Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[thegreekdog]

A 1v1 Duel for Truth?

Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).

Just curious about this part.....so when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what race the suspicious person is, Zimmerman should have ignored the question?? Because that would have some implications for the whole "HE REFUSED TO LISTEN TO THE DISPATCHER!!!" thing

I have a "suspicion" that you are still working with the edited version of the 911 call recording

I suppose Zimmerman could have ignored the question, but the issue is not what Zimmerman listened to, it's that the dispatcher asked what race the suspicious person was.

[Night Strike]

A 1v1 Duel for Truth?

Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).

Just curious about this part.....so when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what race the suspicious person is, Zimmerman should have ignored the question?? Because that would have some implications for the whole "HE REFUSED TO LISTEN TO THE DISPATCHER!!!" thing

I have a "suspicion" that you are still working with the edited version of the 911 call recording

I suppose Zimmerman could have ignored the question, but the issue is not what Zimmerman listened to, it's that the dispatcher asked what race the suspicious person was.

How do you describe people if you don't know every personal detail about them? How do the police know to look for the right person if skin color is automatically omitted?

[thegreekdog]

A 1v1 Duel for Truth?

Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).

Why is the profiling of a black man, regardless of factors, suspicious? Let us look at a something in the press right now. New York's stop and frisk policy. It has been an overwhelming success. NY has gone from one of the worst big cities for crime to one of the best. Now the liberals are pushing back because 90% of the people stopped and frisked are either black or Hispanic. Even the Washington Post wrote an editorial calling this blatant profiling and bad policy. However, the newspaper and the rest of liberal followers miss the "other factors". 95% of all murders and shooting victims in New York are black or Hispanic. 90.2% of all people arrested for murder and 96.7% of all people arrested for shooting someone are either black or Hispanic. It would be good police work to focus on those groups when trying to prevent more. Frisking a 73 yr old whit woman or a 42 yr old man from China may make your liberal heart feel better but it wont stop crime. However, profiling young Hispanics and young African Americans is exactly how you stop crime as it has with DRAMATIC results in NY. In 2012 NY city recorded it lowest level of homicides since at least 1963 when reliable records were first kept.

I wasn't saying the profiling of a black man is suspicious. I was saying including race in a profile is racist.

Let's take the New York example and assume that stop and frisk has worked. Does that mean stop and frisk is race-neutral? Nope. If 90% of the people that are stopped and frisked are black or hispanic, it's a racist policy. Does that mean it's ineffective? Nope. If your statistics are correct (post links to support, but I really don't care because statistics in this regard don't matter for purposes of my argument), then the policy is effective. It is therefore both effective and racist.

The next, and ultimately most important question, is whether an effective and racist policy should exist. If we ignore my personal views on stop and frisk (that it's a disgusting violation of our right to privacy, regardless of race and effectiveness), the issue turns on our society's views on what is acceptable. BBS, who would ignore societal norms, says "Carry on!" because his view turns entirely on effectiveness. Spurgistan, who may ignore effectiveness in favor of making sure we don't offend a particular race, would say "Stop immediately" because his view turns entirely on the existence of racism. And ultimately I think spurgistan's view is what society leans towards, at least in this country.

Stop and frisk is a disgusting policy that directly and unabashedly sacrifices freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution (and case law) in favor of increased safety. And it takes individuals to determine the benefits of that policy. If I was a black or hispanic man living in New York, I would likely be angered by the policy if I'm stopped and frisked. And you would be too. I've been stopped and frisked before, it is a horrible and degrading experience. And when the only reason you're stopped and frisked is because of one element of a profile, and that element is race, it becomes even worse.

[thegreekdog]

A 1v1 Duel for Truth?

Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).

Just curious about this part.....so when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what race the suspicious person is, Zimmerman should have ignored the question?? Because that would have some implications for the whole "HE REFUSED TO LISTEN TO THE DISPATCHER!!!" thing

I have a "suspicion" that you are still working with the edited version of the 911 call recording

I suppose Zimmerman could have ignored the question, but the issue is not what Zimmerman listened to, it's that the dispatcher asked what race the suspicious person was.

How do you describe people if you don't know every personal detail about them? How do the police know to look for the right person if skin color is automatically omitted?

Let's use Martin as an example.

"A young man wearing a hooded sweatshirt has been peering into windows in the neighborhood."

Do you need "black" before "man" here?

Let's say a crime was committed in a largely black neighborhood. Do you think "black" is an appropriate description for the suspect when, let's say, 80% of the people in the neighborhood are black?

[Night Strike]

Let's use Martin as an example.

"A young man wearing a hooded sweatshirt has been peering into windows in the neighborhood."

Do you need "black" before "man" here?

Let's say a crime was committed in a largely black neighborhood. Do you think "black" is an appropriate description for the suspect when, let's say, 80% of the people in the neighborhood are black?

Unless you know the exact name of the suspicious person and can show a picture to the police/public if necessary, then yes, skin color is a necessary description of a suspicious person. What happens if the person wearing the hooded sweatshirt takes that hooded sweatshirt off? How would he be described at that point?

Besides, if he had been white and described as white on the phone, this wouldn't even be pointed out.

[loutil]

A 1v1 Duel for Truth?

Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).

Why is the profiling of a black man, regardless of factors, suspicious? Let us look at a something in the press right now. New York's stop and frisk policy. It has been an overwhelming success. NY has gone from one of the worst big cities for crime to one of the best. Now the liberals are pushing back because 90% of the people stopped and frisked are either black or Hispanic. Even the Washington Post wrote an editorial calling this blatant profiling and bad policy. However, the newspaper and the rest of liberal followers miss the "other factors". 95% of all murders and shooting victims in New York are black or Hispanic. 90.2% of all people arrested for murder and 96.7% of all people arrested for shooting someone are either black or Hispanic. It would be good police work to focus on those groups when trying to prevent more. Frisking a 73 yr old whit woman or a 42 yr old man from China may make your liberal heart feel better but it wont stop crime. However, profiling young Hispanics and young African Americans is exactly how you stop crime as it has with DRAMATIC results in NY. In 2012 NY city recorded it lowest level of homicides since at least 1963 when reliable records were first kept.

I wasn't saying the profiling of a black man is suspicious. I was saying including race in a profile is racist.

Why is it racist? To be a racist you have to believe you are superior to another race. It is just common sense to profile based on what you know. If you work in airport security and you are trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes whom would you profile? Little old ladies or young men of middle eastern descent? Is that racist? NO. It it the logical smart approach? YES. Does it inconvenience innocent middle eastern men? Yes, but that is the price that has to be paid for safety. If 90% of crimes are being committed by young black and latino men it stands to reason we should focus our policing efforts on that crowd. It is not even slightly racist it is just good police work.
People throw the race card everywhere today. Sadly, few of you even know the definition...
rac·ist [rey-sist]
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.


racism or racialism (ˈreɪsɪzəm, ˈreɪʃəˌlɪzəm)

— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

[thegreekdog]

Let's use Martin as an example.

"A young man wearing a hooded sweatshirt has been peering into windows in the neighborhood."

Do you need "black" before "man" here?

Let's say a crime was committed in a largely black neighborhood. Do you think "black" is an appropriate description for the suspect when, let's say, 80% of the people in the neighborhood are black?

Unless you know the exact name of the suspicious person and can show a picture to the police/public if necessary, then yes, skin color is a necessary description of a suspicious person. What happens if the person wearing the hooded sweatshirt takes that hooded sweatshirt off? How would he be described at that point?

Besides, if he had been white and described as white on the phone, this wouldn't even be pointed out.

It probably would not have been pointed out if he was white, correct. As to the rest, it's hardly relevant. If we want to go with scenarios, check my "let's say crime..." comment above.

[thegreekdog]

Why is it racist? To be a racist you have to believe you are superior to another race. It is just common sense to profile based on what you know. If you work in airport security and you are trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes whom would you profile? Little old ladies or young men of middle eastern descent? Is that racist? NO. It it the logical smart approach? YES. Does it inconvenience innocent middle eastern men? Yes, but that is the price that has to be paid for safety. If 90% of crimes are being committed by young black and latino men it stands to reason we should focus our policing efforts on that crowd. It is not even slightly racist it is just good police work.
People throw the race card everywhere today. Sadly, few of you even know the definition...

Do you find criminals and terrorists or suspected criminals and terrorists to be inferior to you? I hope the answer is yes and if it is we can dispense with the really, really, really, super-duper ignorant issue of whether suspecting someone of a crime because of the color of their skin is racist or not. It absolutely 100% is racist. You can stop accusing me of not knowing what racism means. I know what it means. I don't think you know what the term "superior" means.

Your example, again, is both the logical approach (if we make certain assumptions as to effectiveness) and racist.

And you've laid out your view: you believe if the racist policy is effective, then it is warranted. Let's assume Arabs are a race. It is racist to profile Arab men as suspected terrorists. You are suspecting them of being terrorists. You are making the conclusion that terrorist acts will largely be committed by Arab men and are therefore crafting your policy based on that. Your policy is therefore racist. It treats one race (Arabs) as terrorists which necessarily means that you are treating people of other races as being superior (i.e. not being terrorists) and Arabs as inferior (i.e. potentially being terrorists).

The problem here is that you don't think the policies are racist BECAUSE they are effective. Effectiveness and racist are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both effective and racist. NYPD stop and frisk and profiling Arabs for terrorism are both racist and they may both be effective. Until you come to grips that these to items are not mutually exclusive, this discussion is going to continue in this way.

[loutil]

Why is it racist? To be a racist you have to believe you are superior to another race. It is just common sense to profile based on what you know. If you work in airport security and you are trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes whom would you profile? Little old ladies or young men of middle eastern descent? Is that racist? NO. It it the logical smart approach? YES. Does it inconvenience innocent middle eastern men? Yes, but that is the price that has to be paid for safety. If 90% of crimes are being committed by young black and latino men it stands to reason we should focus our policing efforts on that crowd. It is not even slightly racist it is just good police work.
People throw the race card everywhere today. Sadly, few of you even know the definition...

Do you find criminals and terrorists or suspected criminals and terrorists to be inferior to you? I hope the answer is yes and if it is we can dispense with the really, really, really, super-duper ignorant issue of whether suspecting someone of a crime because of the color of their skin is racist or not. It absolutely 100% is racist. You can stop accusing me of not knowing what racism means. I know what it means. I don't think you know what the term "superior" means.

Your example, again, is both the logical approach (if we make certain assumptions as to effectiveness) and racist.

And you've laid out your view: you believe if the racist policy is effective, then it is warranted. Let's assume Arabs are a race. It is racist to profile Arab men as suspected terrorists. You are suspecting them of being terrorists. You are making the conclusion that terrorist acts will largely be committed by Arab men and are therefore crafting your policy based on that. Your policy is therefore racist. It treats one race (Arabs) as terrorists which necessarily means that you are treating people of other races as being superior (i.e. not being terrorists) and Arabs as inferior (i.e. potentially being terrorists).

The problem here is that you don't think the policies are racist BECAUSE they are effective. Effectiveness and racist are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both effective and racist. NYPD stop and frisk and profiling Arabs for terrorism are both racist and they may both be effective. Until you come to grips that these to items are not mutually exclusive, this discussion is going to continue in this way.

Sorry to disappoint but I do not find anyone "inferior" to me. Slavers were racist as they believed the people they were enslaving were less than human. Nazi's were racist as they saw Jews as less than human. Terrorists are CRIMINALS but this does not make them inferior. If all terrorist hijackings are caused by young Muslim men whom exactly should the authorities be checking? Old Asian women? Young African American girls? There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

[AndyDufresne]

There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

According to the OED, who I trust on most issues of wording and definition, racial profiling seems pretty racist as TGD indicates.

racial profiling / n. orig. and chiefly U.S. / selection for scrutiny by law enforcement based on race or ethnicity rather than on behavioural or evidentiary criteria (cf. offender profiling n. at offender ); (later, in extended use) discrimination or stereotyping on racial or ethnic grounds.

And here is the offender profiling it mentions in the definition:

offender profiling / n. orig. and chiefly Brit. / a system of analysing and recording the probable psychological and behavioural characteristics of the unknown perpetrators of specific crimes so they can be matched with the known habits and personalities of suspects


--Andy

[loutil]

There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

According to the OED, who I trust on most issues of wording and definition, racial profiling seems pretty racist as TGD indicates.

racial profiling / n. orig. and chiefly U.S. / selection for scrutiny by law enforcement based on race or ethnicity rather than on behavioural or evidentiary criteria (cf. offender profiling n. at offender ); (later, in extended use) discrimination or stereotyping on racial or ethnic grounds.

And here is the offender profiling it mentions in the definition:

offender profiling / n. orig. and chiefly Brit. / a system of analysing and recording the probable psychological and behavioural characteristics of the unknown perpetrators of specific crimes so they can be matched with the known habits and personalities of suspects


--Andy

Behavioral and evidentiary criteria are used. Not all black and latino males are stopped by NY city police. If they were you would have a reasonable argument. Not all Arabic men are pulled aside when passing through an airport.

I should add...racial profiling is NOT the same thing as being a racist. They are not even related. One is a tactic in identifying a potential suspect. The other is treating people less than human.

[AndyDufresne]

There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

According to the OED, who I trust on most issues of wording and definition, racial profiling seems pretty racist as TGD indicates.

racial profiling / n. orig. and chiefly U.S. / selection for scrutiny by law enforcement based on race or ethnicity rather than on behavioural or evidentiary criteria (cf. offender profiling n. at offender ); (later, in extended use) discrimination or stereotyping on racial or ethnic grounds.

And here is the offender profiling it mentions in the definition:

offender profiling / n. orig. and chiefly Brit. / a system of analysing and recording the probable psychological and behavioural characteristics of the unknown perpetrators of specific crimes so they can be matched with the known habits and personalities of suspects


--Andy

Behavioral and evidentiary criteria are used. Not all black and latino males are stopped by NY city police. If they were you would have a reasonable argument. Not all Arabic men are pulled aside when passing through an airport.

I should add...racial profiling is NOT the same thing as being a racist. They are not even related. One is a tactic in identifying a potential suspect. The other is treating people less than human.

What behavioral and evidentiary criteria are being used?


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

I'm thinking it still sounds racist, BBS. I'm not sayin' its no slavery, fool, brother, man, dude, but it seems like based on loutil's discussion it is the motivator behind the profiling.

More importantly:



--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, I'm basically stating what LT said, so I deleted my post, but I'll respond.


On what grounds do you think "offender profiling" which encompasses skin color, race, or ethnicity is racist?

If it is racist, then anything which profiles anyone on at least those characteristics is also racist: e.g. the Census, nearly all applications which ask for one's race, etc. Apparently, McDonald's or any college is racist if the application asks for your race. The Federal government requires such criteria for its anti-discrimination laws, so since it causes such categorization, then.. the federal government is also racist (reductio ad absurdum).

Non-decision-making entities can't be racist (e.g. profiling itself != racist); it depends on the users in every circumstance, so we should also distinguish between the conscious and unconscious entities involved--e.g. some NYC cops are racist, and some aren't, but it doesn't mean that profiling by many characteristics including race is racist.

[AndyDufresne]

On the scale of 1 to racism, it isn't racism. But it is racist likely. But honestly, I'm just here to post Star Trek Animated Gifs.

Stop and frisk tangentially related to the discussion, and it is in the news as of today even:

NY Times Article


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Why is it racist? To be a racist you have to believe you are superior to another race. It is just common sense to profile based on what you know. If you work in airport security and you are trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes whom would you profile? Little old ladies or young men of middle eastern descent? Is that racist? NO. It it the logical smart approach? YES. Does it inconvenience innocent middle eastern men? Yes, but that is the price that has to be paid for safety. If 90% of crimes are being committed by young black and latino men it stands to reason we should focus our policing efforts on that crowd. It is not even slightly racist it is just good police work.
People throw the race card everywhere today. Sadly, few of you even know the definition...

Do you find criminals and terrorists or suspected criminals and terrorists to be inferior to you? I hope the answer is yes and if it is we can dispense with the really, really, really, super-duper ignorant issue of whether suspecting someone of a crime because of the color of their skin is racist or not. It absolutely 100% is racist. You can stop accusing me of not knowing what racism means. I know what it means. I don't think you know what the term "superior" means.

Your example, again, is both the logical approach (if we make certain assumptions as to effectiveness) and racist.

And you've laid out your view: you believe if the racist policy is effective, then it is warranted. Let's assume Arabs are a race. It is racist to profile Arab men as suspected terrorists. You are suspecting them of being terrorists. You are making the conclusion that terrorist acts will largely be committed by Arab men and are therefore crafting your policy based on that. Your policy is therefore racist. It treats one race (Arabs) as terrorists which necessarily means that you are treating people of other races as being superior (i.e. not being terrorists) and Arabs as inferior (i.e. potentially being terrorists).

The problem here is that you don't think the policies are racist BECAUSE they are effective. Effectiveness and racist are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both effective and racist. NYPD stop and frisk and profiling Arabs for terrorism are both racist and they may both be effective. Until you come to grips that these to items are not mutually exclusive, this discussion is going to continue in this way.

Sorry to disappoint but I do not find anyone "inferior" to me. Slavers were racist as they believed the people they were enslaving were less than human. Nazi's were racist as they saw Jews as less than human. Terrorists are CRIMINALS but this does not make them inferior. If all terrorist hijackings are caused by young Muslim men whom exactly should the authorities be checking? Old Asian women? Young African American girls? There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

You keep confusing effectiveness and racism. Just because something is effective or can even be statistically proven, does not mean it's not racist. Assuming "Greek" is a race, if there was a statistic that showed 99% of Greek men are burglars and I get stopped for being Greek (and therefore likely to be a burglar) it's both effective and racist. I'm not being stopped because I'm a burglar. I'm being stopped because I'm Greek and therefore likely to be a burglar. An Arab man is not stopped at the airport because he is a terrorist, he's stopped because he's Arab. That is racist, regardless of the effectiveness.

Come up with something other than linking effectiveness to a lack of racism and we can talk.

[thegreekdog]

There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

According to the OED, who I trust on most issues of wording and definition, racial profiling seems pretty racist as TGD indicates.

racial profiling / n. orig. and chiefly U.S. / selection for scrutiny by law enforcement based on race or ethnicity rather than on behavioural or evidentiary criteria (cf. offender profiling n. at offender ); (later, in extended use) discrimination or stereotyping on racial or ethnic grounds.

And here is the offender profiling it mentions in the definition:

offender profiling / n. orig. and chiefly Brit. / a system of analysing and recording the probable psychological and behavioural characteristics of the unknown perpetrators of specific crimes so they can be matched with the known habits and personalities of suspects


--Andy

Behavioral and evidentiary criteria are used. Not all black and latino males are stopped by NY city police. If they were you would have a reasonable argument. Not all Arabic men are pulled aside when passing through an airport.

I should add...racial profiling is NOT the same thing as being a racist. They are not even related. One is a tactic in identifying a potential suspect. The other is treating people less than human.

What behavioral and evidentiary criteria are being used?


--Andy

What Andy is getting at here is what I was getting at. Let's say you have an Arab man and a white man at an airport. Police have put out a bulletin for a man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with a watch and a bag as a potential terrorist.

The white man is acting suspiciously inasmuch as he's constantly checking his bag and his watch, is sweating profusely, and is wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. The Arab man is wearing a business suit. Which guy do you stop and frisk?

The point is there are other criteria by which a potential criminal can be identified than the color of his or her skin. So why bring the pain and embarrassment that racial profiling causes?

NS - I pose that question to you as well. It doesn't matter whether Martin was black or not; he was acting like a burglar. So why ask what his race is? Why bring race into the equation at all, especially given the feelings it engenders in our society?

[loutil]

Why is it racist? To be a racist you have to believe you are superior to another race. It is just common sense to profile based on what you know. If you work in airport security and you are trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes whom would you profile? Little old ladies or young men of middle eastern descent? Is that racist? NO. It it the logical smart approach? YES. Does it inconvenience innocent middle eastern men? Yes, but that is the price that has to be paid for safety. If 90% of crimes are being committed by young black and latino men it stands to reason we should focus our policing efforts on that crowd. It is not even slightly racist it is just good police work.
People throw the race card everywhere today. Sadly, few of you even know the definition...

Do you find criminals and terrorists or suspected criminals and terrorists to be inferior to you? I hope the answer is yes and if it is we can dispense with the really, really, really, super-duper ignorant issue of whether suspecting someone of a crime because of the color of their skin is racist or not. It absolutely 100% is racist. You can stop accusing me of not knowing what racism means. I know what it means. I don't think you know what the term "superior" means.

Your example, again, is both the logical approach (if we make certain assumptions as to effectiveness) and racist.

And you've laid out your view: you believe if the racist policy is effective, then it is warranted. Let's assume Arabs are a race. It is racist to profile Arab men as suspected terrorists. You are suspecting them of being terrorists. You are making the conclusion that terrorist acts will largely be committed by Arab men and are therefore crafting your policy based on that. Your policy is therefore racist. It treats one race (Arabs) as terrorists which necessarily means that you are treating people of other races as being superior (i.e. not being terrorists) and Arabs as inferior (i.e. potentially being terrorists).

The problem here is that you don't think the policies are racist BECAUSE they are effective. Effectiveness and racist are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both effective and racist. NYPD stop and frisk and profiling Arabs for terrorism are both racist and they may both be effective. Until you come to grips that these to items are not mutually exclusive, this discussion is going to continue in this way.

Sorry to disappoint but I do not find anyone "inferior" to me. Slavers were racist as they believed the people they were enslaving were less than human. Nazi's were racist as they saw Jews as less than human. Terrorists are CRIMINALS but this does not make them inferior. If all terrorist hijackings are caused by young Muslim men whom exactly should the authorities be checking? Old Asian women? Young African American girls? There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

You keep confusing effectiveness and racism. Just because something is effective or can even be statistically proven, does not mean it's not racist. Assuming "Greek" is a race, if there was a statistic that showed 99% of Greek men are burglars and I get stopped for being Greek (and therefore likely to be a burglar) it's both effective and racist. I'm not being stopped because I'm a burglar. I'm being stopped because I'm Greek and therefore likely to be a burglar. An Arab man is not stopped at the airport because he is a terrorist, he's stopped because he's Arab. That is racist, regardless of the effectiveness.

Come up with something other than linking effectiveness to a lack of racism and we can talk.

I would argue that you confuse racism with profiling. If you are stopped only because you are Greek that would be overzealous profiling not racism. The effectiveness does not matter. If, however, you fit other characteristics as well...young, male, suspicious loitering, nervous around authority, AND you are also Greek. Then it is GOOD profiling considering your scenario where 99% of robbers are Greek.
Racism is about hate and superiority. It requires neither of those to profile criminals...

[loutil]

As of 2009, 46% of police officers in NY city are either black or Hispanic. Are you suggesting they are racist when they are stopping and frisking minorities?

[Night Strike]

Why is the profiling of a black man, regardless of factors, suspicious? Let us look at a something in the press right now. New York's stop and frisk policy. It has been an overwhelming success. NY has gone from one of the worst big cities for crime to one of the best. Now the liberals are pushing back because 90% of the people stopped and frisked are either black or Hispanic. Even the Washington Post wrote an editorial calling this blatant profiling and bad policy. However, the newspaper and the rest of liberal followers miss the "other factors". 95% of all murders and shooting victims in New York are black or Hispanic. 90.2% of all people arrested for murder and 96.7% of all people arrested for shooting someone are either black or Hispanic. It would be good police work to focus on those groups when trying to prevent more. Frisking a 73 yr old whit woman or a 42 yr old man from China may make your liberal heart feel better but it wont stop crime. However, profiling young Hispanics and young African Americans is exactly how you stop crime as it has with DRAMATIC results in NY. In 2012 NY city recorded it lowest level of homicides since at least 1963 when reliable records were first kept.

It was (rightly) ruled unconstitutional today by a federal court.

[Night Strike]

What Andy is getting at here is what I was getting at. Let's say you have an Arab man and a white man at an airport. Police have put out a bulletin for a man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with a watch and a bag as a potential terrorist.

The white man is acting suspiciously inasmuch as he's constantly checking his bag and his watch, is sweating profusely, and is wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. The Arab man is wearing a business suit. Which guy do you stop and frisk?

The point is there are other criteria by which a potential criminal can be identified than the color of his or her skin. So why bring the pain and embarrassment that racial profiling causes?

NS - I pose that question to you as well. It doesn't matter whether Martin was black or not; he was acting like a burglar. So why ask what his race is? Why bring race into the equation at all, especially given the feelings it engenders in our society?

Because when it comes to describing a potential criminal or suspicious person, skin color is the exact same thing as hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc. It's a physical identifier in the absence of knowing every detail of someone's name, address, birthday, social security number, etc.

And yes, you would obviously stop the person wearing the black-hooded sweatshirt under that description, but an article of clothing is something that can quickly be changed. It's really hard to quickly change your skin color to go unnoticed.

[BigBallinStalin]

On the scale of 1 to racism, it isn't racism. But it is racist likely. But honestly, I'm just here to post Star Trek Animated Gifs.

Stop and frisk tangentially related to the discussion, and it is in the news as of today even:

NY Times Article


--Andy

No further questions, your Honor.

[thegreekdog]

What Andy is getting at here is what I was getting at. Let's say you have an Arab man and a white man at an airport. Police have put out a bulletin for a man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with a watch and a bag as a potential terrorist.

The white man is acting suspiciously inasmuch as he's constantly checking his bag and his watch, is sweating profusely, and is wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. The Arab man is wearing a business suit. Which guy do you stop and frisk?

The point is there are other criteria by which a potential criminal can be identified than the color of his or her skin. So why bring the pain and embarrassment that racial profiling causes?

NS - I pose that question to you as well. It doesn't matter whether Martin was black or not; he was acting like a burglar. So why ask what his race is? Why bring race into the equation at all, especially given the feelings it engenders in our society?

Because when it comes to describing a potential criminal or suspicious person, skin color is the exact same thing as hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc. It's a physical identifier in the absence of knowing every detail of someone's name, address, birthday, social security number, etc.

And yes, you would obviously stop the person wearing the black-hooded sweatshirt under that description, but an article of clothing is something that can quickly be changed. It's really hard to quickly change your skin color to go unnoticed.

Skin color is not the exact same thing as hair color, eye color, etc. As we can see in this thread, our society has placed a certain emphasis on race. If someday we get to the point where skin color is not emphasized in our society, then skin color can then be a part of profiling.

[thegreekdog]

Why is it racist? To be a racist you have to believe you are superior to another race. It is just common sense to profile based on what you know. If you work in airport security and you are trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes whom would you profile? Little old ladies or young men of middle eastern descent? Is that racist? NO. It it the logical smart approach? YES. Does it inconvenience innocent middle eastern men? Yes, but that is the price that has to be paid for safety. If 90% of crimes are being committed by young black and latino men it stands to reason we should focus our policing efforts on that crowd. It is not even slightly racist it is just good police work.
People throw the race card everywhere today. Sadly, few of you even know the definition...

Do you find criminals and terrorists or suspected criminals and terrorists to be inferior to you? I hope the answer is yes and if it is we can dispense with the really, really, really, super-duper ignorant issue of whether suspecting someone of a crime because of the color of their skin is racist or not. It absolutely 100% is racist. You can stop accusing me of not knowing what racism means. I know what it means. I don't think you know what the term "superior" means.

Your example, again, is both the logical approach (if we make certain assumptions as to effectiveness) and racist.

And you've laid out your view: you believe if the racist policy is effective, then it is warranted. Let's assume Arabs are a race. It is racist to profile Arab men as suspected terrorists. You are suspecting them of being terrorists. You are making the conclusion that terrorist acts will largely be committed by Arab men and are therefore crafting your policy based on that. Your policy is therefore racist. It treats one race (Arabs) as terrorists which necessarily means that you are treating people of other races as being superior (i.e. not being terrorists) and Arabs as inferior (i.e. potentially being terrorists).

The problem here is that you don't think the policies are racist BECAUSE they are effective. Effectiveness and racist are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both effective and racist. NYPD stop and frisk and profiling Arabs for terrorism are both racist and they may both be effective. Until you come to grips that these to items are not mutually exclusive, this discussion is going to continue in this way.

Sorry to disappoint but I do not find anyone "inferior" to me. Slavers were racist as they believed the people they were enslaving were less than human. Nazi's were racist as they saw Jews as less than human. Terrorists are CRIMINALS but this does not make them inferior. If all terrorist hijackings are caused by young Muslim men whom exactly should the authorities be checking? Old Asian women? Young African American girls? There is NOTHING racist in extra scrutiny focused on the most likely group from which the terrorists will reside. How would we ever stop crime if we cannot scrutinize those most likely guilty? Maybe you should look up the term superior and inferior. Being cautious and diligent does not equate to superiority...

You keep confusing effectiveness and racism. Just because something is effective or can even be statistically proven, does not mean it's not racist. Assuming "Greek" is a race, if there was a statistic that showed 99% of Greek men are burglars and I get stopped for being Greek (and therefore likely to be a burglar) it's both effective and racist. I'm not being stopped because I'm a burglar. I'm being stopped because I'm Greek and therefore likely to be a burglar. An Arab man is not stopped at the airport because he is a terrorist, he's stopped because he's Arab. That is racist, regardless of the effectiveness.

Come up with something other than linking effectiveness to a lack of racism and we can talk.

I would argue that you confuse racism with profiling. If you are stopped only because you are Greek that would be overzealous profiling not racism. The effectiveness does not matter. If, however, you fit other characteristics as well...young, male, suspicious loitering, nervous around authority, AND you are also Greek. Then it is GOOD profiling considering your scenario where 99% of robbers are Greek.
Racism is about hate and superiority. It requires neither of those to profile criminals...

If I'm suspicious, loitering, young, male, and nervous around authority (all of which are true except for supsicious), then why does my race need to be brought in especially considering the societal views on such things?