Students Asked To Leave Multicultural Room For 'Police Lives Matter' Sticker

[Xzi]

COVID-19 was the leading cause of death for police officers in 2020. If they don't even care about preserving their own lives through basic preventative measures, why should anyone else advocate for them?

 

[D34DL1N3R]

If the college is public then you’re welcome to display any message you like that is permitted by law since you’re protected by the First in the same way you would be in any other public setting, if it is private then it’s the dean’s responsibility to set such boundaries.

That is not accurate. Public schools can 100% absolutely have a code that prohibits political/social messages on flags, signs, clothing, etc. What they can't do is be unfair, like tell someone they can have a Black Lives Matter banner but then tell someone else they can't have a Police Lives Matter banner.

 

[Xzi]

What they can't do is be unfair, like tell someone they can have a Black Lives Matter banner but then tell someone else they can't have a Police Lives Matter banner.

How exactly is making a distinction between something you can't change (your race), and something you can change (your job), unfair? It's a distinction that must be made by anyone who isn't arguing in bad faith.

 

[Hanafuda]

COVID-19 was the leading cause of death for police officers in 2020. If they don't even care about preserving their own lives through basic preventative measures, why should anyone else advocate for them?

Have you considered why? That maybe they were required to be in close physical contact and proximity with sick people on a regular basis as part of their jobs? Before there were vaccinations. It's a reality for cops at all times, not just during Covid. Of the handful of people I knew who had Covid in 2020, almost all of them were police officers. It's not that they didn't wear masks ... the good masks ... and nitrile gloves ... it was that they were regularly in contact with people who didn't do any of those things, and with each other of course.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Have you considered why? That maybe they were required to be in close physical contact and proximity with sick people on a regular basis as part of their jobs? Before there were vaccinations. It's a reality for cops at all times, not just during Covid. Of the handful of people I knew who had Covid in 2020, almost all of them were police officers. It's not that they didn't wear masks ... the good masks ... and nitrile gloves ... it was that they were regularly in contact with people who didn't do any of those things, and with each other of course.

And if at any point they weren't comfortable with the conditions, they were free to choose a different line of work, or pursue the field in a location that generally had better statistics concerning covid spread. What can't happen, however, are millions of POC who weren't comfortable with the way they were being treated, to change their skin color.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

How exactly is making a distinction between something you can't change (your race), and something you can change (your job), unfair? It's a distinction that must be made by anyone who isn't arguing in bad faith.

Seriously? C'mon. Because they can both be considered political statements. BLM is, after all, a self admitted political movement. You can't allow ones politics of choice but not others. But if it makes you feel better, change one to White Lives Matter, or to whever else would fit your own agenda needs more appropriately so as to not offend anyone. God forsake.

 

[Hanafuda]

And if at any point they weren't comfortable with the conditions, they were free to choose a different line of work, or pursue the field in a location that generally had better statistics concerning covid spread. What can't happen, however, are millions of POC who weren't comfortable with the way they were being treated, to change their skin color.

Have you spent years at a job working on a pension/retirement and then just drop it? Or did you try to relocate to a new state and new job in the middle of the lockdowns? Your suggestions aren't realistic. And the race issue and your perceptions about police conduct are beside the point of what police are involved in most of the time, which is responding to where 911 dispatch sends them. Whether it's someone committing a crime, or a homeless person needing transport to the hospital, or crowd control, the police officer doesn't choose where he/she gets sent, or with who they must come into contact. How they conduct themselves in those encounters, and our opinions about it, are beside the point that the job required direct physical contact with sick persons frequently while the rest of us stayed at home or maintained social distance.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Seriously? C'mon. Because they can both be considered political statements. BLM is, after all, a self admitted political movement. You can't allow ones politics of choice but not others. But if it makes you feel better, change one to White Lives Matter, or to whever else would fit your own agenda needs more appropriately so as to not offend anyone. God forsake.

Of course BLM is a political movement. Systemic racism has been a part of America's politics since America started using slavery as a primary method of construction and financial stability. The difference between that and Blue Lives Matter is that you have blatant racists stuttering over finding a competent reason to continue politicizing their racism. Otherwise, where was all this sudden backing the blue before POC really started fighting back with their treatment? It sounds like you're the one getting offended because racists can't be racist.

Have you spent years at a job working on a pension/retirement and then just drop it? Or did you try to relocate to a new state and new job in the middle of the lockdowns? Your suggestions aren't realistic. And the race issue and your perceptions about police conduct are beside the point of what police are involved in most of the time, which is responding to where 911 dispatch sends them. Whether it's someone committing a crime, or a homeless person needing transport to the hospital, or crowd control, the police officer doesn't choose where he/she gets sent, or with who they must come into contact. How they conduct themselves in those encounters, and our opinions about it, are beside the point that the job required direct physical contact with sick persons frequently while the rest of us stayed at home or maintained social distance.

It's a shitty prospect, but unfortunately the difference lies in the fact that still have a choice. If I had sunk much of my career into the police force just to have covid happen, I'd be pretty pissed too. Relatedly, I have worked most of my career in a field that was deeply impacted by covid. Instead of continuously putting myself at risk, or staying at home wallowing in my own misery, I learned a trade that gave me a little wiggle room during the pandemic and still found a way to make it through financially unscathed. You say my suggestions aren't realistic, but look at the boom in remote jobs and rideshare/ courier services alone that exploded when the shutdown first happened. You can't tell me not one of those police officers took a job that ended up all but replacing their previous career and never went back.

No, the fact of the matter is, we have POC who continue to be discriminated against, who don't want to be, and can't do much about it, and now we have people who can do something about their "discrimination", but choose not to, and instead whine about how terrible their *job* is.

We're literally one good argument away from adamantly comparing them to the fast food workers who complain that they're not earning livable wages (not that I disagree with them, either)

 

[Xzi]

It's not that they didn't wear masks

It is that the majority of them didn't wear masks. And now the majority of them are refusing to get vaccinated, too. Unfortunately for them, qualified immunity only shields them from much-needed accountability, not from airborne viruses.

Seriously? C'mon. Because they can both be considered political statements. BLM is, after all, a self admitted political movement. You can't allow ones politics of choice but not others. But if it makes you feel better, change one to White Lives Matter, or to whever else would fit your own agenda needs more appropriately so as to not offend anyone. God forsake.

Black Lives Matter as an organization is indeed politically active. "Black lives matter" as a statement is not inherently political. Additionally, if the "all lives matter" crowd were genuine in that belief, they'd be happy to join in protesting police brutality, as Americans of all races get murdered by police in staggering numbers every year. The fact of the matter is that they aren't being genuine when they say that though, "all lives matter" and "police lives matter" are simply slogans meant to be dismissive of BLM's well-founded grievances. They're intentionally confrontational and/or provocative in that sense.

 

[subcon959]

Since the sticker says "Police Matter" rather than "Police Lives Matter" couldn't it be a response to "Defund The Police" rather than "Black Lives Matter"? I don't know what their intentions were, but from my own perspective it's a complicated issue as I support BLM but at the same time oppose the idea of defunding the police.

 

[Xzi]

Since the sticker says "Police Matter" rather than "Police Lives Matter" couldn't it be a response to "Defund The Police" rather than "Black Lives Matter"? I don't know what their intentions were, but from my own perspective it's a complicated issue as I support BLM but at the same time oppose the idea of defending the police.

It says "police lives matter." The word "lives" is just hard to see because it's dark blue on a black background.

 

[subcon959]

It says "police lives matter." The word "lives" is just hard to see because it's dark blue on a black background.

Damn, let down by my old eyes again.

 

[Foxi4]

That is not accurate. Public schools can 100% absolutely have a code that prohibits political/social messages on flags, signs, clothing, etc. What they can't do is be unfair, like tell someone they can have a Black Lives Matter banner but then tell someone else they can't have a Police Lives Matter banner.

In Tinker vs. Des Moines the U.S. Supreme Court categorically stated that, I quote:

”Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

If a student wants to display a sticker on their laptop, they are permitted to do so in a public school setting. Students are not allowed to disrupt proceedings, a sticker can hardly be considered a disruption. There is some disagreement and different rules in regards to permissible settings, or what constitutes a disruption, which is district-dependent, and you are correct in saying that schools cannot apply their rules in a discriminatory manner, but we’d have to delve into the nitty gritty of this particular school’s regulations to have this discussion. Broadly speaking, students do not waive their rights at the door.

More detail can be found here, if you want a more nuanced answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment)

You don't get to pick and choose what other people are allowed to find insensitive or offensive, any more than any is allowed to tell you that you have no business being offended by communist symbols and propaganda, to whatever degree you may find yourself offended by such ideologies, as per the Communist Symbols thread we were a part of last week. You can compare the severity of the two all you want, you have the freedom to do so, but to defiantly argue that all communist propaganda and symbols are bad because they're bad to you, just to turn around and invalidate someone else's offense because you don't agree with their idea of offense? That makes you a hypocrite. Comrade.

I do not prohibit people from displaying such symbols or eject them from public settings for doing so, which makes a world of difference. Never, not once, have I advocated that such symbols should be banned. The Constitution doesn’t protect fee-fees, it protects free speech and expression, and offensive speech in particular. You’re welcome to display communist iconography in public settings - I don’t find it “offensive”, as I stated in the thread you mention, which you would’ve known if you read it more closely. I quote:

They should be considered as equal to Nazi symbolism - it’s just another failed ideology from the past that was entirely based on hate and led to untold suffering. I don’t necessarily find them offensive since hardly anything is “offensive” to me - I’m a free speech absolutist. People can follow whatever ideologies they want, it doesn’t bother me - we’ll only have a problem if they show up on my doorstep to enact their nonsense. In fact, the act of displaying such iconography allows me to quickly identify people who are not worth associating with. Self-identifying with the ideals of communism is innately tied with several character flaws, so it’s nice that they give us a dead giveaway instead of pretending that they’re not silly.

You’re right, I was so offended and my stance was completely different, I’m such a hypocrite. Oh wait, I applied the exact same reasoning, regardless of whether I liked a particular symbol or not. In case people’s reading comprehension might be impaired by righteous indignation here, I am perfectly fine with anyone displaying or otherwise propagating communist iconography, particularly in public settings, but I will resist any attempt at imposing such a system on me in my own home, as is my right. Huh, weird. I think you may have misremembered a thing or two for the purposes of bolstering a flimsy argument. Oh, and I’m not your “comrade”, by the way.

Wow, way to word salad your way up to some kind of bogus moral high ground. You have succeeded in sucking any sense of nuance from the subject, congratulations . I guess in that respect, "you win" since I have zero damned interest to responding more directly to your babble. Plus, @SyphenFreht already said it best.

“I have no rebuttal, so I will feign offense and gallop towards the sunset on my high horse”.

It’s a sticker. Get over it.

 

[Hanafuda]

It is that the majority of them didn't wear masks.

Was not my experience with the police officers I know and work with. (no, I'm not a cop. State govt. job.) But that's here where I live, which isn't everywhere so I dunno maybe in Iowa or Oregon they didn't wear them on the job. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[duwen]

People who find everything offensive make this world a horrible place

True... along with those who decide to 'censor' things that they think may cause offense to others.

 

[SyphenFreht]

I do not prohibit people from displaying such symbols or eject them from public settings for doing so, which makes a world of difference. Never, not once, have I advocated that such symbols should be banned. The Constitution doesn’t protect fee-fees, it protects free speech and expression, and offensive speech in particular. You’re welcome to display communist iconography in public settings - I don’t find it “offensive”, as I stated in the thread you mention, which you would’ve known if you read it more closely. I quote:

You’re right, I was so offended and my stance was completely different, I’m such a hypocrite. Oh wait, I applied the exact same reasoning, regardless of whether I liked a particular symbol or not. In case people’s reading comprehension might be impaired by righteous indignation here, I am perfectly fine with anyone displaying or otherwise propagating communist iconography, particularly in public settings, but I will resist any attempt at imposing such a system on me in my own home, as is my right. Huh, weird. I think you may have misremembered a thing or two for the purposes of bolstering a flimsy argument. Oh, and I’m not your “comrade”, by the way.

The point wasn't to whether you prohibit such symbolism and propaganda, or whether you were offended by any of this, what I said, otherwise, or not. It was the fact that you attempted to invalidate the offense that someone else took because you think the offense was unwarranted. In no part of your response did you address the reason why I quoted your words in particular; instead, you ignore the response in favor of packing circular arguments and tongue in cheek pot shots because you've run out of valid argument against the fact that, you evidently only think it's ok to be offended by the things you think is ok to be offended by.

That's hypocrisy. You can deny it all you want, you can misdirect it all you want with made up arguments and rogue implications, but at the end of the day, you invalidate these people because they haven't experienced the same atrocities you may have, therefore their experience is worthless.

So, after reading this "flimsy argument" closely, please enlighten the rest of the forum with how you're not a hypocrite because you're allowed to view communist symbols as offensive (regardless of whether you're offended by then or not), but POC aren't allowed to see Blue Lives Matter paraphernalia as offensive.

You know, my original argument with you in particular.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Of course BLM is a political movement. Systemic racism has been a part of America's politics since America started using slavery as a primary method of construction and financial stability. The difference between that and Blue Lives Matter is that you have blatant racists stuttering over finding a competent reason to continue politicizing their racism. Otherwise, where was all this sudden backing the blue before POC really started fighting back with their treatment? It sounds like you're the one getting offended because racists can't be racist.

Wft are you even talking about? "It sound like you're...."? You know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like you're making incredibly stupid and baseless assumptions about me.

Black Lives Matter as an organization is indeed politically active. "Black lives matter" as a statement is not inherently political. Additionally, if the "all lives matter" crowd were genuine in that belief, they'd be happy to join in protesting police brutality, as Americans of all races get murdered by police in staggering numbers every year. The fact of the matter is that they aren't being genuine when they say that though, "all lives matter" and "police lives matter" are simply slogans meant to be dismissive of BLM's well-founded grievances. They're intentionally confrontational and/or provocative in that sense.

For fucks sake. THEIR OWN PAGE stated that they are a political movement. Yet here someone is arguing about what BLM is or is not. Your "additionally" is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit too. If the "black lives matter" crowd were genuine in that belief, they'd be happy to join in protesting black on black crimes and making the black lives in their own communities matter. And the facts of the matter, as you want to put them, are not facts whatsoever. All lives matter and police lives matter are not meant to be dismissive of BLM. As much as people butt hurt about those statements would like to believe otherwise, it's simple NOT the case. Nor are they intentionally confrontational... unlike BLM who actually are. Sit down. You literally don't know wtf you're talking about and I VERY highly doubt you've had any real life experience with violent and/or disruptive BLM crowds/protestors.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

Multicultural space does not lead to segregation, looking down on POC and seeing them as inferior leads to segregation. If you can't be educated enough to see that someone who says "All lives matter" should be open to learning about other cultures, maybe you're the narrow minded one?

The same logic can be applied in reverse as well. If you want to look down on any race or any sex to feel better about yourself, that can be considered the same right? Or does it only work in one way? In which case that is considered hypocritical at worst to a lawful double standard at best.

Also I would tread lightly on where to throw that second half of your argument to. I might not be a POC, but I sure as hell do come from Irish descent enough to know of the history of hell they had to go through just to be accepted here in this country. But I am sure they do not teach that kind of history often anymore do they? Don't go insulting others without learning more about where they come from first, and maybe your arguments might have some weight behind you. Must be easy to assume that everyone you argue with never had roots of prejudice before.

 

[Arecaidian Fox]

“I have no rebuttal, so I will feign offense and gallop towards the sunset on my high horse”.

It’s a sticker. Get over it.

Says the "moderator" who low-key called me a fascist just a couple responses ago? Get over yourself and this stupid hill you're dying on.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Wft are you even talking about? "It sound like you're...."? You know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like you're making incredibly stupid and baseless assumptions about me.

It would be baseless if you didn't present yourself that way. It's also starting to sound like someone's getting a little butthurt over a friendly forum discussion. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, maybe you should check out another thread?

For fucks sake. THEIR OWN PAGE stated that they are a political movement. Yet here someone is arguing about what BLM is or is not. Your "additionally" is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit too. If the "black lives matter" crowd were genuine in that belief, they'd be happy to join in protesting black on black crimes and making the black lives in their own communities matter. And the facts of the matter, as you want to put them, are not facts whatsoever. All lives matter and police lives matter are not meant to be dismissive of BLM. As much as people butt hurt about those statements would like to believe otherwise, it's simple NOT the case. Nor are they intentionally confrontational... unlike BLM who actually are. Sit down. You literally don't know wtf you're talking about and I VERY highly doubt you've had any real life experience with violent and/or disruptive BLM crowds/protestors.

"Black on black crime". Or, you know, just crime. Kinda messed up to take regular crime and randomly attach racist overtones to it, isn't it? BLM started as a response to police brutality against the black community. Why should it concentrate on anything else? Though I guess while we're at it we should protest against the John Hopkins hospital because they don't treat adults, right? Don't be a hypocrite. We've got enough of those on this forum. All lives matter? Then why don't the lives of the MCC kids matter when white kids come a knockin'? Oh, because it doesn't sit your views. Maybe you should sit down. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Try again.

The same logic can be applied in reverse as well. If you want to look down on any race or any sex to feel better about yourself, that can be considered the same right? Or does it only work in one way? In which case that is considered hypocritical at worst to a lawful double standard at best.

Also I would tread lightly on where to throw that second half of your argument to. I might not be a POC, but I sure as hell do come from Irish descent enough to know of the history of hell they had to go through just to be accepted here in this country. But I am sure they do not teach that kind of history often anymore do they? Don't go insulting others without learning more about where they come from first, and maybe your arguments might have some weight behind you. Must be easy to assume that everyone you argue with never had roots of prejudice before.

Who's looking down on who? The MCC students who wanted to study culture other than white culture? Which somehow translates into looking down on white culture? Despite white culture being predominantly taught over the past ~300 years? Gotcha.

More Irish immigrants were indentured servants than any kind of slave, stateside. They also didn't suffer ~250 years of subhuman level discrimination and conditions, but please, go on about how your ancestors ran out of potatoes and sold their kids to protect their family assets.

No one here is saying the Irish didn't have it bad as well, or any other POC, be it white skinned or not. The problem here is everyone wants to defend racism by invalidating the feelings and opinions of non white citizens because... why? Jealousy? Quid pro quo? Objection to change? Get over it. You can't pick and choose what's offensive to who and why, and the more you continue to invalidate the struggles people go through, the more we're going to see situations like the OP vid. Either get with the times and progress like the rest of the society, or get out of the way. Simple.