~*The Official Thread of Hero Cop Valor and Bravery*~

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Nah the ban is 100% legit. Police waged a war on gay people for decades, they don't get to just come and get free PR now. If they want to be supportive, then let them show up in street clothes on the sidelines and cheer the parade as allies. But they don't actually want to be supportive, they want to look good and erase their role in the brutality against LGBTQ+ people over the last 80 years.

Or maybe it is self-defeating given who it is barring from participating as they wish

 

Quote

“The LGBTQ community understood that in order for policing to get better, it had to get more diverse,” Officer Kathryn Winters said. A trans woman and lesbian, she joined San Francisco’s department in 1998 but moved to Texas in 2006, where she began a period of advocacy work, including testifying to the state Senate against bathroom bills, she said.

 

Upon returning to San Francisco Police Department in 2018, Winters started teaching classes in the police academy on how to engage with the LGBTQ community. She also began walking a beat in the Castro, where she felt an emotional connection with homeless trans women who recognized her as an ally, she said.

 

“The first time I got to march (at Pride) as an out trans woman in uniform was in 2019,” Winters said. “I got to march with my daughters. The impact it had on me when we turned the corner on Market Street, and I heard cheers from the crowd — it literally brought me to tears.”

While Winters said she won’t march in Pride if she’s prohibited from wearing her uniform, she may help manage a police recruitment booth.

[CitizenVectron]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Or maybe it is self-defeating given who it is barring from participating as they wish

 

 

They are free to march, just not as identified police officers. To massively exaggerate the issue, I also wouldn't begrudge Israel from allowing German military or intelligence officers from marching in the Israeli independence day parade in uniform or in any official capacity, even if the individuals were now good people. 

 

And it's good if more LGBTQ+ people get into policing...but the police don't get a pass until they've fully atoned and earned it. And their current reaction proves they haven't. The correct response would be "While we are disappointed we are not invited to take part, we understand the cause due to the history of our involvement in brutality against the queer community. We hope to continue to support the community and earn their trust in the years to come."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I thought the police ban was like on those gay little cop outfits with the assless chaps. Think mr slave from South Park

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

They are free to march, just not as identified police officers.

That isn’t correct. They are welcome to wear shirts that identify them as police officers, it is specifically official uniforms and badges that are banned.

 

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

but the police don't get a pass until they've fully atoned and earned it. And their current reaction proves they haven't. The correct response would be "While we are disappointed we are not invited to take part, we understand the cause due to the history of our involvement in brutality against the queer community. We hope to continue to support the community and earn their trust in the years to come."

The issue at hand is not the police department, but a specific group of LGBT community members who are also police officers that wanted to come in uniform.

Other whole agencies decided to support this group by not attending. 
 

It is all in the article 😂

[Keyser_Soze]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is all in the article 😂

 

Why do you trust the article so much?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Why do you trust the article so much?

I don’t have any reason to believe the Pride organizers are lying to the Chronicle about what they offered the group during negotiations.

[CitizenVectron]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That isn’t correct. They are welcome to wear shirts that identify them as police officers, it is specifically official uniforms and badges that are banned.

 

The issue at hand is not the police department, but a specific group of LGBT community members who are also police officers that wanted to come in uniform.

Other whole agencies decided to support this group by not attending. 
 

It is all in the article 😂

 

I meant in uniform, sorry I wasn't clear. The Toronto parade (and others) have similar rules.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I meant in uniform, sorry I wasn't clear. The Toronto parade (and others) have similar rules.

Gotcha, but to your other point, why should the SFPD Pride Alliance group have to atone for police generally? Your position would make more sense if the department as a whole was being barred from participation, but the whole situation is about an LGBT group of police officers who are being told not to come in uniform.

[CitizenVectron]

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Gotcha, but to your other point, why should the SFPD Pride Alliance group have to atone for police generally? Your position would make more sense if the department as a whole was being barred from participation, but the whole situation is about an LGBT group of police officers who are being told not to come in uniform.

 

🤷‍♂️ I trust the organizing group/people impacted to make those decisions as to what is appropriate to them. Again, to use an extreme example, imagine a Juneteenth or BML event where some Black members of the local KKK want to march as well, saying they represent a new generation of KKK. I'd totally get why organizers wouldn't want that, even if those individual, Black members of the KKK might not align with the historical beliefs of the KKK.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

🤷‍♂️ I trust the organizing group/people impacted to make those decisions as to what is appropriate to them. 

This is quite the change of tone from your explicit belief that they *should* be banned from going in uniform  

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I went to pride in DC a few years ago and Lockheed Martin was there with a big float. If anything that shit should be banned cause they’ve definitely killed more black and brown folks than your average gay cop

[CitizenVectron]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is quite the change of tone from your explicit belief that they *should* be banned from going in uniform  

 

Oh I personally believe they should be banned in uniform. I mean that I trust the opinion of the community in that individual elements of the police can still be banned for the total behaviour of the police in the past.

[skillzdadirecta]

Have uniformed cops Always been banned from Pride parades?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Oh I personally believe they should be banned in uniform. I mean that I trust the opinion of the community in that individual elements of the police can still be banned for the total behaviour of the police in the past.

To give a non extreme and much more analogous comparison, should all Black groups be banned from participating because in SF Pride because a 70% majority of Black people voted against same sex marriage in 2008?

 

11 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Have uniformed cops Always been banned from Pride parades?

 

Nope. The group in question marched in uniform as recently as 2019. This is a recent change.

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

Nope. The group in question marched in uniform as recently as 2019. This is a recent change.

What's the reason for the change?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

24 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What's the reason for the change?

Acab 

[CitizenVectron]

26 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

To give a non extreme and much more analogous comparison, should all Black groups be banned from participating because in SF Pride because a 70% majority of Black people voted against same sex marriage in 2008?

 

No, because voters didn't raid bathhouses and clubs and beat up gay people, or hold institutional power over LGBTQ+ people. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What's the reason for the change?

I believe mostly a response to the George Floyd murder

[Guest]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

No, because voters didn't raid bathhouses and clubs and beat up gay people, or hold institutional power over LGBTQ+ people. 

Far more Black voters harmed the LGBT community by making a law that opposed their right to marry than police officers harmed LGBT in raids and acts of violence, and the disparity is even more stark in the more recent past. 
 

You create some of the strangest (to me) justifications sometimes. I love it though.

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Far more Black voters harmed the LGBT community by making a law that opposed their right to marry than police officers harmed LGBT in raids and acts of violence, and the disparity is even more stark in the more recent past. 
 

You create some of the strangest (to me) justifications sometimes. I love it though.

 

Your position doesn't make sense. There are groups that hold and use power directly (police, politicians, organizations, corporations) and there are groups that enable those groups (voters, consumers, etc). The latter can be responsible for enabling bad things, for sure, but typically aren't as directly responsible. That's not a difficult concept, unless you are planning to go full semantics.

 

Obviously I am going to blame a sheriff for killing a homeless person more than I am going to blame the voters that elected them, even if the voters are morons.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Your position doesn't make sense. There are groups that hold and use power directly (police, politicians, organizations, corporations) and there are groups that enable those groups (voters, consumers, etc). The latter can be responsible for enabling bad things, for sure, but typically aren't as directly responsible. That's not a difficult concept, unless you are planning to go full semantics.

 

Obviously I am going to blame a sheriff for killing a homeless person more than I am going to blame the voters that elected them, even if the voters are morons.

How is voting for a ballot measure not direct use of power? We aren’t talking about electing representatives we don’t completely agree with and who do something with disagree with, this was a direct ballot measure where Black voters overwhelmingly opposed the right to marry for LGBT people.

 

The sheriff analogy does not fit. This was much more like a civilian bothering a homeless person and then shooting them in “self defense”!

[CitizenVectron]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

How is voting for a ballot measure not direct use of power? We aren’t talking about electing representatives we don’t completely agree with and who do something with disagree with, this was a direct ballot measure where Black voters overwhelmingly opposed the right to marry for LGBT people.

 

The sheriff analogy does not fit. This was much more like a civilian bothering a homeless person and then shooting them in “self defense”!

 

For direct action, you can't blame entire groups of people based on their race, because...that's racism. Again, it's not like the Black community is an organized, discrete institution that decides how to wield electoral power and can be held accountable. The police can. This will be my last response on this issue because if you can't distinguish between the police abusing their power for decades to subjugate people (with a voluntary membership) and a group of voters based on a race in a single vote, then there's no point in continuing. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Comparing the power of a historically oppressed racial minority in what currently passes for a democracy with literal armed agents of the state is stupid on its face especially in an American context. Do you think gay rights were suppressed at the behest of the Black community? No! It was done in service of white puritanical sexual and social mores! Those same forces and norms that the police uphold! That on occasion there is overlap between this group and the interests of Black Americans is incidental, as the social order was not made and enforced by the Black community, it was made to be enforced upon the Black community by said agents of the state. The same force that smashed up gay clubs is the same force that breaks up nonviolent protests back in the 60’s and today. 

[Guest]

Black people have no agency even it comes to how they vote? The infantilism of the white left towards Black folks is legitimately nauseating.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

50 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Comparing the power of a historically oppressed racial minority in what currently passes for a democracy with literal armed agents of the state is stupid on its face especially in an American context. Do you think gay rights were suppressed at the behest of the Black community? No! It was done in service of white puritanical sexual and social mores! Those same forces and norms that the police uphold! That on occasion there is overlap between this group and the interests of Black Americans is incidental, as the social order was not made and enforced by the Black community, it was made to be enforced upon the Black community by said agents of the state. The same force that smashed up gay clubs is the same force that breaks up nonviolent protests back in the 60’s and today. 

 

I'm pretty certain that the anti-gay marriage rhetoric coming from the pulpits of black churches was largely responsible for that voting pattern.  And that wasn't done in the service of white puritanical sexual and social mores - that was done purely out of the really quite conservative form of Christianity which is present in large swathes of the black church community.  That form of Christian conservatism really does transcend racial boundaries.  You only need to attend church services in the Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa to see that.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Black people have no agency even it comes to how they vote? The infantilism of the white left towards Black folks is legitimately nauseating.

They do but the power dynamics aren’t the same at all

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I'm pretty certain that the anti-gay marriage rhetoric coming from the pulpits from black churches was largely responsible for that voting pattern.  And that wasn't done in the service of white puritanical sexual and social mores - that was done purely out of the really quite conservative form of Christianity which is present in large swathes of the black church community.  That form of Christian conservatism really does transcend racial boundaries.

One could say that Christianity is another form of white colonial oppression 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

One could say that Christianity is another form of white colonial oppression 

 

You could, but it doesn't change the reality that in many parts of the developing world that Christianity has been divorced from this white colonial context to be fully "owned" by those populations.  In fact, in many instances, they view white Christianity as having been "corrupted" and that which they practice is the only "legitimate" form (see the split within the Church of England over the specific issue of gay rights).

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Acab 

EDIT: 

[CitizenVectron]

23 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

You could, but it doesn't change the reality that in many parts of the developing world that Christianity has been divorced from this white colonial context to be fully "owned" by those populations.  In fact, in many instances, they view white Christianity as having been "corrupted" and that which they practice is the only "legitimate" form (see the split within the Church of England over the specific issue of gay rights).

 

One of the defining traits of Christianity (and its founding principle!) is that the old versions are completely wrong, but our new one is right!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I'm gonna agree with @sblfilms on this one and say that there's quite a bit of honky-centrism happening here

 

[CitizenVectron]

15 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I'm gonna agree with @sblfilms on this one and say that there's quite a bit of honky-centrism happening here

 

 

I think it's less honky-centrism and more "there is a difference between holding certain racial/ethnic voters accountable and power institutions accountable." Absolutely individual voters should be shamed for their bad votes. imo, all cops should be shamed for the actions of cops in the past until cops now can prove they are different. Being a cop is a job, it's not being a skin colour or ethnicity or anything like that. People who take that job know the history of police (or ignore it), and make a decision to be a part of a power institution that holds others down. They can and should try to change it, but they can't expect people to forget what police have done. It's about the power differential, not much else.

 

EDIT - And at the end of the day, it's up to the victimized group to decide when they are ready to allow former oppressors the chance to enter their circle, not any of us.

[Ghost_MH]

23 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I'm gonna agree with @sblfilms on this one and say that there's quite a bit of honky-centrism happening here

 

 

I mean there is, but that doesn't change that we can't hold nonreligious blacks responsible for the voting record of religious blacks since folks can't, you know, choose to be black. This is doubly true for anyone that's already not a part of a bigoted church and actually attending a pride parade.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I mean there is, but that doesn't change that we can't hold nonreligious blacks responsible for the voting record of religious blacks since folks can't, you know, choose to be black. This is doubly true for anyone that's already not a part of a bigoted church and actually attending a pride parade.

 

I would be really curious to know if there was any significant variance between the voting patterns of religious and non-religious black voters on this issue, but I am simply unaware of any such data.

[Guest]

I am simply never in favor of holding people accountable for something they didn’t do. But going way back to my original post here, I think this type of thing is self-defeating. The signal here is that you can either be part of the community, or you can be a police officer, not both. 
 

What actually leads to change in any organization with respect to its treatment of marginalized groups? More people from the marginalized group being parts of those orgs, gaining stature and respect within the org, moving up the ladder.

 

What is SF Pride actually accomplishing by telling LGBT police officers they can’t be there in uniform? It isn’t as though there won’t be any police in uniform at the event, so you aren’t shielding the community from the trauma of seeing uniformed police officers. Just not off duty uniformed LGBT police officers.