By Peter Santina
As a deputy public defender in San Francisco, I am not shocked at the revelation there is a white-power network within the Police Department.
“All n—–s must f—– hang,” one veteran SFPD officer texted former Sgt. Ian Furminger, who has been convicted and sentenced to prison for violating civil rights and stealing drug money.
“White power,” the cops repeatedly texted each other.
Four cops were recently found guilty of corruption-related charges in federal court. When Furminger’s text messages were partly released by the federal government last week, Furminger and four additional veteran officers were exposed as “virulent racist[s],” in the words of the federal prosecutor. Every officer involved had been on the job for more than 10 years. Now 10 more officers, including a police captain, are being investigated for racist messages.
Why am I not shocked? For nine years as a public defender, I have witnessed far less openly virulent — but far more damaging — institutionalized racism of the San Francisco criminal justice system. Every morning, young and old African Americans are paraded through courtrooms in San Francisco, dressed in orange jumpsuits not unlike Guantanamo inmates and often shackled in handcuffs or chains. After a very brief court appearance, usually less than two minutes, they are returned to their cells, where they are given terrible food and their families are charged exorbitant fees for their phone calls.
I’ve sat beside too many innocent black clients who frightfully whisper, “What was that deal again?” as they watch the jury panel of 80-120 people — almost always less than five and often zero black potential jurors — walk into the courtroom.
I’ve heard too many dehumanizing comments from judges, such as one who was fond of explaining her denial of release to people accused of nonviolent drug offenses with the phrase, “Too bad, so sad.”
I’ve sat in too many courtrooms where prosecutors asked about, and judges always agreed, a white police officer being legally qualified as an “expert” on “black gangs” or “Latin gangs.” I’ve seen the bewildered faces when I questioned how the “Latin gang expert” was a white man who did not speak Spanish, had never lived in the neighborhood, and conceded that much of his “expertise” was drawn from television shows about gangs.
I’ve experienced the casual friendliness of an undercover narcotics officer smiling genuinely at me and calling out, “Hello, counselor!” as his hands move around inside the crotch area of a black man’s pants.
If you get charged with a felony in San Francisco, nearly every single prosecution plea bargain will require (after you get released from jail or prison) that you give up your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure (a “search condition”). Too many of my black clients say, “Well, they’re gonna search me anyway.”
It’s too easy to just blame bad cops. Furminger’s text messages are merely part of the fabric of institutional racism that permeates every aspect of the San Francisco criminal justice system. Sadly, a judge or prosecutor does not need to be a white power activist, a la Furminger’s crew, in order to support institutional racism. Many judges and prosecutors do not privately use racial slurs (I hope) and are friendly with lawyers of color. But the vast majority of judges and prosecutors are resigned to the bureaucratic daily reality: countless black people in orange jumpsuits, shackled and imprisoned, their freedoms thrown away with all the care of a toddler stepping on a roly-poly.
Racism in San Francisco has made headlines in the past few years. In 2013, off-duty black Officer Lorenzo Adamson was detained and questioned by three white police officers. They demanded to know if Adamson was on parole, ordered him out of his car, and choked and arrested him. Instead of charging the white officers, District Attorney George Gascon charged the 15-year police veteran with crimes against police. A judge found probable cause that Adamson was guilty. A jury found him not guilty.
Adamson’s lawsuit against The City is pending. This is not a new problem here. In 1994, San Francisco made the news when its incarceration rate for black men was twice the U.S. average and 10 times the rate of Apartheid-era South Africa. But in the 21 years since, San Francisco has grown stomach-churningly worse. The City’s jail in 1994 had 4.4 times the proportion of black inmates as in San Francisco as a whole. By 2012, the jail population was 9.5 times more black than The City. But when many non-black people hear about racial disparities, there are two common responses.
Some people tend to think poverty is the explanation. There is truth there; the American criminal justice system almost exclusively incarcerates poor people. However, at least in San Francisco, poverty does not explain the disparity. If the jail reflected the poverty rate, the jail would be 37 percent Asian, 28 percent white, 21 percent Latino and just 14 percent black. In fact, the jail is 57 percent black.
The other response is more common but less public: Black people commit more crime. In fact, black people are arrested for hard-drug possession more than three times more often than white people, but a significantly higher percentage of whites use hard drugs. The same statistics apply for marijuana crimes.
Most tellingly, when people hear that black people are disproportionately locked up, many become more supportive of harsh prison policies. In 2014, researchers at Stanford University documented that when Bay Area residents were shown mugshots of black inmates, they were more supportive of harsh three-strikes laws. In contrast, when shown mugshots of white inmates, residents wanted to reform three strikes to make it less punitive.
Fifty years after Giants’ star Willie Mays faced housing discrimination in San Francisco, the same attitudes pervade our society. Let’s not wait another 50 years for change. Hollywood made a movie about Selma, Ala., and the Justice Department wrote a report about Ferguson, Mo. It is time to address the apartheid-like conditions in the metropolis and stop giving passes to the “liberal” coastal cities like San Francisco.
Peter Santina is a deputy public defender in San Francisco. After graduating from Harvard University and UC Berkeley School of Law, Santina has defended poor people accused of crimes for nine years.
#42 was a Dodger.
On a more serious note, Mr. Santina, thank you for an excellent article. I would love to see a follow up article with some of your suggestions for improvement, and some suggestions from cops. My dad was a cop years ago. He was sometimes severely sleep deprived. Maybe I can sort of see both sides of some situations re: cops because I personally experienced horrible treatment from a few cops in Northern CA several years ago: zero professionalism. For many reasons, I moved away from Northern CA.
Does anyone else out there think that perhaps cops should not work shifts that cause them to become sleep deprived? I would not want a sleep deprived surgeon operating on me, I don’t want a truck driver next to me on the freeway who is sleep deprived. I don’t want teachers who are sleep deprived, and I would not want a sleep deprived cop patroling the streets of any city.
Re: your city, I’m old enough to remember the horrific White Night riots; spent a little time on the Castro in the late seventies and I love that neighborhood so much. I wish everyone in the bay would be treated with more dignity. It is one of the best cities in the world and it could become even better.
Thank you, Mr. Santina, for your public service.
the answer is not sleep privation, the answer is not to create a culture in the police department where it is acceptable to make off-colored remarks and have a sound command structure to avoid those kinds of problems.
DP If you were made chief of the SF Police Dept. tomorrow, what would be your first thing to do on your agenda?
How do we stop that culture? In any police dept. where it exists? You are right, it does exist.
really simple – layoff the officers involved. tell the remaining officers that it doesn’t matter if they are in uniform, off duty, hanging out with their family or texting with their friends, they are always police officers and represent the city. anyone who is found to have made off color comments or jokes will be immediately disciplined up to and including termination.
Ok DP. First time making an “off-color” (and what do you mean by that? Racial? Gays, Blondes, Engineers, Jews, Italians, Irish, Scot, French, Architects, etc.?) jokes whether “if they are in uniform, off duty, hanging out with their family or texting with their friends, they are always police officers and represent the city” you would have them ” immediately disciplined up to and including termination.”?
Are Nazi, Soviet, ISIS, “PC” folk jokes OK?
Am thinking you’d support having all Police Officers, FF’s, all public employees, in fact, have a 24/7/365 monitoring of their words, texts, e-mails (thoughts) to enforce your opinion. Please get real. Jerks should be disciplined IF it affects their job performance.
i’m in favor of progressive discipline. i’m not in favor of monitoring communications. however, where i think i disagree with you is that the culture itself affects their job performance and the view of the public that this was acceptable undermine’s the community’s trust in the police.
DP, should this 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring of all personal and work texts and email messages extend to prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, and judges?
Didn’t he say that he doesn’t support monitoring of communications?
DP… you’re dancing around what you said… ” that it doesn’t matter if they are in uniform, off duty, hanging out with their family or texting with their friends, they are always police officers and represent the city. anyone who is found to have made off color comments or jokes will be immediately disciplined up to and including termination.” You make no distinction between on or off the job behavior. In fact, you equate them, arguably.
Your words indicate that no matter who the ‘audience’, the words/jokes are so anathema, that “progressive discipline” up to termination are necessary,in your view. Yet you also say,
“i’m not in favor of monitoring communications. ” So, is it OK behavior if it not “caught”?
Am seeing BIG contradictions in your posts on this subject.
What a great, deep and factually-objective piece that looks at the issue from all sides… NOT.
Let me try again…
What a great shallow and emotionally-subjective piece that looks at the issue from one side… the side of someone that is professionally aligned against law enforcement and the judicial.
There are a couple of bothersome parts:
“Dehumanizing”? Wow. Can we talk about hypersensitivity?
You mean the required checking for weapons? This comment is indicative of something weird in the mind of the writer. Was he inferring that the cop was grouping the suspect? I really don’t get it other than to add it to the general sense that this was more an anti-cop propaganda piece from someone with an ax to grind than it was something to be respected as informative.
Sorry. I value new content to the Vanguard, and I recognize that people write what they believe in. But this isn’t good.
your comments are instructive to me, particularly with the dehumanizing elements of the court that you ignore or sluff off as “hyper-sensitivity” – it makes me wonder that you’re problem is that you’re not nearly sensitive enough. there are certainly times when a judge needs to deny the release of non-dangerous criminals, but that generally happens too often in my view.
Really DP? “Too bad, so sad” is “dehumanizing?” I think it would be potentially dehumanizing to have to deal with hundreds of criminals every week with the same excuses for why they deserve a break so they can go off and make the same mistakes.
As humans we should possess the higher-order capability to rationalize our emotions.
Rationalize this obvious emotional reaction that “too bad, so sad” was “dehumanizing”. If you do that it is easy to see the hypersensitivity.
Funny, I think what many of these criminals need is the type of discipline given by the US military. If all the hypersensitive activists types had their way, they would push their damn PC speech code rules on the military too and ruin that institution. In fact, that is already happening as we demand more “equal” treatment of women and gays in the military. Because it is enviable that we will hear more stories about women and gays getting their feelings hurt over something said, and then a demand for new rules to make sure everyone is “safe” from those hurtful words. I value inclusion, but activist hypersensitive people are the least inclusive people we can experience.
What I read in this article and from you and others is what I would call anger at the father. It seems that your frustration with law enforcement and the judicial is that it does not dispense unconditional love to the accused and convicted. I suspect you and the author are wired similarly in this respect. I would not have any problem with that wiring if there was at least an attempt to see things from the other side… to give some consideration to the tough ways of people wired differently… and the necessity and value to society that it provides.
Hypersensitive people generally don’t pursue a career in law enforcement. They don’t because they would be an emotional mess having to deal with the realities of the job. But why then don’t the hypersensitive accept this and appreciate the people that do the job… those that have the wiring to handle the stress and pressure? Why do they go off and measure everyone else as if their wiring is the only righteous wiring and that everyone else should be as hypersensitive as they are? That is the thing that drives most of my rants in opposition to the attacks against law enforcement and the military. They have a harsh job. It is the job of people wired with coping skills and an ability to perform without sinking into psychological and emotional turmoil over the way they must treat suspects and criminals. And then when they do that job they get persecuted by the PC police, the matriarchy, the hypersensitive.
There is a line representing the human condition. The cops work with the people below the line. I care about the people below the line as much as anyone else, but I recognize my superior position way above the line and have the emotional intelligence to prevent projecting my feelings onto the work dealing with those below the line.
absolutely i think “too bad, too sad” is degrading. it mocks the individual. if that were my client, i’d be incensed.
Frankly, whenever you write the words “higher order” or “above the line” or “below the line”, I feel like you, the writer, are placing yourself in the category that is “above” another human being. If you are higher up and above, maybe you view others as “below” you. Guess I’m being sensitive, but that’s how I interpret your words.
Don’t know how problems will be solved if some human beings think they are “above” others.
I meant below the line of behavior. Billionaire Bernie Madoff was below the line.
And in terms of social and economic achievement, I don’t see class stratification as being permanent. It is all about behavior and choice. Behave the right way and make the right choices and you will move up in socio-economic achievement.
I don’t look down on poor people nor do I look up to rich people. I don’t look down on uneducated people, nor do I look up to highly educated people. There are all superficial categories that miss the main point about content of character, behavior and choice.
Below the line are people prone to bad behavior and making bad choice. Those are the people that the cops have to deal with. And it is “too bad, so sad” when they behave badly and make bad choice.
Frankly
I have a few thoughts about your post.
“Hypersensitive people generally don’t pursue a career in law enforcement”
Your ongoing use of the word “hypersensitivity” seems to convey that you know what the “right” amount of sensitivity is for a human being to have. I am wondering how you made the determination of how much is that right amount beyond which one is “hyper” sensitive ?
“ those that have the wiring to handle the stress and pressure? “
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the four policeman that as you put it “were just blowing off steam” didn’t have the appropriate “wiring to handle the stress and pressure”. Maybe it is the police who don’t resort to these kind of hateful comments that are “correctly wired”.
“It is the job of people wired with coping skills and an ability to perform without sinking into psychological and emotional turmoil over the way they must treat suspects and criminals.”
I take exception to the idea that they “must treat suspects and criminals” in abusive or disrespectful ways. One has only to look at the numerous video tapings of police slamming detainees into cars, or buildings, or the street, to know that many officers are wiling to use excessive force. How do we know its excessive ? Because we can see many examples of officers performing the same kind of job without choosing to exert the same kind of force. I local example of this was when Lt. Pike chose to use the pepper spray while within a few yards away Officer Pytel could be seen gentle moving through the crowd of protesters getting people to step aside with a hand placed on the arm and a few words.
I have a great deal of respect for the police and military who are able to do their job and remain true to their mission of protection and defense. In my opinion, one criteria for working with those “below the line” would be that you do not adopt the barbarity that you may see around you. Once you have begun emulating those behaviors, you are no longer “above the line” no matter what your title may be.
Hello Frankly, I hate it when you make me see your side of things. Your post reminds me of the movie starring Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino, where he taught his next door neighbor’s kid that sometimes men of his generation make terribly bad ethnic jabs & jokes with their buddies. So on one hand, I get where you, Frankly, are going with this opinion. But I believe the distinction is that the cops are not buddies with the folks they are horribly insulting and demeaning. The people the cops are paid to serve, as civil servants and as our “protectors”, are left with zero dignity. Strangers in the general public should not be treated with the same familiarity as Clint Eastwood treated his buddies. Highly recommend the movie, albeit a violent one.
Of course it is one sided! The writer is a defense attorney, so those are his life experiences! I appreciated the time Mr. Santini took to write this article. It is necessary information.
Frankly, I am a woman and from time to time in the work force I have been told I am “sensitive.” Not “hypersensitive”. I never considered that a weakness. I like being sensitive to other’s feelings and even my own. Strongly believe that sensitivity is very similar to compassion and kindness.
“Kind words may be short, and easy to speak. But their echo’s are endless.” -Mother Teresa
*Santina* Sorry for the misspelling.
Nothing wrong with being sensitive… and science has proven that women tend to be more sensitive than men. The issue for some people is their failure to separate emotions from rational thought, and to regulate reactions accordingly. If it is acceptable to just stop at how we are made to feel as justifications for reaction, then we should all be throwing regular tantrums when we don’t get our way.
Sensitivity and hypersensitivity are not the same.
Hypersensitivity is a behavior disorder that is as problematic as is being insensitive. But just like sensitivity can be corrected through education, so can hypersensitivity be corrected. It becomes a HUGE problem when it is group-think.
Frankly
“Hypersensitivity is a behavior disorder”
Please cite your references that “hypersensitivity” exists as a behavior disorder.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ironshrink/201411/the-difference-between-highly-sensitive-and-hypersensitive
http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/8945.html
Here is a superset of potential symptoms that may or may not define a person as being afflicted with hypersensitivity. I think very few people that could be identified as being hypersensitive would have or display all of these symptoms, but would likely have or display some or even many with varying intensity.
[moderator] I have pulled comments. Please be respectful of guest authors and keep your comments specific to the points of the article. Thanks.
Is it OK to challenge, more or less politely, those who opine and show hypocrisy?
Guest author? Was this piece written specially for the Vanguard? I see it was published in the Examiner two days ago.
I didn’t write anything about the author, why was my post pulled?
is the casual reader going to draw that distinction? i know david has expressed concerns to me that the way you guys respond to authors makes his job of recruiting authors more difficult.
So if David imports a NY Times article we aren’t allowed to talk about the writer and maybe their views if they’re a left or right wing lunatic? Is this how the Vanguard is going? I get it with people who write a story specifically for the Vanguard, but this is going over the top.
The public defender’s office sent out the op-ed as a press release. My preference is that people can debate, discuss, the ideas without turning it in the direction of ridicule or belittling. I did not see the post in question, but I trust Don’s judgment. And you can ask Jeff Boone, I’ve never turned down one of his articles.
https://davisvanguard.org/about-us/comment-policy/
My email address is donshor@gmail.com, or you can address your concerns to David privately.
[moderator]: edited. Stop debating moderation practices. I will pull any further comments without notice.
I know The City. Mr. Santina ignores a litany of relevant and highly pertinent factors.
Look at any crime map, and you’ll find crime predominantly in the Tenderloin, Mission, Western Addition, and Hunter’s Point (HP). Minorities are over-represented in public housing, and projects are a vortex for crime. Every blue moon there will be a single murder in the Sunset or Richmond. When I did a quick google, an interesting point is that crime in HP isn’t as frequent as SoMa or The Mission, but when it happens, it is violent.
Can Mr. Santina please name a few white gangs for me? Along with the standard Crips, Bloods, Nortenos and Sorenos, there are also the Central Divis Playas (CDP), Knockout Posse, Eddy Rock, Page Street Mob, and Money Over (Female Dogs in Heat). Mr. Satina also doesn’t cover the antiquated tracking system which underestimates the crime committed by Latinos and Asians due to arcane system restrictions. A quick google also revealed that for the DEA’s “Most Wanted” for Northern California, the listed felons were almost exclusively Latino. (I’m guessing much of this is gang affiliated.)
http://www.dea.gov/fugitives/sf/sf_div_list.shtml
Mr. Satina fails to mention that at least two of the officers on trial with Furminger are minorities, and the first cop to resign over “insensitive” texts was a homosexual officer. The total officers under scrutiny are less than one percent of the police force.
Regarding the arrest rates for drugs, your guest fails to mention where and how drugs are sold. Someone selling $20 worth of pot in a garage in the Sunset won’t get busted; young men standing on street corners at 2 AM shouting to passing cars what they are selling, dressed in gang banger regalia, will even draw attention from Ray Charles.
I think this guest lacks the chops to really get to some core issues like the breakdown in families, the absence of fathers and discipline. There are issues to deal with. A more systemic logistical problem (police stonewalling) was how the Police Officer’s Association dragged its feet, along with SFPD, in implementing a new software tracking system. Has this finally been rectified? Or he could delve into how the police and fire department cover for each other when they drink on or after the job (a recent fire fighter may have escaped a hit and run conviction while driving a fire truck!). He could also try to dissect how white liberal parents in The City largely avoid the public schools due to poor performance and rampant violence.
Balance would also be shown by complimenting the system for helping to drop the city murder rate in half, an amazing achievement.
“Mr. Satina fails to mention that at least two of the officers on trial with Furminger are minorities, and the first cop to resign over “insensitive” texts was a homosexual officer. The total officers under scrutiny are less than one percent of the police force.”
you’ve made the point before – it was refuted. you never responded to the refutation. it doesn’t matter if the officers are minorities, the problem is the police officer’s attitudes toward those minorities.
second, obviously in satina’s view, the problem extends well beyond the four officers involved in this particular incident. given that he has direct courtroom experience, i tend to believe him. when i worked in yolo as a defense attorney, i saw a lot of the worst of police officers. there were fewer rules and regulations to protect discovery of conduct. i think until you have a police department that is willing to get into the trenches and root out these attitudes, things are pervasive.
“Balance would also be shown by complimenting the system for helping to drop the city murder rate in half, an amazing achievement.”
why is balance in this case necessary? he’s a defense attorney, his job is to make sure his clients get a fair trial.
If citizens started getting killed on Taravel Street, I promise you the police would be there. And if it was a persistent problem, they’d roust perps and alleged perps in the area to try to stem the problem. They go where there are problems, they go where the community asks them to go, and they go to where the crime is most violent.
The problem is the police and judges see these individuals often after the dye is set. Numerous runs ins as a juvenile; raised in the violent, lawless crime-ridden projects (they weren’t always such) where even police fear to go; lackluster or no advancement in school; no family structure; hardened and lost. If they barely speak understandable English, don’t follow common courtesies and decorum, have never worked a normal job and dropped out of school, and joined a gang, isn’t that sad?
I’ve been just on the periphery of some projects, and it is completely different world.
Sunnydale project article
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Life-at-the-bottom-S-F-s-Sunnydale-project-3228433.php
and that practice undermines the community’s trust in the police which makes it more not less difficult to patrol. you’ve just illustrated that the exact problem with current policies.
So the police should spend valuable time where there isn’t crime, where the citizens haven’t called them, meaning even less coverage for crime-ridden areas? Wonderful logic.
No one said that.
What precisely is “gang banger regalia” and I am not being a smart alec. I really can’t keep up on all this stuff and do not know. I assume it is more than a particular color or a certain article of clothing or tatt?
It is the opposite of dressing like Erkel (a clean-cut science nerd from a famous TV show). There is a controversy to some in saying this, because there are some young people who dress like this to be “cool”, but they put themselves at risk for being identified as a gang member, when they’re not. Being on street corner know for drug sales, at 2 AM, are the other give aways.
http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-Like-a-Gangsta
let’s talk about anything but the subject of this story.
D.P., It’s kinda on topic?
Re: sketchy neighborhoods at 2:00 a.m. If one works in a hotel/ restaurant/bar/fast food in S.F. and one walks through that neighborhood to get home, or one is waiting for a friend to pick them up on that corner because one has had too much to drink, or a creepy guy is following, etc., one could be on that corner at 2:00 a.m. and not even know it is a bad corner until one has lived there a few weeks, right? Nurses are also out at 2:00 a.m…..
… and possibly wearing gang colors, shouting out the names of drugs for sales, flagging down cars, smoking a blunt, and wearing large, loud jewelry … maybe.
I think cops are trained to recognize this versus a 7/11 or nurses uniform, and those waiting at a bus stop.
the police are probably able to distinguish gang colors from uniforms, but i’m always amazed when cross examining a gang expert how little actual science and rigor their training utilizes.
Some of it is intuitive knowledge, read “Blink”. The problem is that things constantly evolve. Its is not exact, which is why it’s important for kids / you g men not in gangs to not dress like they are, but it can get confusing.
sisterhood, some do, I’ve seen them in the Haight Asbury. Ironically, when I spent time somewhat recently in the Mission, on Mission, there were no cops in sight… then when the local parochial elementary school let out, all of a sudden there were all of these black and whites on the streets for about 45 minutes, like clockwork. It was bizarre. And a lot of the cops behind the wheels looked very out of shape, just sayin. (Not able to pass their physicals?)
The undercover plains clothes stuck out, at least the obvious ones, 49 jacket, badge around neck.
Do any cops still walk a beat in S.F. to get to know the community neighborhood folks?
I once volunteered for an urban school with young school children, and the vile names and observations some would make to tease their fellow students-of-color was almost shocking.
I asked the teacher, “Who taught them these things?” She replied, “They don’t get that here … they learn it in the projects, and at home…. The rougher the project, the worse the behavior.”
Please see above a very interesting, multi-layered article about the Sunnydale projects in San Francisco.
Still drivin’ their Crown Vics?
🙂
I was thinking…
Can an adult human be hit, punched, knocked around, injured, hurt, killed, damaged… or any other term one that can think of that denotes some level of actionable material harm… by only words if that person has abundant self confidence and no other cognitive of psychological deficiencies?
Nope… not in general.
Certainly I can see where people in positions of power have greater responsibility for their use of words because of the amplification of meaning and response from people in subordinate power. I learned that lesson long ago as a professional manager. But then I also learned how to set the stage where subordinates can speak directly to me in rational terms without fear of me reacting emotionally. Strong emotional responses from leaders generate uncertainty in subordinates.
Parents are leaders. Teachers are leaders. When they tend to swing with strong emotional responses, the kids shut down. The kids feel uncertain and become risk averse. They withhold information because they are not quite sure what the response will be.
But these are kids. Kids are a special situation. Kids need a much more word-safe environment. Ironically though kids are prone to testing the limits for word war.
Employees too are a special situation.
What about just adults in normal day-to-day human encounters and transactions?
My thinking is that words should generally not cause material damage to any well-functioning person. And if words do cause a strong emotional reaction, it is likely indicative of a problem with the person having the strong emotional reaction and not the sayer or writer of the words.
Look at it this way… we all want to be safe from harm. Who is materially harmed in the end from the disclosure of the text messages from the cops? It is the cops that are materially harmed.
That is the danger of allowing hypersensitivity to infest our sensibility… demand for speech that does not offend anyone leads to more harm.
It is Orwellian. Someone else decides what is acceptable for you to say and write and you are persecuted for getting out of line.
Like in everything in life it should be about striking a balance. But the scales have tipped way too far in favor of the hypersensitive. And most everyone reading this would have to agree if they though deeply about it. None of us are perfect in our choice of words…. especially in private. And we absolutely can feel that we are putting ourselves at risk for one day stepping in the dog doo of the dysfunctional hypersensitive speech code rules we either actively push or passively accept.
Bottom line for me… some people just need to grow a pair and stop being so hypersensitive to words. Sticks and stones, right? I think so.
“Bottom line for me… some people just need to grow a pair and stop being so hypersensitive to words.”
I don’t wanna “grow a pair”. They’d get in the way, me thinks. 🙂
Your logic seems to be implying we should all just get a tougher skin. Another old fashioned expression, I believe, was “thin the herd”.
Might be nice to try something different for a change.
It is just a euphemism. Some of the people I know with the biggest pair are members of your “sisterhood” team.