Kixeliz t1_j9k49ns wrote
Reply to comment by WorkingMinimum in Return of the Guy Who’s Definitely Not Racist, Not Even a Little Tiny Bit, How Dare You Suggest Otherwise by pre_chewed_cigarette
This is what he said:
> In October, Viens made the suggestion for “segregated police” during a candidate forum aired on WDEV. At the time he was running for a seat in the Vermont House of Representatives, a race he would lose.
> He said that instead of calling to defund the police, the state should hire more officers of color and dispatch them to incidents involving minorities.
> In a subsequent interview with Seven Days, Viens said he was seeking a constructive solution to the charges of systemic racism in law enforcement that are driving the Black Lives Matter movement by eliminating conflicts between white police officers and citizens of color.
> He suggested Black police officers might be “more in tune with the disparities and the challenges that Black people have” and therefore “may be able to defuse the problem easier.”
That you think an ally would make this same suggestion is the problem. No ally thinks "send black cops to deal with black criminals" is a reasonable response to calls for police reform. See: Memphis. The only real problem is that some in lily white Vermont think he had a point, just phrased it poorly. It's ignorance at best and definitely not what you want to hear from a community leader.
WorkingMinimum t1_j9k7l6g wrote
Again, if I imagine someone saying the exact same words but looking different than a crusty old white guy, it tracks.
You can’t picture Lori Lightfoot or Stacy Abramssaying “black cops may be more in touch with black communities, and may therefore be able to de-escalate situations more easily”?
The only problem with what he said is the context of his race, and that he didn’t tack on supporting an initiative to hire more black police to decrease the demographic disparity on the force.
Kixeliz t1_j9k7wrl wrote
Why would I need to picture it? These people exist and have given their thoughts publicly on police reform lots and lots of times. Can't remember any of them suggesting segregated police, though. Weird. Maybe what he was saying isn't at all an appropriate solution as creative as he thinks it is?
WorkingMinimum t1_j9k8h7k wrote
Can you show the quote where he said the force should be segregated? All I’ve seen so far is that he thinks black officers are potentially more appropriate to send when addressing incidents in the black community. He didn’t use any sort of absolute language as far as I can tell, he didn’t suggest criminality is a black only problem… i think you’ve got a hate boner for the guy and maybe it’s deserve for other reasons, but the direct quotes in the article have me wondering what exactly he did wrong, because all the bad stuff is inferred by the reporter and rage bait junkies
Human802 t1_j9kl61o wrote
This is such a sad trend in American political discourse. Just because he didn’t say the word “segregation” doesn’t mean that not what he was talking about. He described segregation of police responsibilities based on assumed race of perpetrator and/or victim. These word games are so pathetic, such a waste of time.
WorkingMinimum t1_j9kokpb wrote
But again, if he was not a white male, if he was clearly an ally, the exact words could be used and Reddit would applaud.
Personally, it doesn’t make a difference in my life what a cop looks like. However, in a country where police brutality is commonplace and often framed as a racial issue, it doesn’t seem far fetched to suggest that the community should be policed by members of its community. And if that community is predominately black, maybe there would be some measurable benefit for a predominately black police force.
The sad trend is actually that people can’t share ideas casually without risk of social assassination. I think this dude is catching more flack for having the wrong identity than for the content of his idea.
Human802 t1_j9kvt57 wrote
You keep trying to construct this strawman, that if only he looked different he would be applauded. But, no. It’s a bad idea, one that wouldn’t help. One that been tried and has failed.
Police reform is not some new idea, I have been reading books about it, listening to activists and progressive DA’s discuss these ideas for at least 20 years now. You clearly have not looked into this movement very closely and seem more interested in defending some strawman persecution fetish, but go read a book. Listen to a podcast, watch a documentary.
WorkingMinimum t1_j9lbavc wrote
I never said it wasn’t a bad idea, or that it would be the answer we’ve all been waiting for.
Here’s an article that suggests what Vien proposed may in fact be worth pursuing:
This is from associated press by way of nbc. The right sort of groups to deliver vs say, Vien or Fox News.
The only mistake this dude made was in having an opinion on race relations without the correct identity.
BudsKind802 t1_j9m214s wrote
That's a nice article but nowhere in it does it support what you and Mr Viens are suggesting, which is POC police should only police POC. Instead what it says is that overall diversifying the ENTIRE police department has led to fewer minor crime arrests in minority areas. It also mentions women officers showed the same pattern, and the person featured in the article sums it up by saying:
> She and other local activists want to see more body cameras, community oversight of police, stringent use of force policies and more consequences for police officers who do harm while on the job.
I can't tell if you lack critical reading and argument skills, or if you're yet another bad faith troll.
Edit: I saw your other posts. You're definitely a bad faith troll.
WorkingMinimum t1_j9m8tsi wrote
I’m not suggesting anything other than what veins said being uncontroversial if you substitute his identity for a more palatable one.
As far as I can tell, viens never spoke in absolutes, never suggested that only black cops should police black communities. If you have that quote please share - OPs article is clearly biased and never presents what veins said in one unadulterated block.
It really seems like everyone wants to hate this guy for proposing reasonable ideas under the wrong identity and because he used one wrong word (which he did apologize for despite OP/article claiming he never apologized)
Kiernanstrat t1_j9k6agx wrote
It's a dumb suggestion but it doesn't seem like he is coming from a hateful perspective.
Kixeliz t1_j9k6mz0 wrote
It was ignorant, he was told it was ignorant and he responded:
> “I’m sorry that you think the fact that my wife and I were raised in this area and taught by our families that you should treat everyone equally no matter who they are makes us racist and ignorant,” Viens said.
Not someone I'd want on my local governing board, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
Edit: and this wasn't his first time playing the "all lives matter" angle either, as this post shows.
> Let’s go back to July of 2020, less than two months after the murder of George Floyd. The Waterbury Area Anti-Racism Committee asked the selectboard for permission to hang a racial justice banner in a high-visibility space usually devoted to community event announcements. Approval was granted without the support of Chris Viens. His explanation:
> “I don’t want people out there to be offended by feeling that they’re not included in this issue. I’m talking about Asian people or people of other ethnicities.”
At some point he loses the benefit of the doubt.
Kiernanstrat t1_j9k8t63 wrote
That quote you posted, do you disagree with that statement?
Kixeliz t1_j9k93rr wrote
With this context? I disagree.
> He defended his opposition to the banner out of concern for “possible graffiti, destruction and division.” His preference for an inclusive, “all lives matter” type of message was meant to prevent conflict and division. He hinted that “unrest was the goal” of those advocating for the BLM banner, and added “All I can say is that unrest was not caused by me.”
Kiernanstrat t1_j9k9vhn wrote
The way you presented his quote made it seem like you disagreed with his statement that you should treat everyone equally.
Kixeliz t1_j9kafqz wrote
Yea, let's treat everyone equally, after white people got a 200-year head start here. This "all lives matter" and "I don't see color" bullshit ignores the reality of the situation. It's great if you personally want to treat everyone equal. That's not how the world works. We have anti-discrimination laws because not everyone has such a rosy outlook. It's also used as cover by white people who don't want to address systemic racism and would rather play the "let's all get along" card like bigots are just going to change their tune if you're nice to them.
https://ideas.ted.com/why-saying-i-dont-see-race-at-all-just-makes-racism-worse/
Kiernanstrat t1_j9kbkc9 wrote
You're starting to lose me. As far as I know anti-discrimination laws cover everyone and not specific races. Are you in favor of giving preferential treatment to certain groups of people over others?
Edit: Since it seems you blocked me I'm guessing the answer is yes.
Kixeliz t1_j9kc8ts wrote
and this is why I should check comment history before responding. Gotta stop feeding the trolls.
Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_j9oazil wrote
> I should check comment history before responding.
Ahh yes what a good idea only speak to those who share the same views. Very on brand:)
Kixeliz t1_j9ohehs wrote
Right, because after I blocked the guy he admitted he was trying to "expose" me with his questions. Not troll behavior at all, right? Just opposing views. Y'all mouth breathers really believe you're entitled to an argument and when you get blocked, you "win." Totally normal, well-adjusted behavior.
Edit: lol, the troll came back looking for more comments to respond to, this comment wasn't even a response to him. And he then brags about "exposing" me. But keep on acting like your comment history isn't public, and you're just asking questions in good faith. Back to the troll cave with you. I'd say enjoy your downvotes, but you probably unironically do. And no, I'm not going to show how to better hide your shitty opinions. I'll let you tell on yourself, you're great at that.
Kiernanstrat t1_j9usquy wrote
I asked you pretty direct questions which you refused to answer. Since I'm curious here is another. What did you see in my comment history that made you block me?
Edit: Jeeze you block quicker than a mod on /r/conservative. One last parting shot, you really should consider the possibility that you don't have everything figured out. Sometimes other people make good points, even if you don't like them. Just something to chew on.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments