Kixeliz

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/

20

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.”

11

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?

8

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.

24

Kixeliz t1_j9k49ns wrote

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.

39

Kixeliz t1_j7py7gu wrote

I'm sure there is some of that at play, as well. It's something I see quite a bit in Chittenden County, too. Vermont offers services other states don't which draws people here to use those services. Then the naysayers (conservatives) get to point out how big of a failure the services were because demand was too high and grew the homeless population here. It's easier to say "look at all the problems your services caused" than "if everywhere offered these services, there wouldn't be such a concentration here."

1

Kixeliz t1_j7pwbhb wrote

The person you're responding to wasn't saying the problem isn't real, seemed to me they were complaining about the shit system we have to try and measure the problem. It's been called a snapshot by others and advocates don't see much value in the count, but it's the only way to get HUD funding so they play along.

0

Kixeliz t1_j7psrxu wrote

It relies on people self-identifying as homeless, with all the stigma and shame that comes with that. It can't count people surfing on couches nor someone who just became homeless the day after the count was done. The people doing these counts admit its a flawed system, you don't need to defend it.

1

Kixeliz t1_j7prce7 wrote

They appear to be hoaxes. From VSP:

http://vtstatepolice.blogspot.com/2023/02/schools-across-vermont-receive-apparent.html

> MONTPELIER, Vermont (Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023) — Multiple law enforcement agencies across Vermont are receiving calls reporting shootings at local schools. At this time, none of these threats is believed to be credible, and the incidents appear to be hoaxes.

> The calls have been reported to originate from VOIP phone numbers or potentially spoofed 802 numbers and appear to be associated with ongoing nationwide hoax phone threats of school shootings, bomb threats, and other violent events that have proved to be unfounded.

> The Governor’s Office, Agency of Education, Department of Public Safety, Vermont State Police, Vermont Intelligence Center and local law-enforcement agencies are actively engaged in the response to these calls.

>Further information will be available at a news conference expected to be held later today at the Governor’s Ceremonial Office at the Statehouse in Montpelier. Details of the news conference will be released as soon as they are available.

55

Kixeliz t1_j7pehuf wrote

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/black-high-school-athletes-speak-out-about-racism-in-vermont-sports/Content?oid=37493806

> The video showed a white CVU player pulling the hair of a Black member of her family as a voice-over says, "Got your [N-word] — but you can get 'em back at your local Chevrolet dealership."

14

Kixeliz t1_j64ray7 wrote

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills sometimes when I see what others will excuse when it comes to police behavior. These people have so much power and responsibility, but a good chunk of the population is totally willing to let bullshit like this slide because "I thought it would be worse."

3

Kixeliz t1_j64ohta wrote

Allowing someone not certified to do the work is a pretty big no-no for a regulated profession. It's bad enough if a contractor allows their untrained buddy to work on your sink, but this is about criminal investigations, someone's liberty at stake. Not only would any investigation that uncertified deputy was involved in be thrown out of court, but the sheriff rightly was looking at possible decertification himself, hence why this was all public. Certification is necessary for a reason and the stakes don't get much higher than criminal investigations. The state takes it quite seriously.

Edit: And if he's this sloppy about serious matters like this, where else is he sloppy? What else is he allowing? Just a horrid look for a sheriff.

5

Kixeliz t1_j645pf8 wrote

Well when this is the guy he's replacing. Can't really blame him for wanting to get a jump on things before the current sheriff spoils the well, though it looks like that already happened. The deputies and dispatchers are showing solidarity for this:

https://vtdigger.org/2023/01/24/days-ahead-of-his-departure-orange-county-sheriff-settles-case-involving-improper-assignment-of-investigative-work/

1

Kixeliz t1_j5g1693 wrote

but you were able to work for your shit, you were able to get loans and mortgages because the color of your skin was not a barrier. People seem to think systemic racism means white people don't have trials and tribulations in their life when what it really means is the color of their skin had no impact on those trials and tribulations.

You see a cop and you hope you won't get a speeding ticket, my black friend hopes he doesn't get killed and is terrified driving in lily white Vt. You can ignore the reality of the situation all you want, I have no illusions about changing the opinion of someone who actually wishes they were "born a minority."

1

Kixeliz t1_j5fyi6s wrote

I can see why you deleted this comment:

> Nah man, you can whip yourself with the flail of white guilt but i aint taking none of that BS. Nobody chooses the shell we are thrust into. I would have loved to been born a minority

You really only see things from your own perspective and judge everything else accordingly. When the FBI is currently investigating Neo-Nazis sabotaging energy infrastructure in the northwest, when they march with tiki torches chanting 'Jews will not replace us,' it certainly seems like a certain sect of society does not, in fact, want to move on, let alone acknowledge the damage that's been done and continues. You got a 200-year head start and now you want everyone to play by the same rules.

0

Kixeliz t1_j5filmk wrote

You acting like this is something that used to be a problem and isn't anymore is exactly why statements like this are important. No, we won't just move on because you feel personally attacked because you were lucky enough to be born white. Color blindness is not a solution to addressing systemic racism, even if it helps you feel better about the situation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/19/911909187/in-u-s-cities-the-health-effects-of-past-housing-discrimination-are-plain-to-see

https://fitchburgstate.libguides.com/c.php?g=1046516&p=7616506

0

Kixeliz t1_j5627vg wrote

And which one needs to gerrymander for survival? This is the same "logic" applied to super pacs. Republicans rush to use a whole lot of dark money (or gerrymander) and Democrats respond in kind since that's how the rules are set up, but let's not pretend they are equal.

5

Kixeliz t1_j55umhu wrote

> A simple look at their positions shows they are a liberal policy group.

Yea, because suppressing the vote and gerrymandering have become key tools of the GOP since they can't win the war of ideas. Any effort against that instantly gives the organization a left-leaning label.

7

Kixeliz t1_j55hsjh wrote

It's a sad state of affairs when a group focused on upholding campaign finance laws gets labeled "liberal." (so much for law and order, huh?) A group founded by a former Republican chairman of the FEC with a current president who served as general counsel on both of John McCain's presidential campaigns. A real bunch of progressives over there. But then if you go after gerrymandering, that makes you liberal by default, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Legal_Center

I do see that "liberal advocacy group" label for the CLC coming from "Influence Watch" which appears to be a harmless site letting you know who is donating to what and all that for political orgs. And then a simple google search turns up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

> Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C.[2][3] Its stated purpose is "to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism

> In 2017, the CRC launched the website "Influence Watch," which focuses on identifying funding sources of progressive organizations and initiatives, and of progressive politicians.

Media literacy is important.

12