This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Racism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
That is bad...but then again, there are people who say because
Metabee
was voiced by a black person, his obsession with watermelons was racist...completely and utterly forgetting that he is a Beetle type robot, and beetles like watermelons. /sigh Stupidity.
Reminds me of worgen controversy. You know in Silverpine they used to be in chains, dropping watermelons and 'worgen' is 'negrow' if spelled backwards...
I don't think that became a controversy. I think it was a troll line, and they were making fun of how out of the way some people went to be offended by strings of coincidences.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Lol
.
Post by
MyTie
Lol
.
My friend's sister's aunt's mortician overheard that someone said that Michelle Obama said that POTUS likes cheese because it comes from the moon. Lol POTUS is so dumb.
Post by
MyTie
Is racial profiling a form of racism?
This CNN article
thinks that racial profiling is horrible. It says that New York's stop and frisk law (which has lowered murder rate by 21%, and illegal guns found by 31%,
source
) is racist, and that even getting an "attitude" can get you killed. She then goes on to explain that the Arizona Immigration law is racist because it allows the police to profile who they are suspecting of being illegal immigrants. What bothers me is that racial profiling is common sense. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexicans, and the vast majority of murders in New York are perpetrated by blacks. Why must our police be ignorant of racial issues in order to be racially sensitive? Why must the issues which are often centered on a certain race be ignored? Why doesn't the lady writing that article question the african american community, and demand it hold itself to a higher standard. That is what I do when white people murder people. I demand they stop, not try to paint the issue as racist. The bigger issue here is self-victimization. I loathe self-victimization. I don't mind when people point to a perpetrated wrong when there is one, but this isn't one. I question if this is a intrusion of privacy, and a right to avoid search and seizure, but it is most definitely
not
a civil rights issue, regardless of who the police stop. The fact that more blacks are stopped, and murder rate has gone down, should tell us that this is helping the black community, not hurting it. But, I'm not one to argue the ends justifying the means. If it is an intrusion of privacy, address it as such, which has merit. It is not a racial issue, and if it is, that doesn't make it wrong, it makes it accurate.
Post by
Magician22773
I have an issue with racial profiling. I dont have an issue with profiling, even if race is a part of the "profile". So whats the difference?
To just say that "blacks account for 90% of the crime, so we are going to stop
all
blacks" is racial profiling, and is a racisct tactic. However, stopping the black guy wearing saggy pants and a red bandanna, walking around on the streets at 2 am, is smart policing. Stopping the black guy in a business suit walking down Wall Street at 2 pm is racist.
Strip searching the 65 year old married couple taking a flight to Florida is ignorant and a waste of time, while searching two young arab men with one way tickets and no luggage on the same flight would be a smart thing to do.
And look, it goes both ways. If you see a couple white kids cruising around the ghetto, there is a pretty good chance they are looking to score drugs.....pull their ass over.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
which has lowered murder rate by 21%
This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Murder rates have been declining throughout the US and in the UK and Canada since the 80s. In order to demonstrate that the stop and search laws are the reason for the decline in murder rate, you have to account for whichever variables are causing the decline in murder rates elsewhere.
That is what I do when white people murder people.
Really? I certainly haven't seen it. I've never read a post of yours where you said "this is a terrible shame, the white community needs to address this recent spate of crimes, I'll take an active involvement in trying to stop my contribution as a white person to this criminal activity". That'd be an unrealistic standard to expect from you or from anyone.
Edit:
Arizona is actually
being sued
over their application of racial profiling laws. Of particular note is how they treat
pregnant women
.
Post by
MyTie
which has lowered murder rate by 21%
This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Murder rates have been declining throughout the US and in the UK and Canada since the 80s. In order to demonstrate that the stop and search laws are the reason for the decline in murder rate, you have to account for whichever variables are causing the decline in murder rates elsewhere. Did you read the part where they were projected to be as low as they were in like... 1963? That's unignorable, and something that monumentous demands that this sort of stop and frisk law be taken seriously.
That is what I do when white people murder people.
Really? I certainly haven't seen it. I've never read a post of yours where you said "this is a terrible shame, the white community needs to address this recent spate of crimes, I'll take an active involvement in trying to stop my contribution as a white person to this criminal activity". That'd be an unrealistic standard to expect from you or from anyone.The most recent sort of thing like this, that I can think of, is where that white preacher (I am a white preacher) went on a rant about gay people, saying they should be caged up and left die off because they can't reproduce. Instead of defending him, or saying he was being picked on because people like to be biased against Christianity, I said that what he was doing was wrong, and reflected negatively on all Christians. I do not self victimize. I simply don't do it. If I am being victimized by an outside source, I'll defend myself, but I won't try to broadly sweep people who have things in common with me as right.
I'm sorry you haven't noticed me doing this sort of thing, but I do do it nonetheless.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
First, I apoligize for barely being able to put a coherant post together lately. We lost 2 employees when school let out for the summer, and I am just about mentally exhausted these last few days.
I actually think we all are pretty much on the same page here. Profiling a person based
only
on their race is just wrong. However acting upon a legitimate criminal profile, even if race is a part of that profile, is just good police work. If you can show that 80% of all crime in an area is done by black males between the ages of 18-25 after midnight, then stopping and checking out all the black males between 18-25 after midnight is pretty smart, and will almost guarantee a lower crime rate.
It also is up to the cops to make sure that they act in a manner that is respectful of the individuals until they find that they actuall are doing something wrong. This is the case in some of the Arizona issues. The facts are, many of the Mexicans in border states are illegal. A higher portion of those that do not speak English are illegal. So simply asking a Spanish speaking Latino in a border state to show proper identification should not be an issue. Instantly assuming that the individual is illegal, and handcuffing them or treating them with disrespect, even before thay have a chance to find their ID is wrong.
If the "stop and search" tactics were just a simple two or three minute delay for an innnocent person, and they were treated respectfully during the process, I dont see the problem. Hell, I generally draw a second glance from cops all the time, especially if I am wearing a short sleeve shirt. I am 6'2, a pretty big guy, and have 1 arm fully sleeved in ink. I look a lot more like a biker than I do an electrical engineer. If an officer thinks I look out of place, or even moreso, if I fit a description of someone that has been commiting a crime in the area I am in, I would have no issue with a quick Q and A session with law enforcement. It has happened more than once, and so far, thankfully all of them have been good experiences.
Post by
MyTie
Including race in a profile of a person, and taking into consideration the issues that do apply to that race, is not wrong, but is smart.
I can't defend people who profile someone, and then beat the hell out of them. That's not what this debate is about. That's wrong. I can't defend people who stop people "because they are black". Again, that's not what this is about. We are talking about police taking race into account when they do a complete profile on someone, which I believe, is the opposite of ignorance. I believe those that argue that race should not be considered when profiling someone argue in favor of being ignorant to the real issues.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Including more data in a profile would be better if the subsequent analysis was done correctly, but in the real world it's not - cops walking the streets are (in general) using more instinct than Bayes' Theorem. Of course overestimating the strength of a correlation would be fine if false positives didn't matter - and if you're not the one being profiled, maybe they don't. But the thesis of the article you linked was that to others, they do.
If I were black, and I lived in one of the highest black on black murder rate communities in the US, if not the world, and I had children, I would support a law that made it legal to profile, and risk getting stopped and frisked myself, if it made the community a DRASTICALLY safer place for my kids.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
If I were black, and I lived in one of the highest black on black murder rate communities in the US, if not the world, and I had children, I would support a law that made it legal to profile, and risk getting stopped and frisked myself, if it made the community a DRASTICALLY safer place for my kids.
You aren't paying attention. What's made the NYC program effective is that they stop people with dramatically less probable cause than would typically be required. It's not effective because they are profiling - they strenuously claim that they aren't.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement. I'm saying that IF THEY WERE, I'd still support it, even if I were one of the targets.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not disagreeing with your statement. I'm saying that IF THEY WERE, I'd still support it, even if I were one of the targets.
If they were, they'd be enforcing less effectively than if they stopped.
I disagree. Racial issues, and statistics are real.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.