Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Please continue

Yes. Just like we're able to think they're retarded and join an organisation against racist organisations.

Truly bad things have their own consequences. If you truly believe this to be bad, it'll go away on it's own. No law is needed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes. Just like we're able to think they're retarded and join an organisation against racist organisations.

Truly bad things have their own consequences. If you truly believe this to be bad, it'll go away on it's own. No law is needed. The problem is that the police are the enforcing agency of the government, so if they have their own racist views, it could affect their work, in a negative way. On the other hand, just not letting them join doesn't change their own believes. It's a complicated issue, really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem is that the police are the enforcing agency of the government, so if they have their own racist views, it could affect their work, in a negative way. On the other hand, just not letting them join doesn't change their own believes. It's a complicated issue, really. Unless it's illegal to be a racist policeman, they should be allowed to do it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Unless it's illegal to be a racist policeman, they should be allowed to do it.

Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though?

Being bias should never interfere with ones job. End of story.

I say this because some people are, hell most people are to some extent. It's our up bringing, but it has no place in the work force.

Just like all Germans eat sausage and drink beer. LOL

Originally posted by Nactous
Please continue

I've faced so much racism from cops, I don't think it matters whether they're card-carrying members of the American Knights of the KKK, or just racist on their own.

In 2006, the social research lab of NAU worked with the ACLU's lawsuit against Arizona-DPS and proved that they're two-an-a-half times more likely to pullover non-white motorists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though?

Not only that, "Are you racist?" is not typically a job interview question.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though?

It already is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It already is. I was asking why he thinks it shouldn't be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though?

lol

you mean the people?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

you mean the people?

If I'd buy into the myth that the government is actually owned by the people (instead of just faking it as sort of "lube" to the ass rapage they perform on a daily basis), sure, why not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was asking why he thinks it shouldn't be.

Because if you let every employer invent laws then you get total chaos?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because if you let every employer invent laws then you get total chaos?

What has "employers inventing laws" have to do with "employers choosing who to employ" which seems to be the issue we discussed?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What has "employers inventing laws" have to do with "employers choosing who to employ" which seems to be the issue we discussed?

No one has said it shouldn't be the employer's decision so far. The issue of the law, on the other hand, has come up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No one has said it shouldn't be the employer's decision so far. The issue of the law, on the other hand, has come up. I asked why it shouldn't be the employer's decision, and you replied to me (twice), so, I figure, we were obviously talking about the employer's decision, unless you for some reason decided to reply to what I was saying but slyly thought to yourself "HA, I shan't tell him that I am referring to something totally unrelated"...was that, by chance, the case?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I asked why it shouldn't be the employer's decision, and you replied to me (twice), so, I figure, we were obviously talking about the employer's decision, unless you for some reason decided to reply to what I was saying but slyly thought to yourself "HA, I shan't tell him that I am referring to something totally unrelated"...was that, by chance, the case?

You were responding to XYZ's comment about what is legal and not. I assumed that was the topic you were addressing but now I'm just really confused.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You were responding to XYZ's comment about what is legal and not. I assumed that was the topic you were addressing but now I'm just really confused.

I was responding to him, with a question, why it shouldn't be the employer's right (in this case the government) to decide who to employ, why would it have to be illegal for them not to employ those people. You then replied to me, saying that "It already is" referring to, I can only assume, it already being the employer's right, to which I then replied that I didn't concern myself with whether or not it was the employer's right already, I was just asking why he thought it shouldn't be (or, if he even does think it shouldn't be, though I felt it was implied in his post). To this you then replied with, "Because if you let every employer invent laws then you get total chaos?", which, like I said, I find totally unrelated, to what we have been talking about as well as to what xyz said, I will quote our exchange here:

Originally posted by lord xyz
Unless it's illegal to be a racist policeman, they should be allowed to do it. Originally posted by Bardock42
Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though? Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It already is. Originally posted by Bardock42
I was asking why he thinks it shouldn't be. Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because if you let every employer invent laws then you get total chaos?

Regardless, this seems to drag off a slight bit.

To summarize what I was trying to say and ask: Should the government have the right to decide who to employ (as, for example, not people that are in racist organizations) and, in extensions should any employer have the right not to employ someone for whatever reason they want, and should the government be held to different standards as private employers, and, if so, why and what standards?

Legally, no, but logically, racist beliefs can induce unfair bias into their work, thus hindering their actual occupation's goal, to enforce the Law.

What would be the difference in them joining a religion, being a sport Dallas Cowboy fanatic and pulling over a Steeler fan? Every one has their own beliefs and if it doesn't interfere with their job who really cares?

Let them join any organization they want, fire them when it interferes with their work.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Legally, no, but logically, racist beliefs can induce unfair bias into their work, thus hindering their actual occupation's goal, to enforce the Law.

Logically letting them join racist organizations won't make them any more or less racist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Logically letting them join racist organizations won't make them any more or less racist. I don't know how true that is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know how true that is.

I assume the average member of a racist organization is a racist to begin with, joining the organization doesn't make you into a racist and there's no reason I can think of it would.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know how true that is.

Perhaps the people will be racist whether they are members of the BNP or not - however it could be true that membership of such an organisation would actually encourage the person to become more racist...if they see it as being socially acceptable they are more likely to embrace the idea more fully...

Possible?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Perhaps the people will be racist whether they are members of the BNP or not - however it could be true that membership of such an organisation would actually encourage the person to become more racist...if they see it as being socially acceptable they are more likely to embrace the idea more fully...

Possible? My thoughts exactly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though? The issue is should policeman be racist/act upon racism. Of course they shouldn't, but they should be allowed to join any organisation they want.

You could be a part of PETA but not terrorise animal testing labs and kill animals in freezers.

I don't condone joining racist organizations, but theoretically what one chooses to do based off their own personal opinions should not automatically designate career options. As long as the officer can remain 100% objective when making decisions and policing, then "technically" it shouldn't matter. Thing is, with police officers, everything is up to their discretion (i.e. pardoning minor citations for example based on certain circumstances). When you have officers making subjective decisions, then being a member of such an organization automatically should be a red flag. Just my thoughts.

no because it could lead to them being biased when they do their jobs

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
no because it could lead to them being biased when they do their jobs

So every racist who doesn't join an organization is totally unbiased?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Perhaps the people will be racist whether they are members of the BNP or not - however it could be true that membership of such an organisation would actually encourage the person to become more racist...if they see it as being socially acceptable they are more likely to embrace the idea more fully...

Possible?

social psychology would agree with you

people might be racist, but belonging to a group (self-identification) brings many other things with it. The fact that people who have similar beliefs tend to make each other more extreme (as you pointed out) is one. That people in a group are automatically more skeptical and less trusting of "out-group" individuals is another.

My thoughts are, however, that whether it is condoned or not, racist individuals are probably going to congregate together and share their ideas. They probably already suffer from out-group paranoia and vicarious feelings of oppression (if you belong to a group, and a member of that group is oppressed, but you have never been, you personalize that oppression), so like, the question of whether the racist officer would be more or less biased in the job is probably really tricky.

As anti-freedom as it sounds, I'd be willing to say that any bias, be it racial, gender, ANYTHING, should be more than solid grounds to dismiss a police officer for. Ideally, I feel a community should be allowed to come together and make such standards or to deal with such complaints as they arise, but that is dreaming.