- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 30,891
- Reaction score
- 19,301
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The vast majority of people on this planet are good people, regardless of religious beliefs, race, culture, gender, or profession.
Correct? Can we agree to start there, or is that general statement wrong from the get-go?
The vast majority of priests, Muslims, military, and police are good people as well. Correct?
However, like anywhere and everywhere there are a subset of people who are dangerous, destructive, and non-representative of the overall group. For example, pedophile priests, Islamic terrorists, those in the military that prey upon their subordinates, and police officers that do not conform to the laws they are sworn to uphold. The percentage of those who fit this description are very low, but due to the level of “power” and/or “trust” they hold, the destructiveness of their deeds has far reaching effects over the rest of society.
Isn't a huge part of the problem lying in how the larger organizations “police” themselves? I think this is where the larger problem rests within broader communities. The pedophile priest catastrophe wouldn’t have reached such lofty proportions had the Catholic Church reacted much differently to the situation than they originally did.
Many suggest the “peaceful Muslims” are not making a strong enough stand against the violent Muslims. Or that their voice needs to be magnitudes louder.
The cover-up and/or protections offered within the organizations in question are a bigger part of the problem isn’t it?
How often do we hear about police officers being convicted of actual crimes? Does it happen often and we just don’t read about it? Flip side would be how often do we hear about police officers being exonerated/absolved of any wrong doing even when it appears something very wrong has occurred?
Same thing regarding rape in the military. It’s bad that it happens, but what’s worse is how it has been handled. We know it’s going to happen. There are bad people in and from all walks of life, and in all professions and cultures.
How it’s handled is the biggest part of the problem isn’t it?
Is anybody shocked there was a swift and deadly “counter attack” on police in Dallas?(That it happened in Dallas as opposed to some other city might be a shock, but that's not the point.) Or was it inevitable? Was it so much because one man killed another, or was it more about the idea that "once again", the police officer more than likely won’t even be put on trial for what happened? I’m not justifying anything that happened in Dallas, but I am suggesting that there is a systemic problem in larger organizations.
Individual accountability, but also a broader organizational accountability. How do we hold the larger organizations more accountable for things individuals within the organization do that harm the greater community? People don’t counter-attack because one person kills another. Counter-attacks happen because specific people, due to their position within an organization, can literally get away with things the regular folks can’t.
Unique protections that average folks don’t have.
How can “we” address that?
Correct? Can we agree to start there, or is that general statement wrong from the get-go?
The vast majority of priests, Muslims, military, and police are good people as well. Correct?
However, like anywhere and everywhere there are a subset of people who are dangerous, destructive, and non-representative of the overall group. For example, pedophile priests, Islamic terrorists, those in the military that prey upon their subordinates, and police officers that do not conform to the laws they are sworn to uphold. The percentage of those who fit this description are very low, but due to the level of “power” and/or “trust” they hold, the destructiveness of their deeds has far reaching effects over the rest of society.
Isn't a huge part of the problem lying in how the larger organizations “police” themselves? I think this is where the larger problem rests within broader communities. The pedophile priest catastrophe wouldn’t have reached such lofty proportions had the Catholic Church reacted much differently to the situation than they originally did.
Many suggest the “peaceful Muslims” are not making a strong enough stand against the violent Muslims. Or that their voice needs to be magnitudes louder.
The cover-up and/or protections offered within the organizations in question are a bigger part of the problem isn’t it?
How often do we hear about police officers being convicted of actual crimes? Does it happen often and we just don’t read about it? Flip side would be how often do we hear about police officers being exonerated/absolved of any wrong doing even when it appears something very wrong has occurred?
Same thing regarding rape in the military. It’s bad that it happens, but what’s worse is how it has been handled. We know it’s going to happen. There are bad people in and from all walks of life, and in all professions and cultures.
How it’s handled is the biggest part of the problem isn’t it?
Is anybody shocked there was a swift and deadly “counter attack” on police in Dallas?(That it happened in Dallas as opposed to some other city might be a shock, but that's not the point.) Or was it inevitable? Was it so much because one man killed another, or was it more about the idea that "once again", the police officer more than likely won’t even be put on trial for what happened? I’m not justifying anything that happened in Dallas, but I am suggesting that there is a systemic problem in larger organizations.
Individual accountability, but also a broader organizational accountability. How do we hold the larger organizations more accountable for things individuals within the organization do that harm the greater community? People don’t counter-attack because one person kills another. Counter-attacks happen because specific people, due to their position within an organization, can literally get away with things the regular folks can’t.
Unique protections that average folks don’t have.
How can “we” address that?