like nurses, lawyers and doctors.https://www.wbez.org/stories/illinois-top-legal-officer-wants-to-license-cops-just-like-doctors-hairdressers/9a8b6505-4283-4975-ad2f-8b653e96da73“I think it’s the responsibility of the legislature to do what they’ve done for many other professions to have consequence for repeated misconduct or single acts of egregious misconduct,” Raoul said. “If they have an egregious act of official misconduct or a pattern of such, they can have their license taken away such that they cannot participate in that profession anymore and that should be the same thing for a law enforcement officer who is capable of using deadly force in carrying out his or her duties.”
Foxtrol wrote: » Can you please point to the huge BLM drive for this? I haven't seen many protests demanding this. These changes to actors that many here appear to be clutching their pearls about are being seen as token gestures that have little to do with anything people are protesting about
MOH wrote: » Doesn't that already exist? As in "hand in your gun and your badge"? Surely the problem is more that there's no proper external oversight
oyvey wrote: » Probably everyone here would agree with you. They’re token gestures. And they’re sending the wrong message about what equality should mean.
Foxtrol wrote: » Like the Trump supporter shouting 'White power' at BLM protesters? There are plenty of empty heads on all sides.
Foxtrol wrote: » Why are they the wrong message?
1800_Ladladlad wrote: » These people are stupid.like what the **** do you expect to happen.https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/1277446069132103680
oyvey wrote: » Because then black actors portraying white roles would have to step down too in the name of equality.
Foxtrol wrote: » That is quite a jump. Actors and show runners are making their moral choices, it isn't being mandated by government nor even pushed from any mainstream protest groups (who have much more important issues to deal with).
1800_Ladladlad wrote: » There are pressure gangs of deranged militants online who figuratively hold a knife to the throats of these actors who are jumping rather than waiting to be pushed. The "moral choice" that they've made is not from "inner reflection and acknowledging their white privilege", they are simply assessing the risk and controlling the damage to their brand ensuring they comply with the white-eyed children.
Foxtrol wrote: » Just like the consistent boycotts called on by conservative groups or the online outrage from certain quarters for studios having the audacity to have female or non-white characters be the star of their movies. At one point a white actor would have no problems going blackface, just like at one point a white voice actor would have no problem voicing a character of a different race. People and their morals change. Companies, studios, and actors make their choice based on what they see is best for their brand. That has always been the way the world works, unfortunately the world is no longer moving in the direction you want it to be going.
oyvey wrote: » Why do you keep trying to justify bad things by pointing out other bad things that have been done. Obviously people shouldn’t be putting pressure on studios to hire only white actors. That doesn’t make it right that people are being pressured out of jobs. I feel like we should be in agreement here.
VicMackey1 wrote: » Do you have some examples of these consistent boycotts?
Smith152 wrote: » And what films have people boycotted for their being non white or female lead actors?
Foxtrol wrote: » That is just your opinion on what is bad. I don't see anything wrong for a person to put pressure on a company or another individual to stop doing something they see as wrong. Making your opinion known is the foundation of freedom of expression and protest. Even if both were 'wrong', what I'm pointing out is how the world works and has worked for a long time and no amount of complaining from you will change it. For example, we in Ireland love a good protest to put pressure on people and even go as far as boycotting, from South Africa during apartheid to our elected officials voting for a boycott of goods from Israel now.
Norf FC wrote: » Great post but All Lives Matter.
oyvey wrote: » By that logic you wouldn't have a problem with people putting pressure on a company/studio not to hire a non-white person, since they would see hiring them as wrong.
Golf is my Game wrote: » Well thats a point of view, but the whole point of BLM is to make the case that black lives can matter as well and that the those who think they dont as much should think about their opinions. Im not necessarily coming down for or against, but dont think theres any argument that discussion can only be positive in understanding both sides.
Foxtrol wrote: » You've somehow merged the act of objection and the opinion being expressed as being the same thing, when they clearly aren't. In your example the act of objection and pressure itself isn't wrong, however the opinion the person is expressing is wrong. You've twisted yourself in a knot to the point where it is unclear what you're even trying to say. Is your point that no one should every put any pressure on any company or actor ever or is it just that they shouldn't be allowed do it when they don't agree with you?
oyvey wrote: » Clearly you're trolling now. No point going any further with this.
Foxtrol wrote: » So I'm trolling because you can't explain what your point of view is :rolleyes: Your posts are clearly advocating that people shouldn't be pressuring these companies/actors, so it leaves two options: 1) You're against people pressuring companies/actors in all cases 2) You're against people pressuring companies/actors in certain situations Option 2 leaves a huge hole for being called a hypocrite, which is pretty likely why you're running away from the discussion as fast as you can
1800_Ladladlad wrote: » https://twitter.com/KatTheHammer1/status/1277691864313929728