police officer in trouble for using a clannad meme

[OriginalRen]

From my arguments with OriginalRen, he seems to be a consequentialist.

 

 

Thus for any bad consequence, the individual affected is responsible so long as his actions directly led to that consequence.  Fairness does not enter into the equation.  I'm sort of curious what we he would think of the protagonists from School Days and Cross Days.  I imagine with that attitude he wouldn't enjoy the games very much.

 

That is pretty accurate, however that's not to say that exceptions to this don't exist, as I do believe in fairness as well. I agree this being blown out of proportion is dumb, but at the same time if I wanted to send that to my boss who has the ability to fire me at my job, I would make sure I trust them entirely or not do it at all. It's the same reason that companies fire people for shit posting about them on social media sites, which was a discussion we had awhile ago. I don't swear when I am at work, and I shouldn't do it to my friend who uses a department phone when they are at work either. He could have changed the meme to say something like "dang son" and it would have been fine.

[krill]

That is pretty accurate, however that's not to say that exceptions to this don't exist, as I do believe in fairness as well. I agree this being blown out of proportion is dumb, but at the same time if I wanted to send that to my boss who has the ability to fire me at my job, I would make sure I trust them entirely or not do it at all. It's the same reason that companies fire people for shit posting about them on social media sites, which was a discussion we had awhile ago.

 

this is a lil different since its a police department and not a company. they are held to a higher scrutiny since they are tax funded by the city/state. and since the level of scrutiny is more intense the fact that treating a superior officer as a friend (even if they are friends out of the department) and texting them while they are using a department phone is a much higher level of idiocy then if it was just he manager at some company that isn't held to the standards of a state office.

[sanahtlig]

That is pretty accurate, however that's not to say that exceptions to this don't exist, as I do believe in fairness as well. I agree this being blown out of proportion is dumb, but at the same time if I wanted to send that to my boss who has the ability to fire me at my job, I would make sure I trust them entirely or not do it at all. It's the same reason that companies fire people for shit posting about them on social media sites, which was a discussion we had awhile ago.

Do you believe that "the ends justifies the means"?

[OriginalRen]

this is a lil different since its a police department and not a company. they are held to a higher scrutiny since they are tax funded by the city/state. and since the level of scrutiny is more intense the fact that treating a superior officer as a friend (even if they are friends out of the department) and texting them while they are using a department phone is a much higher level of idiocy then if it was just he manager at some company that isn't held to the standards of a state office.

 

To clarify, we are agreeing with each other. I am just wording this differently.

 

Do you believe that "the ends justifies the means"?

 

No, not really.

[sanahtlig]

Maybe consequentialism isn't the best "box" for your ideas then.  I suppose it might be more accurate to say you focus on personal responsibility/accountability for one's actions.

 

I'm a utilitarian, which is a branch of consequentialism.

[OriginalRen]

Maybe consequentialism isn't the best "box" for your ideas then.  I suppose it might be more accurate to say you focus on personal responsibility for one's actions.

 

I'm a utilitarian, which is a branch of consequentialism.

 

I just live my life the way it is given to me. As I mentioned before with the confiscation of that loli porn, I know it is illegal. Just like I know weed is illegal in my state, I am taking a risk if I decide to carry it into an airport or send it in a package (which I don't by the way). I am not going to "fight" the big man and try to argue that; I know it's wrong, so I should take responsibility for my actions. While I could argue if it is right or wrong, life is to short to care about that in my opinion. There are so many other things I could be doing to enjoy my life.

 

In another example, if I have sex, no matter how much protection I use, I need to know that there is always a 1% chance that I might get a girl pregnant. As such I should both trust them and be responsible for having that child if I decide to engage in sexual intercourse. I just want people to know both the positive and negative consequences of their actions.

[Sovereign1612]

Turn the sound off if you watch the video

even for something like that you dont get much trouble in germany

 

its a bit extreme to get punished for something small like that (clannad meme) 

[sanahtlig]

I am not going to "fight" the big man and try to argue that; I know it's wrong, so I should take responsibility for my actions. While I could argue if it is right or wrong, life is to short to care about that in my opinion. There are so many other things I could be doing to enjoy my life.

That's essentially a conservative viewpoint (let's ignore the "loli porn" part of that, since that's merely one of many triggers).  The problem is that this viewpoint accepts society as it currently is and treats it as unmalleable and unchangeable (or simply not worth the effort of changing).  It places agency solely in the individual.  Yet we know that the actions of individuals affect the actions of others.  The collection of individuals we call "society" is defined by and affected by the actions of individuals.

 

Progressivism is simply the notion that we should never be satisfied with the status quo simply because that's the way things currently are.  Tidal changes can only begin from small ripples.  If we were all perfectly law abiding citizens that never challenged the law or the status quo, nothing would ever change.  Sometimes we must take personal risks for personal gain.  Sometimes we must take personal risks for collective gain.  And sometimes we must take collective risks for collective gain (but hopefully not collective risks for personal gain). 

[Nosebleed]

While I get where you're coming from, I really question how we're going to fight to make sending anime memes with "aw shit nigga" to your supervisor not be a bad thing.

 

I think this is a really small, isolated issue, there's no need to turn it into a political one. This is the type of stuff that's better off left to the people involved, hence why people are saying it shouldn't be in the media even.

[sanahtlig]

While I get where you're coming from, I really question how we're going to fight to make sending anime memes with "aw shit nigga" to your supervisor not be a bad thing.

I believe there's very little to be gained from scrutinizing personal communications.  I think it's invasive and restrictive of personal liberty.  Intent is important.  It's clear the officer wasn't intending to deride a racial minority.  If we give ground on issues like this, then it's only a small step to say that officers aren't allowed to play eroge because they objectify women.  And then extend that to government officials, people in positions of power over women, and finally people who interact with women (hint: that's everyone).

 

We should all value personal liberty.

 

Who reported this?  It's cowardly.  They're the one(s) that should be spotlighted and shamed.

[Nosebleed]

I believe there's very little to be gained from scrutinizing personal communications.  I think it's invasive and restrictive of personal liberty.  Intent is important.  It's clear the officer wasn't intending to deride a racial minority.  If we give ground on issues like this, then it's only a small step to say that officers aren't allowed to play eroge because they objectify women.  And then extend that to government officials, people in positions of power over women, and finally people who interact with women (hint: that's everyone).

Kind of a slippery slope there at the end, the scale of things is completely different and "giving ground" on such an isolated, almost meaningless case like this isn't likely to affect an entire society.

I also don't think this has anything to do with the supervisor thinking he was deriding a racial minority either. The supervisor might have just thought the language was inappropriate or crude, there's a thing called respect to your superiors where you should not address them so casually with profanity unless you know for sure they are okay with it, because that projects a negative image of you onto your superior as well as the workplace.

 

Law enforcement has a strict hierarchy code that must be followed, you should always look up to your superiors with utmost respect. 

For the few days I was in the army, I quickly learned this type of morale is strictly enforced, if I acted casually towards any soldier while inside facilities, I would instantly get reprimended and possibly have the documents I was there to make revoked from me. And it's pretty much the same here, the guy acted too casual with a superior and he got reprimended for it because that's the type of morale and hierarchy in this type of business and you need to accept that you're inferior in this situation and making a riot out of it is actually just going to get you in even more trouble.

 

This is simply a case of a superior thinking you did something wrong and him having all the right to do whatever he thinks is best with you and you don't get to talk back because you're in a lower position than they are. It's tough, but it's life.

[OriginalRen]

That's essentially a conservative viewpoint (let's ignore the "loli porn" part of that, since that's merely one of many triggers).  The problem is that this viewpoint accepts society as it currently is and treats it as unmalleable and unchangeable (or simply not worth the effort of changing).  It places agency solely in the individual.  Yet we know that the actions of individuals affect the actions of others.  The collection of individuals we call "society" is defined by and affected by the actions of individuals.

 

Progressivism is simply the notion that we should never be satisfied with the status quo simply because that's the way things currently are.  Tidal changes can only begin from small ripples.  If we were all perfectly law abiding citizens that never challenged the law or the status quo, nothing would ever change.  Sometimes we must take personal risks for personal gain.  Sometimes we must take personal risks for collective gain.  And sometimes we must take collective risks for collective gain (but hopefully not collective risks for personal gain). 

 

That delves into entitlement. People feel they can make an excuse for everything because they view it as being "right." You can be offended all you'd like about something and have every right to complain about certain things, but that does not mean you are entitled to have your way. There is a big difference between "progressing" and simply making excuse after excuse for your actions. Take Fuwanovel for example: the site isn't your mom, and while some people have the right to complain about torrents being removed, they aren't in any way, shape, or form entitled to have them. Neither side is wrong in this case, but in the end we accept what is given to us and move on with life. It's too short as is.

[sanahtlig]

in the end we accept what is given to us and move on with life. It's too short as is.

People with passive attitudes like that tend to get pushed around and taken advantage of by others.

 

 

Kind of a slippery slope there at the end, the scale of things is completely different and "giving ground" on such an isolated, almost meaningless case like this isn't likely to affect an entire society.

Well, my argument IS a slippery slope argument.  When it comes to law and morality, I believe actions taken in response to individual situations should be considered as if they were generalized to the full extent possible.  This avoids issues such as hypocrisy and favoritism.  In general, I'm not a fan of those who would hold others to higher standards than themselves, as that tends to lead to propagation of hypocrisy.  Sometimes it's necessary to rein in the liberty of those in power to prevent abuse of power, but this is a line that should be walked very carefully.

 

I also don't think this has anything to do with the supervisor thinking he was deriding a racial minority either. The supervisor might have just thought the language was inappropriate or crude, there's a thing called respect to your superiors where you should not address them so casually with profanity unless you know for sure they are okay with it, because that projects a negative image of you onto your superior as well as the workplace.

It's interesting that you say that.  Who said it was the supervisor who reported him?  In that case, I'd say the officer misjudged his audience and got slapped accordingly.  But what if that wasn't the case?  This is poor reporting because it doesn't provide all of the relevant facts of the case, and as a result it biases the audience.

[OriginalRen]

People with passive attitudes like that tend to get pushed around and taken advantage of by others.

 

Big difference between getting pushed around and being conceited.

[Nosebleed]

Well, my argument IS a slippery slope argument.  When it comes to law and morality, I believe actions taken in response to individual situations should be considered as if they were generalized to the full extent possible.  This avoids issues such as hypocrisy and favoritism.

I can't really agree with using logical fallacies in arguments, especially when you're contradicting yourself a little.

 

You're saying it's clear that he didn't have any ill intent and that it wouldn't have led to any problems to let this slide and that by being so conservative on this we're actually damaging society.

By the same kind of logic the person who reported this thought he was ill mannered and could be racist and that it could spread in the workplace and be oppressive to ethnic minorities and that's something they do not want to have going on.

 

Seems fairly sound either way by the slippery slope logic.

You're just judging from an outsider perspective and they're judging by their own rules and regulations which we have no business in.

 

It's interesting that you say that.  Who said it was the supervisor who reported him?  In that case, I'd say the officer misjudged his audience and got slapped accordingly.  But what if that wasn't the case?  This is poor reporting because it doesn't provide all of the relevant facts of the case, and as a result it biases the audience.

 

We don't know, because this is an isolated thing that shouldn't even have gotten out of the police office, it's clearly just an internal affair and not really meant to represent any issue in society, hence why it's kind of obsolete to try and turn this into a political debate.

 

I fully agree that people's over sensitiveness has gotten worse lately and it's really depressing to see, especially when some people try to change how society works based on how offended they are at something, but for me this is a case by case thing. This is an internal police affair that doesn't affect any of us or society as a whole and if the police thought the guy had to be reprimended for this, then so be it, he has an inferior rank so his only job is to shut up and accept the punishment.

 

I'm more worried about schools enforcing toddlers to sign up contracts so they don't use transphobic language.

Now that's the type of conservative mentality you should be worried about.

[Kurokusari]

 

People with passive attitudes like that tend to get pushed around and taken advantage of by others.

Maybe because going against the flow will bite you back? I'm not saying go all passive and accept being pushed around but do know when to let it go and when to hold your ground.

 

 

It's interesting that you say that.  Who said it was the supervisor who reported him?  In that case, I'd say the officer misjudged his audience and got slapped accordingly.  But what if that wasn't the case?  This is poor reporting because it doesn't provide all of the relevant facts of the case, and as a result it biases the audience.

 

There is a possibility for reports to include some facts and remove some facts to create the bias and that's the intent. I'm not saying this is one since I don't have concrete proof but who knows? I tried reading the source and most of the quotes were against the offender. I don't really think that this kind of thing will only attract negative reception (seeing that here we are discussing it with some neutral) so maybe they intended a bias from the start.

[sanahtlig]

I can't really agree with using logical fallacies in arguments

The slippery slope device isn't a fallacy by definition, though it can be used in a fallacious manner.  It's simply a logical device that can be used correctly or incorrectly.

 

You're saying it's clear that he didn't have any ill intent and that it wouldn't have led to any problems to let this slide and that by being so conservative on this we're actually damaging society.

By the same kind of logic the person who reported this thought he was ill mannered and could be racist and that it could spread in the workplace and be oppressive to ethnic minorities and that's something they do not want to have going on.

 

Ah yes, you've discovered that decisions are often guided by opposing moral imperatives.  The issue is that in many cases one moral imperative is highlighted without any consideration of the other.  I believe in this case the imperative for personal liberty is much stronger than the imperative for racial equality.  Why?  The statement "might" be racist in certain contexts (probably not this one), but its repression *definitely* violates his personal liberty.  It's not like he posted this on Twitter from an official police account.  It was intended to have an audience of one.  If he managed to offend that audience of one who happened to be a superior... well, he got what was coming to him.

 

I agree that the main issue isn't so much what occurred (the guy got a reprimand for semi-private conduct that was seen as unbecoming of an officer), but that it was publicized.  Because it was publicized, it is now a political matter, and that's why I'm treating it as such.  Well, and because I find such discussion much more interesting than shallow personal reactions.  I care less about *what* people think and more *how* they think.

[Nosebleed]

Ah yes, you've discovered that decisions are often guided by opposing moral imperatives.  The issue is that in many cases one moral imperative is highlighted without any consideration of the other.  I believe in this case the imperative for personal liberty is much stronger than the imperative for racial equality.  Why?  The statement "might" be racist in certain contexts (probably not this one), but its repression *definitely* violates his personal liberty.

When you become a law enforcement angent, you agree on rules and regulations, you pledge to them, so you're actively abdicating some of your own personal liberty when you undertake such a job (and any job really).

I personally think what he did is 100% harmless (and even funny) and it's moronic anyone even thought it was harmful, but at the end of the day even if the morals used to judge this case were obviously based on conservative views, the fact that we live in a meritocracy still stands and the people above him have the right to judge him based on their merit, regardless of anyone's morals, bececause equality really isn't real, so unfortunately for him, he has and should bite the bullet, unless he wants the issue to become needlessly bigger.

 

Let me just say that I agree with you on the fact that this situation is ridiculously overzealous, but just taking a step back on it and looking at the impact it has really doesn't make me feel like the guy is having any excessive punishment done to him, he's not having his personal liberty taken away from him, he's abiding by the rules that were there to begin with, constructed by his superiors, and it's his job to follow them, that's the type of place he signed up for.

 

I can agree they are pretty stupid rules, but I really don't see how he's having his liberty restricted by not being allowed to send anime memes with "aw shit nigga" to his colleagues, that's something a lot of people would find not appropriate for a workplace or just in interactions between colleagues, and more to the point, he should know this, so if he didn't, it's his own fault.

[sanahtlig]

Sure.  I don't see why this public shaming had to occur however.  This should never have become a media issue in the first place.  I wouldn't be surprised if the guy is getting death threats now.  Public humiliation is a tool that should only be used when the system has failed to properly regulate itself.

[arakura]

Hmmmm... Wasn't the reason for the guy's trouble that fact that it had "N****" in the image, and nothing to do with Clannad? It seems to me like the same result would have happened if he had just sent the words text only

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Clannad/the meme has literally nothing to do with it. This thread is improper reporting. Sorry Krill xD

Also, yeah people are pretty thin-skinned these days and it's kind of dumb, but that's the kind of stuff you send your friends or whatever on your own time. Not too hard to see this one coming.

As for why the media covered it?

Because the media is a bunch of losers? Well, at least this side of it is. Anyway, who cares about this all? I can't for the life of me find a reason to care. In fact the only reason I'm posting is because it seemed like some people think this has to do with anime in any way. And also because it bothers me that people take this stuff seriously.

 

edit: reading some of the argument between sanahtlig and ren and nosebleed and whomever elese. Had some things to say

 

People with passive attitudes like that tend to get pushed around and taken advantage of by others.

 

It's interesting that you say that.  Who said it was the supervisor who reported him?  In that case, I'd say the officer misjudged his audience and got slapped accordingly.  But what if that wasn't the case?  This is poor reporting because it doesn't provide all of the relevant facts of the case, and as a result it biases the audience.

 

People with active attitudes that fight THE MAN tend to get **** on by THE MAN.

 

and "from his personal phone to his supervisor Kristine Pamatian's department-paid cell phone."

...I can't imagine someone else went into their phones and then read their messages and then reported him. Not sure how probably it is that someone moniters texts to department-owned phones. I guess maybe?? That seems a little out there though.

Plus, why dont you choose a better case to go make your case with? This is clearly a bad one. You dont even know what the reason for offense is because of sucky reporting.

[sanahtlig]

Plus, why dont you choose a better case to go make your case with? This is clearly a bad one. You dont even know what the reason for offense is because of sucky reporting.

Because this thread exists and it was about this case, and approaching it from a philosophical standpoint is much more interesting than simply replying "Bah, bad reporting.  Next."  Or would you have preferred that I gave a superficial one-line comment like most everyone else and then moved on?

 

I know at work that all my Internet activities are monitored.  It's quite possible that cell phone text messages are being screened by the police department.  The parties involved may or may not have realized this.

[Darklord Rooke]

The officer spent a single 10 hour shift without pay, which is fair enough. At the end of the day the term nigger was used to denigrate and lower a group of citizens for centuries, and the use of that term will cause explosive confrontations, especially if an older African-American is involved. Policemen should know this, and shouldn't be sending that image to or from city-owned phones. That behaviour is not appropriate in public, and the man is a servant of the Government and the community. You can muck around with your friends in private, or as an anonymous individual on the internet, but there are boundaries placed on your behaviour at work or when you're out in the community, and it's good to be aware that there are always consequences to your actions. The suspension wasn't a harsh one, it was just a wake-up call that he was stepping over that line.

 

It shouldn't have been released to the media though...

[Regenerate]

I saw this on FaceBook. Suffice to say I was laughing my butt off. Fuko in a party hat is just too moe. And that phrase was just perfect, ahhahaha.

[krill]

I can't really agree with using logical fallacies in arguments, especially when you're contradicting yourself a little.

 

You're saying it's clear that he didn't have any ill intent and that it wouldn't have led to any problems to let this slide and that by being so conservative on this we're actually damaging society.

By the same kind of logic the person who reported this thought he was ill mannered and could be racist and that it could spread in the workplace and be oppressive to ethnic minorities and that's something they do not want to have going on.

 

Seems fairly sound either way by the slippery slope logic.

You're just judging from an outsider perspective and they're judging by their own rules and regulations which we have no business in.

 

We don't know, because this is an isolated thing that shouldn't even have gotten out of the police office, it's clearly just an internal affair and not really meant to represent any issue in society, hence why it's kind of obsolete to try and turn this into a political debate.

 

I fully agree that people's over sensitiveness has gotten worse lately and it's really depressing to see, especially when some people try to change how society works based on how offended they are at something, but for me this is a case by case thing. This is an internal police affair that doesn't affect any of us or society as a whole and if the police thought the guy had to be reprimended for this, then so be it, he has an inferior rank so his only job is to shut up and accept the punishment.

 

I'm more worried about schools enforcing toddlers to sign up contracts so they don't use transphobic language.

Now that's the type of conservative mentality you should be worried about.

 

 

i don't know how much you understand about the police in the USA but they are not military you can publicly disagree with superior officers and if you are given a punishment or legal charge you don't agree with they have both a legal defense firm just for the police to use against the police, and there are civilian oversight committees for many places in the us for a board of selected citizens to look over police actions and help decide if a crime or charge is accurate.

 

i repeat they are not military and don't have to bend over and accept what ever your superior officer decide is your punishment and you are not required to agree with there opinions or stances on a issue either.

[Zalor]

This sort of reminds me of what Slavoj Zizek said in this video. The video is titled Political Correctness is a More Dangerous Form of Totalitarianism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

 

It's hilarious to watch this guy talk (just watch all the times he touches his nose). But if you can understand him, he says some interesting and relevant stuff as well.