NYPD will stop arresting brown people for small amounts of marijuana

[waetherman]

Okay. Sorry. You can go right back to disagreeing with @nungesser directly. No need to use me as a proxy. I officially remove myself from this conversation.

[redesigned]

@anon50609448

This is not a story about pot decriminalization but a story about ending a practice that had the primary function of justifying racism on behalf of the police.

exactly.

i think the war on drugs and prohibition in general is problematic, but this specific announcements significance is the impact it will have on the policing of non-caucasians (like my grownup word? lol.)

this is important precisely because of the impact on racial issues within policing and legal system and the precise political reason the announcement was made.

[anon68952647]

@nungesser

to a story not in any way at all about race.

hang on.

Drug enforcement by the NYPD has no race based issues? Are you claiming that brown people are not targeted disproportionately? Because it appears you are.

@nungesser

I find that reductive and foolish.

As opposed to pedantic, defensive, and foolish? Opinions man, everyone has one.

[Elusis]

@nungesser

I think grownups can use grownup words. I’m silly that way, I know.

Well smell you, Nancy Drew.

[nungesser]

Are you claiming that brown people are not targeted disproportionately? Because it appears you are.

No, no, a thousand times no. I’ve said again, again, and again on this thread that I’m extremely aware that there’s a severe racial disparity in drug law enforcement. Black people, Hispanics, and other ‘brown people’ (I guess that’s the popular term? yikes) are absolutely targeted disproportionately by the NYPD and other police nationwide.

Again, what I’m saying is that this law – pot decriminalization – isn’t a law about race, any more than any law is. Racial minorities are disproportionately targeted for virtually all crimes. It’s a systematic problem. Should we start including “brown people” in the headline about any story discussing the enforcement of law, just to remind everyone, every single time, that cops like to target minorities?

[nungesser]

I absolutely agree with you that pot should be legal, that current drug laws and the way they’re enforced are a big problem, that there’s a racial disparity in law enforcement across the board, and that the sun will most likely come up tomorrow. Sorry if I’m coming off as pedantic.

[FunkDaddy]

Christ on a pinwheel, next time read the article we’re all discussing, or at least go back and read it when someone points out the shovel in your hand. Race is the primary subject of over a third of the paragraphs in the article & colours the subject matter in over two-thirds.

The article even states the most recent figure, 86%, which supports everyone else’s conclusion that race is the most important feature of the subject matter as it pertains to civil liberties.

[anon68952647]

@nungesser

Again, what I’m saying is that this law – pot decriminalization – isn’t a law about race, any more than any law is.

So, you’re saying there are no laws about race?

Has it occurred to you that you’re having to repeat yourself (and with incredulity!!!) because you’re off base?

Should we start including “brown people” in the headline about …

By ‘we’, do you mean you and the other boingers? Or is there maybe a mouse in your pocket?

Sorry if I’m coming off as pedantic.

Sorry THAT I’m coming off as pedantic. FTFY because there is no ‘if’ involved. Also because being sorry IF is a weasel apology. And it’s fine, just maybe tone down the frustration at people YOU are compelled to interact with?

[nungesser]

I did, in fact, read the article before I posted one single word. And yes, I am well aware of the mention of race in it. Thank you!

[nungesser]

So, you’re saying there are no laws about race?

No, and I have no idea why you’d think that. I never said that. What a strange accusation. Are you just arguing to argue?

By ‘we’, do you mean you and the other boingers?

I mean ‘human beings’. Or ‘the media’. The world at large.

Also because being sorry IF is a weasel apology.

I always forget the cardinal rule here: don’t stand up for your opinions if they are unpopular, because you will be mocked mercilessly. Duly noted! I’ll shut up and study my grammar.

[SamSam]

@nungesser

Perhaps you’re not aware of the fact that POC often use terms like “brown people,”
“driving while brown/black,” etc. to discuss race.

I am. I think grownups can use grownup words. I’m silly that way, I know

I kind of figured from the beginning that your main problem was with the word “brown.”

So calling people “brown” is childish, and “people of color” is a loathly PC term.

Do you have other opinions on what minorities should be allowed to call themselves?

Can you explain why “white” and “black” are ok, but “brown”, as a term to encompass a wide range of non-whites, is not?

Are you just uncomfortable talking about race and color altogether? Because when you actually have to live with it, you become quite comfortable talking about it.

[nungesser]

Do you have other opinions on what minorities should be allowed to call themselves?

This is a super touchy subject, and honestly, it’s one I shouldn’t have said one word about, being mostly Caucasian. I would personally never think to refer to a Black person to their face as “brown”, nor a Hispanic. I’d think that would be intensely offensive. The Black and Puerto Rican guys I hang out with regularly don’t call themselves ‘brown’. The only times I’ve personally seen people called “brown people” is in a mocking, insulting, racist way, so to see it regularly used on BB to refer to a large swath of non-whites comes off as strange to me.

I’d say it’s up to those people themselves. What’s your thought?

[anon68952647]

@nungesser

No, and I have no idea why you’d think that. I never said that. What a strange accusation. Are you just arguing to argue?

Ahem: “this law – pot decriminalization – isn’t a law about race, any more than any law is.”

@nungesser

I mean ‘human beings’. Or ‘the media’. The world at large.

For whom you presume to speak as ‘we’.

@nungesser

I always forget the cardinal rule here: don’t stand up for your opinions if they are unpopular, because you will be mocked mercilessly. Duly noted! I’ll shut up and study my grammar.

Maybe this will help: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=i+am+sorry+if

You should do what you think best. If playing victim to some imaginary popularity contest suits you, go forth noble paladin, go forth!

[anon68952647]

@nungesser

I would personally never think to refer to a Black person to their face as “brown”, nor a Hispanic. I’d think that would be intensely offensive.

But you -would- presume to tell people how -they- (we) ought to talk.

And would you think it to yourself (brown) but just not say it??

Having a bad day or something?

[nungesser]

this law – pot decriminalization – isn’t a law about race, any more than any law is.

I’ll rephrase, as I was trying to be clever, and I guess it failed. ALL laws are about race, of course, because they deal with humans of all races. My point was that drug enforcement laws are just as much about race as, say, traffic enforcement – “driving while black” is a well known issue. Or walking while black. That’s all. Stepping away.

[nungesser]

Look, I’ve no idea why you’re trying extremely hard to provoke me, but it’s incredibly inappropriate, especially as I’ve said repeatedly that I’ve softened my stance and am agreeing with those I was debating with previously. And now you’re creating a new argument just for fun, one that you invented. I’m stepping away from this. Have a good day.

[FunkDaddy]

Mention?

Refer to something briefly?

I think not.

@nungesser

I disagree with the way Xeni chose to make news about a pot decriminalization law into a racial issue

She didn’t, it is a primary focus of the article you claimed to have read before posting this.

@nungesser

In short, for the fifth or sixth time: This is a story about pot decriminalization. That’s what it’s about. That applies to everyone. The headline on BB added the words “brown people”, which is reductive, childish, and adds a racial element to a story not in any way at all about race.

Five or six times you said?, all the while having read the article, which featured race politics as it applied more prominently than any other feature in said article. Yet here you insisted that isn’t what the story was about, “not in any way at all” apparently for the 5th or 6th time?

86% bro. NYPD –Had Already– stopped arresting white people for small amounts of marijuana.

Xeni was wrong to change the headline, –That– was what was knee-jerk here, her initial assessment was correct & I can only surmise that she reacted too quickly to your sensitivities.

& STFU with your policing of what terms you think others should use when talking about issues regarding race, which, whether you like it or not, is what the article is about, more than any other thing.

Yeah, you read that article before posting… Bullshit.

edit - yeah, you should step away. Softening aint correcting & you clearly ain’t willing to correct yourself. Next time read the article without glossing over 2/3rds of the content to suit your sensitivities.

[nungesser]

It’s OK if you don’t believe me, and it’s OK if you don’t understand what I’m trying to say. Have a good day.

[FunkDaddy]

I do believe you, see how I quoted you? Those are your words. ?Maybe you did read the article, but dismissed most of the words. Not seeing the article while reading it is Bullshit.

You’ve been a big derailment, that’s all. You can stuff your validation of my assessment in a sack, it is unwelcome & un-necessary, you’re just refusing to admit your error.

[nungesser]

Untrue. It’s OK if you don’t agree with my point or what I’ve been saying, but if you don’t believe that I read and understood the article referenced here, you are wrong. I have no idea why you’re arguing what’s in my brain. Move on.