Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[thegreekdog]

And therein lies the rub. If there are other profiling factors, race does not need to be brought in. If there are not other profiling factors, then choosing someone based on race alone is racist.

And I cannot emphasize this enough - suspecting someone of committing a crime because of race is racist because the person doing the suspecting is holding him- or herself superior to the person suspected.

[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...

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?

Easy to answer...if 90 plus percent of the crime is being committed by a certain race or races and you are NOT one of them then it is likely you are not up to no good. For the same reason you would not focus on an 80 yr old woman even if she was exhibiting suspicious behavior.

[thegreekdog]

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?

Easy to answer...if 90 plus percent of the crime is being committed by a certain race or races and you are NOT one of them then it is likely you are not up to no good. For the same reason you would not focus on an 80 yr old woman even if she was exhibiting suspicious behavior.

And that is racist.

[loutil]

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?

Easy to answer...if 90 plus percent of the crime is being committed by a certain race or races and you are NOT one of them then it is likely you are not up to no good. For the same reason you would not focus on an 80 yr old woman even if she was exhibiting suspicious behavior.

And that is racist.

My last time repeating myself...To be a racist I have to either believe I am superior or the other person is inferior. I believe neither so by actual definition it is NOT racist. You can argue I am profiling but profiling is not be definition racist. Learn the difference between the 2 words before you accuse others. It is why I struggle to respect most liberals as they choose to throw titles and cast aspersions on those they do not agree with. The race card is exhibit one...

[BigBallinStalin]

If one feels that all criminals are inferior,
and that one profiles someone based on--not only race/ethnicity, but also other characteristics,
then that would constitute as racial profiling, or would be racist--according to TGD.

So, what if one does all the above, but doesn't feel that criminals are inferior? How is that racist?

What if the same person doesn't feel any particular way about any race? How is that profiling racist?
(I can only answer to the last two: it's not racist).



Also,
If one feels that all criminals are inferior,
and that one profiles some based on--not only skin color (devoid of racial connotation--assume it's possible)*, but also other characteristics,
then that would constitute as racial profiling, or would be racist.

If the profiler did not feel that all criminals are inferior, then how is that racist?


*e.g. suppose a machine IDs people based on skin color. Is the machine racist?
(see last paragraph)

[Juan_Bottom]

New York's stop and frisk policy. It has been an overwhelming success.

There are no numbers to support this claim. Crime rates have definitely gone down, but correlation isn't the same as causation. The "get tough on crime" policy overall has been a success, but "stop and frisk" means nothing on it's own.

"Stop and frisk" is supposed to be implemented in areas with high rates of crime. Stopping and searching someone because "being black is suspicious" is insanely racist and it's racist for you to defend it on the grounds that blacks and latinos are criminals and should therefore be frisked always.
The policy doesn't work like that. The stop and frisks happen in high crime areas; it's not a free card for cops to search black people anywhere they go in the city. And 88% is the most important number to keep in mind here. Because 88% of those searched were entirely innocent of anything.

Furthermore, If I follow your defense then black and latino communities should be routinely searched, and that's a terrible way for the police to make friends.


I'm a Liberal. I may have a bleeding heart, but at least I know what's right.

Why am I not surprised that you put words in my mouth to try and make a point? I never said that being black is suspicious. I never said all blacks and latinos should be frisked. Allowing the police to stop and frisk those people they deem suspicious, based on behavior and NOT skin color, has worked.
Further, your stat is not exactly correct. Last year close to 700,000 people were stopped on the street. Approximately half were frisked and about 10% were arrested. 2 important points. 1: just because you were not arrested does not mean you were "entirely innocent". 2. They made 70,000 arrests. That is an amazing result and statistic.

I believe, and I could be wrong here, but I believe that the way US law works is that there has to be a reason to suspect that someone has or will break a crime. For example, the police can't just come to your house everyday with a search warrant just because they don't like you. There has to be some reasonable suspicion of illegal activities involved.

In New York, the reason that "Stop and Frisk" goes on is because it happens in high-crime areas. So by placing yourself in one of those areas, you become suspect of criminal mischief.
That's what I'm talking about when I say that you're saying that blacks and/or latinos should be frisked instead of white people. . . instead of suspecting people because they are in areas with high crime rates, you're suspecting people because of their skin color.

Further, your stat is not exactly correct. Last year close to 700,000 people were stopped on the street. Approximately half were frisked and about 10% were arrested. 2 important points. 1: just because you were not arrested does not mean you were "entirely innocent". 2. They made 70,000 arrests. That is an amazing result and statistic.

If only 10% of those frisked were arrested, then I was wrong when I said that 88% of people frisked were entirely innocent. The correct number should be 90%.



Post in question:

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.

[spurgistan]

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?

Easy to answer...if 90 plus percent of the crime is being committed by a certain race or races and you are NOT one of them then it is likely you are not up to no good. For the same reason you would not focus on an 80 yr old woman even if she was exhibiting suspicious behavior.

And that is racist.

My last time repeating myself...To be a racist I have to either believe I am superior or the other person is inferior. I believe neither so by actual definition it is NOT racist. You can argue I am profiling but profiling is not be definition racist. Learn the difference between the 2 words before you accuse others. It is why I struggle to respect most liberals as they choose to throw titles and cast aspersions on those they do not agree with. The race card is exhibit one...

Profiling is kinda by definition racist. it follows traditional patterns of power and racial superiority. We don't profile white male teens even though they're responsible for practically every school shooting.

[thegreekdog]

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?

Easy to answer...if 90 plus percent of the crime is being committed by a certain race or races and you are NOT one of them then it is likely you are not up to no good. For the same reason you would not focus on an 80 yr old woman even if she was exhibiting suspicious behavior.

And that is racist.

My last time repeating myself...To be a racist I have to either believe I am superior or the other person is inferior. I believe neither so by actual definition it is NOT racist. You can argue I am profiling but profiling is not be definition racist. Learn the difference between the 2 words before you accuse others. It is why I struggle to respect most liberals as they choose to throw titles and cast aspersions on those they do not agree with. The race card is exhibit one...

No, you're going to repeat yourself again because you're forcing me to repeat myself again (but in new and exciting ways).

If you believe someone could be a criminal because of the color of their skin, does that make you feel:

(a) Superior to that person.
(b) Inferior to that person.
(c) Equal to that person.

The answer is, of course, (a). So no, I'm not confusing anything. You need to address why you think a racially-based value judgment ("this person could be a criminal") means something other than that the accuser feels superior to that person. No one has yet been able to do that in this thread so I continue. And that's ignoring Andy's definition of racism. And that's ignoring our society's definition of racism as applied to profiling.

And you're apparently confused as to the purpose of this discussion (and are confused as to my point). I'm not accusing you of anything. I don't believe you are racist (although I don't know you all that well). I believe you support racist policies because they are apparently effective. And from my perspective, that's fine I guess. You just need to realize that not everyone is going to support those policies because they are either the subject of those policies (e.g. an Arab man who is profiled at an airport) or because they empathize with people who are the subject of those policies (e.g. me).

As I indicated previously in this very thread, I will walk on the other side of the street or pay attention when I'm walking in Philadelphia and see a group of black teenagers. Is that racist? Yes. Is it effective? Yes, because a recent spat of crimes in the city have involved a group of black teens attacking a random person on the street. Do I care what those teenagers think? A little, but I care more about not getting attacking by a group of people. I've made a value judgment and I'm comfortable with it.

In any event, I'm hardly liberal (as Americans define that term... I guess I'm liberal in the classical sense), but thanks for letting me get to refer to myself as one in conversation. And I'm not playing a race card or anything else. I was accused by BBS of having normative values; I'm simply pointing out that (1) those normative values are based in fact (racial profiling is racist), (2) those normative values are held by most members of U.S. society, and (3) most importantly, profiling characteristics other than race (e.g. the terrorist example I've given and the Martin scenario I've given) are just as effective and have the added bonus of not being subject to racism accusations.

In real life, I'm more concerned with the blatant and gross violations of privacy going on increasingly in our country, whether it's stop and frisk or detainment at the airport or reading peoples' emails.

[thegreekdog]

If one feels that all criminals are inferior,
and that one profiles someone based on--not only race/ethnicity, but also other characteristics,
then that would constitute as racial profiling, or would be racist--according to TGD.

So, what if one does all the above, but doesn't feel that criminals are inferior? How is that racist?

What if the same person doesn't feel any particular way about any race? How is that profiling racist?
(I can only answer to the last two: it's not racist).



Also,
If one feels that all criminals are inferior,
and that one profiles some based on--not only skin color (devoid of racial connotation--assume it's possible)*, but also other characteristics,
then that would constitute as racial profiling, or would be racist.

If the profiler did not feel that all criminals are inferior, then how is that racist?


*e.g. suppose a machine IDs people based on skin color. Is the machine racist?
(see last paragraph)

If a profiler does not find criminals inferior to him- or herself, then that is not racist (by the definition you and loutil have provided - Andy's definition may think it's still racist and I'm fairly certain many in the U.S. society will find it racist).

Did the machine program itself? Is the machine 100% accurate as to race? If not, see my 99% of Greeks are burglars example above (somewhere).

[Night Strike]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, but I believe that the way US law works is that there has to be a reason to suspect that someone has or will break a crime. For example, the police can't just come to your house everyday with a search warrant just because they don't like you. There has to be some reasonable suspicion of illegal activities involved.

FYI, the government is already doing that with the NSA collecting information of every phone call you make and every action you take online. And if they choose to, they can turn on the microphone or camera of any internet capable device. All without any warrants or even suspicions of illegal activities.

[loutil]

Excerpts from Mayor Bloomberg’s remarks yesterday.

Our crime strategies and tools — including Stop-Question-Frisk — have made New York City the safest big city in America. We are on pace for another record low number of shootings and homicides this year because our police officers follow the law and follow the crime.

They fight crime wherever crime is occurring, and they don’t worry if their work doesn’t match up to a Census chart. As a result, today we have fewer guns, fewer shootings and fewer homicides.

Stop-Question-Frisk — which the Supreme Court of the United States has found to be constitutional — is an important part of that success. It has taken some 8,000 guns off the street over the past decade — and some 80,000 other weapons.

Furious: Mayor Bloomberg yesterday, delivering remarks on yesterday’s stop-question-frisk ruling.REUTERS
Furious: Mayor Bloomberg yesterday, delivering remarks on yesterday’s stop-question-frisk ruling.
There is just no question that Stop-Question-Frisk has saved countless lives. And we know that most of the lives saved, based on the statistics, have been black and Hispanic young men.

As recently as 1990, New York City averaged more than six murders a day. Today, we’ve driven that down to less than one murder a day. If murder rates over the last 11 years had been the same as the previous 11 years, more than 7,300 people who today are alive would be dead.

Stop-Question-Frisk has helped us prevent those and other crimes from occurring — which has not only saved lives, it has helped us to reduce incarceration rates by 30 percent, even as incarceration rates in the rest of the nation have gone up.

Throughout the trial that just concluded, the judge made it clear she wasn’t at all interested in the crime reductions here or how we achieved them. In fact, nowhere in her 195-page decision does she mention the historic cuts in crime or the number of lives that have been saved.

She ignored the real-world realities of crime, the fact that stops match up with crime statistics, and the fact that our police officers on patrol — the majority of whom are black, Hispanic, or members of other ethnic or racial minorities — make an average about less than one stop a week.

And even though the plaintiff’s own expert found that about 90 percent of stops have been conducted appropriately and lawfully, and another 5 percent may well have been conducted appropriately and lawfully, the judge still wants to put the NYPD into receivership based on the flimsiest of evidence in a handful of cases.

No federal judge has ever imposed a monitor over a city’s police department following a civil trial. The Justice Department — under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama — never, not once, found reason to investigate the NYPD.

But one small group of advocates — and one judge — conducted their own investigation. And it was pretty clear from the start which way it would turn out.

Given the judge’s public comments and media interviews throughout the case, this decision was certainly not a surprise. From even before the start of the case, when she offered some strategic advice to the plaintiffs that would allow her to hear the case, the judge clearly telegraphed her intentions.

And she conveyed a disturbing disregard for the good intentions of our police officers, who form the most diverse police department in the country, and who put their lives on the line for us every single day.

Throughout the case, we didn’t believe that we were getting a fair trial. This decision confirms that suspicion, and we will be presenting evidence of that unfairness to the appeals court.

We will also be pointing out to the appeals court that Supreme Court precedents were largely ignored in this decision. The NYPD’s ability to stop and question suspects that officers have reason to believe have committed crimes, or are about to commit crimes, is the kind of policing that courts across the nation have found, for decades, to be constitutionally valid.

If this decision were to stand, it would turn those precedents on their head — and make our city, and in fact the whole country, a more dangerous place.

Let’s be clear: People have a right to walk down the street without being targeted by the police — and we have a duty to uphold that right, which is why I’ve signed a law banning racial profiling, and it’s why the NYPD has intensified its training around Stop-Question-Frisk.

But people also have a right to walk down the street without being killed or mugged. And for those rights to be protected, we have to give the members of our Police Department the tools they need to do their jobs without being micro-managed and second-guessed every day by a judge or a monitor.

[BigBallinStalin]

If one feels that all criminals are inferior,
and that one profiles someone based on--not only race/ethnicity, but also other characteristics,
then that would constitute as racial profiling, or would be racist--according to TGD.

So, what if one does all the above, but doesn't feel that criminals are inferior? How is that racist?

What if the same person doesn't feel any particular way about any race? How is that profiling racist?
(I can only answer to the last two: it's not racist).



Also,
If one feels that all criminals are inferior,
and that one profiles some based on--not only skin color (devoid of racial connotation--assume it's possible)*, but also other characteristics,
then that would constitute as racial profiling, or would be racist.

If the profiler did not feel that all criminals are inferior, then how is that racist?


*e.g. suppose a machine IDs people based on skin color. Is the machine racist?
(see last paragraph)

If a profiler does not find criminals inferior to him- or herself, then that is not racist (by the definition you and loutil have provided - Andy's definition may think it's still racist and I'm fairly certain many in the U.S. society will find it racist).

Did the machine program itself? Is the machine 100% accurate as to race? If not, see my 99% of Greeks are burglars example above (somewhere).

RE: underlined, yeah, we're getting back to the Duel for Truth moment where in my opinion people use misleading analogies (from their minds) and apply them erroneously to others. Suddenly, it's as if racism is Everywhere...

I'll look at the 99% Greek burgers example too!

[BigBallinStalin]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, but I believe that the way US law works is that there has to be a reason to suspect that someone has or will break a crime. For example, the police can't just come to your house everyday with a search warrant just because they don't like you. There has to be some reasonable suspicion of illegal activities involved.

FYI, the government is already doing that with the NSA collecting information of every phone call you make and every action you take online. And if they choose to, they can turn on the microphone or camera of any internet capable device. All without any warrants or even suspicions of illegal activities.

If the NSA profiles anyone by at least using a category of skin color, ethnicity, race, then the NSA is a racist, eavesdropping organization--according to TGD.

[thegreekdog]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, but I believe that the way US law works is that there has to be a reason to suspect that someone has or will break a crime. For example, the police can't just come to your house everyday with a search warrant just because they don't like you. There has to be some reasonable suspicion of illegal activities involved.

FYI, the government is already doing that with the NSA collecting information of every phone call you make and every action you take online. And if they choose to, they can turn on the microphone or camera of any internet capable device. All without any warrants or even suspicions of illegal activities.

If the NSA profiles anyone by at least using a category of skin color, ethnicity, race, then the NSA is a racist, eavesdropping organization--according to TGD.

The NSA is not racist. The profiling is racist.

[Phatscotty]

K, so let's put it this way. Let's imagine for a moment, that the your specific neighborhood community has been robbed, burglarized, car jacked....etc, 47 times in the past 90 days. Multiple witness accounts report that the suspect is a 6'4 280 pound black male wearing a black hoodie.

so the next day.....DING DONG! Someone is outside your door. You look out your window and see a 6'4 280 pound black male at his door, wearing a hoody.

Do you open your door? Why or why not?

Would specifically like to hear from Greekdog and Woodruff on this one.

[BigBallinStalin]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, but I believe that the way US law works is that there has to be a reason to suspect that someone has or will break a crime. For example, the police can't just come to your house everyday with a search warrant just because they don't like you. There has to be some reasonable suspicion of illegal activities involved.

FYI, the government is already doing that with the NSA collecting information of every phone call you make and every action you take online. And if they choose to, they can turn on the microphone or camera of any internet capable device. All without any warrants or even suspicions of illegal activities.

If the NSA profiles anyone by at least using a category of skin color, ethnicity, race, then the NSA is a racist, eavesdropping organization--according to TGD.

The NSA is not racist. The profiling is racist.

So if an organization uses racist methods, then it itself is not racist?

I don't mean to bothersome, but your stance is difficult to understand consistently.

[Night Strike]

Excerpts from Mayor Bloomberg’s remarks yesterday.

For any position Bloomberg takes, the opposite is what is Constitutional.

[patches70]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, but I believe that the way US law works is that there has to be a reason to suspect that someone has or will break a crime. For example, the police can't just come to your house everyday with a search warrant just because they don't like you. There has to be some reasonable suspicion of illegal activities involved.

FYI, the government is already doing that with the NSA collecting information of every phone call you make and every action you take online. And if they choose to, they can turn on the microphone or camera of any internet capable device. All without any warrants or even suspicions of illegal activities.

If the NSA profiles anyone by at least using a category of skin color, ethnicity, race, then the NSA is a racist, eavesdropping organization--according to TGD.

The NSA is not racist. The profiling is racist.

So if an organization uses racist methods, then it itself is not racist?

I don't mean to bothersome, but your stance is difficult to understand consistently.

The more centralized the organization the less accountability there is. The NSA isn't racist, everyone who works in the NSA is racist. But no one can hold them accountable and no one would ever simply let racists run things, so no one in the NSA is racist. And no non racist would work for a racist organization, so again, the NSA can't be racist because there is no way that every single one of their employees are racist. The simple fact that there are certainly non racists working for the NSA means the NSA can't be a racist organization. Even though their methods, used/supported and compiled by every employee and endorsed, managed and set down from upon high by the executives of NSA, that those methods are racist, apparently, should not translate into the NSA being a racist organization. Because that would be ludicrous.

Easy peezy.

The NSA is not racist. The profiling is racist.

If the profiling is racist, then what about the people who are actually carrying out the profiling? Who are collecting the data? If the NSA is not racist, then it must be individuals within the NSA who are racist as the NSA uses racist methods which are endorsed and managed by the higher ups within the organization. Right?

It's a weird thing wrapping one's head around if what you say is true. The people actually employing the racist methods aren't racists themselves, they are just following orders and policy. But the people who set the methods and policy aren't racist either. Therefore, even though the NSA engages in racist activities, the NSA itself isn't racist.

It's classic dodging of accountability which always happens when power is centralized. We are conned into thinking such centralization is more efficient, more accountable, but rarely is that ever the case. And when it comes time to point the finger, there is no one to point it to, even though there are clear abuses but no individual is responsible.

I guess we could just do away with all questions regarding race, but that ain't gonna happen because nation security or something or other. Or such data, even though racist to collect, is used to prevent racism. Somehow.

[BigBallinStalin]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, but I believe that the way US law works is that there has to be a reason to suspect that someone has or will break a crime. For example, the police can't just come to your house everyday with a search warrant just because they don't like you. There has to be some reasonable suspicion of illegal activities involved.

FYI, the government is already doing that with the NSA collecting information of every phone call you make and every action you take online. And if they choose to, they can turn on the microphone or camera of any internet capable device. All without any warrants or even suspicions of illegal activities.

If the NSA profiles anyone by at least using a category of skin color, ethnicity, race, then the NSA is a racist, eavesdropping organization--according to TGD.

The NSA is not racist. The profiling is racist.

So if an organization uses racist methods, then it itself is not racist?

I don't mean to bothersome, but your stance is difficult to understand consistently.

The more centralized the organization the less accountability there is. The NSA isn't racist, everyone who works in the NSA is racist. But no one can hold them accountable and no one would ever simply let racists run things, so no one in the NSA is racist. And no non racist would work for a racist organization, so again, the NSA can't be racist because there is no way that every single one of their employees are racist. The simple fact that there are certainly non racists working for the NSA means the NSA can't be a racist organization. Even though their methods, used/supported and compiled by every employee and endorsed, managed and set down from upon high by the executives of NSA, that those methods are racist, apparently, should not translate into the NSA being a racist organization. Because that would be ludicrous.

Easy peezy.

Therefore... the KKK is a violent, nonracist organization which simply uses racist methods--but the organization itself isn't racist.








Oh wait.... Now it makes sense because:

[Phatscotty]

I bet you he gets OJ'd and they throw the book at him.

I like how he made a 911 call copying the girls 911 call! Or was her 911 call copying his?

[notyou2]

I expect he was losing a fight with his girlfriend and needed a shotgun to even things up.

[Phatscotty]

maybe she just made it up that he had a gun so the police would get there faster.

[AAFitz]

maybe she just made it up that he had a gun so the police would get there faster.

Probably.

I just hope he doesn't kill a white male at some point....that would be fucking tragic.

Till then, who cares right bro?

[AAFitz]

I expect he was losing a fight with his girlfriend and needed a shotgun to even things up.

Ya, hes kind of a bitch like that.