Think, that: De jure vs de facto discrimination
| Hotel rwanda theme | 260 |
| ANSELM KIEFER WAS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT NEO-EXPRESSIONISTS. HIS WORK: | Ukrainian job in 35 seconds |
| De jure vs de facto discrimination | Essay on family tradition |
It's an attempt to suss out exactly what the charge of "systemic racism" entails and why it's so important to the left that it be used and accepted as the jumping off point for discourse when discussing policing and the methods that modern police are using and why they use them with seeming impunity.
Navigation menu
Posted August 27, edited April 18th I guess this is where I post my musings. Today I'm struck by the movement towards diffuse yet personalized blame for police brutality. We know of the black man in Kenosha shot in the back, and the black man killed in Georgia there have been charges. What my question is, I guess, is how liable are we, as members of the society in which this happened, to blame for the shootings?
It strikes me that there's an ever-present movement, however fringe, to assign blame to every citizen enjoying the privileges of our democratic laws article source these incidents because they stem from a nebulous concept of the state as embodying an institutionalized racism, a theory about our society that holds that society as constructed, by our choice, is somehow inherently unfair toward blacks and other minorities.
This is not a new intellectual phenomenon but has gained traction from the universities and the radicals to the everyday Joneses. Perhaps this can be traced back to something fundamental: the use of force by a select few who are chosen to dispense justice.
Recommended Posts
Out of necessity, we, as a society, have assigned or charged a select few to have a monopoly on force. This is, some argue, a necessary trade-off for society to exist. We accept the notion of a different class of people, our guardians and peace keepers, when we allow a monopoly on violence with the imprimatur of the state. It is important to consider that this monopoly of force is consented to by the citizen.
The citizen sanctions the monopoly so that there is not anarchy, but some semblance of order. Sounds good, right? But this facfo of power has intended and unintended consequences. The intended consequences are that we have a class of individuals entrusted by the state to keep the peace and order.
Day Week School Interesting Essay
We separate them from society. This leads to a certain tension inherent in the selection: We are tempted to no longer hold individuals charged with dispensing force to the same standards as the citizen.
Indeed, we know that there is the potential for such discretionary actions that are wrongly undertaken.]
One thought on “De jure vs de facto discrimination”