The Cis / Privilege definition and intent discussion thread.

The thing is, Jeff, that you play into the racists' hands if you keep using "race" to describe groups of people that are not races. The concept simply isn't true when it comes to human beings.

'Racism' is another problematic word. The phenomenon it describes exists, of course, but it's to narrow to use it to explain things like 'Homophobia' or 'Islamophobia', even if its definition has been expanded to encompass those phenomena as well.

These 'phobias' are problematic words, too. Sure, fear is a big motivator for people to reject other people. But it's not the only reason.

However, we need a word or a term that describes all of the above, because they are essentially the same: the rejection of people because of a perceived common attribute. German scientists came up with the word monster "Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit" (basically: "group-related hostility towards people"). It's very accurate, but difficult to say or write.

Discrimination, perhaps?

Excessive Force? Migrant Shot Dead by U.S. Border Agent Near San Diego After Throwing Rock

Occupy Protester Trial Held to Dig for NYPD Dirt

I think it is silly to assume that people are going to stop classifying groups of people based on perceived characteristics shared within the group.

That is exactly how we as humans understand the world. When a child is learning about animals, they have to learn that both their housecat and the lion at the zoo are cats. They have to see the characteristics they share and notice that some other animals do not share these characteristics. They then need to understand that lions are not the same as housecats even though they are both cats. And they have to recognize those differences.

What is a chair and what is a table? Is a stool a chair or a table? Why is it a stool and not a chair?

The way we understand these things is to classify them. It is not an issue of low self esteem, but a natural part of how we as humans understand the world. We will never understand how to combat these prejudices as long as we act as if classifying groups of things based on perceived characteristics is inherently wrong, because we are just denying our natural method of understanding the world.

By using an example from the animal world - and even two different species -, you highlighted the problem with that concept. (Your other example is just ridiculous.) There are no different human races.

Perceptions can be altered. Categories, too. We do it all the time.

@IcyShadow: Discrimination is an action that results out of said hostility.

Boston Cops Sued for Alleged Excessive Force, Malicious Prosecution

@FAbius, I think you are purposefully not seeing the forest for the trees.

Yeah. Of course that was what I meant. You soooo got me. =)

If someone is beaten up by a cop, that's a complaint that should be followed up. If someone is more qualified than other applicants and doesn't get a job, same thing goes. There ARE ways to deal with it that do not include treating people as anything but people. If cops did face consequences for not following the rules, they would follow said rules. If complaints about landlords in poor areas were not ignored, said landlords would adapt or find other work. Most of the victimization done to people based on race would be much easier to handle IF ONLY OTHER PARTS OF THE SYSTEM WORKED AS THEY SHOULD. Money simply can't be an objection in a country where nobody actually knows how many anti-terrorism authorities actually exist.

Also, anonymity should be used as far as humanly possible. Anonymous applications for jobs and educations are difficult to make biased on race.

But, as I say, the people in charge do not want racial tensions to end, because it plays into their strategy.

I find your last paragraph questionable, thejeff. I could say the very same thing: If we just let the government sponsor ENOUGH race theory and statistics, that'll screw the man. If we just let the government work in every detail of our lives to ban racism, we'll be in a land of ponies and rainbows.

If a cop beats someone up, he can file a complaint. That's easy. If cops in a particular town tend to stop speeders of a particular demographic more often than speeders of other demographics, that's a lot harder to know without looking at statistics, which you don't want to keep. If one group is let off with a warning and another given a ticket for the same behavior or if one group is stopped and frisked more often on the street while others are not bothered, that's pretty much impossible to prove unless you keep data on which groups are stopped.

Or with employment, rarely does the employer say "We're not hiring you because you're black". Nor does the unhired employee get to examine the resumes of the successful applicant or sit in on the interview so he knows that he was the most qualified. Especially at entry level jobs. Again the successful racial and sexual employment discrimination lawsuits have shown patterns of discrimination over many hiring decisions. Individual hiring decisions are subjective. There may be perfectly valid reasons for hiring a slightly less qualified on paper candidate over a minority, but if you always prefer the white guy, then there's a good case you're discriminating.
But if you can't look at that data, there's no way to know.

If the cops follow the books on how to act, beat people up when appropriate and don't beat people up when not appropriate, then it doesn't matter how many of the people they beat up are race X or race Y, that is my thinking. Unless the books specify differences for various races, of course, but that should be a rather rare problem. Do you disagree with this?

As for hiring people, with anonymous procedures, different races should get representative chances at interviews. Your objection is that that isn't how it's done. You could perfectly well send the evaluations of said interviews to a neutral third party for a recommendation, again, without showing names, which would go a long way toward solving the problem. But, no, the current situation is the only one you are willing to see. No wonder you only see the current solutions.

When you say "anonymous procedures" what does this mean? The name redacted? How about the schools, considering some schools have significant populations of a specific racial group, not to mention academies that are single sexed.

Who redacts these? Personal? What if someone there is biased and thus filters applicants before sending them off to various departments?

Would employers be allowed to face-to-face interviews? How would you maintain anonymity in those cases?

My thought was merely name redacted. I am sure you could do far more, but it isn't a prioritized area today. Instead, individuals are supposed to jockey for membership in various groups, and damn the merits. That can't be a better model.

So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?

Reverse it and remove the binary.

Children of judges tend to be part of white culture.

People that stick around and call the cops tend to be part of white culture

Individually the list runs from good to meh. Collectively they make a very strong case.

@FAbius, I think you are purposefully not seeing the forest for the trees.

I think it's the other way around. The point is that denigrating a certain group of people because of a perceived shared attribute like phenotype, descent or religion is hostile. Pure and simple.

The label "race" is part of the problem because it is simply incorrect in relation to people. It's not even used in biology anymore.

If you keep on using "race", you're making it easier for people to denigrate people based on that term.

If the cops follow the books on how to act, beat people up when appropriate and don't beat people up when not appropriate, then it doesn't matter how many of the people they beat up are race X or race Y, that is my thinking. Unless the books specify differences for various races, of course, but that should be a rather rare problem. Do you disagree with this?

As for hiring people, with anonymous procedures, different races should get representative chances at interviews. Your objection is that that isn't how it's done. You could perfectly well send the evaluations of said interviews to a neutral third party for a recommendation, again, without showing names, which would go a long way toward solving the problem. But, no, the current situation is the only one you are willing to see. No wonder you only see the current solutions.

How are you going to make hiring anonymous? They have proven that ethnic names on the tops or resumes receive different treatment than traditional "white" names. Females get fewer call backs and are offered lower salaries based solely on the name on the resume. So unless you remove pretty much all identifiers before it makes it to the decision makers on whether or not to interview, you cannot remove that bias.

And even if you do that, when they meet the people for the interview, the bias will come in when they go to offer jobs to people. And no one is going to hire people without meeting them.

pres man wrote:

@FAbius, I think you are purposefully not seeing the forest for the trees.

I think it's the other way around. The point is that denigrating a certain group of people because of a perceived shared attribute like phenotype, descent or religion is hostile. Pure and simple.

The label "race" is part of the problem because it is simply incorrect in relation to people. It's not even used in biology anymore.

If you keep on using "race", you're making it easier for people to denigrate people based on that term.

Scientific accuracy and common usage are not the same thing.

Magus Janus wrote:

So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?

Reverse it and remove the binary.

Children of judges tend to be part of white culture.

People that stick around and call the cops tend to be part of white culture

Individually the list runs from good to meh. Collectively they make a very strong case.

BNW, I read your recent posts like suggesting that only people who are "part of the white culture", whatever that means, can be racists.

I guess that I am likely reading something wrong (not a native speaker of English). What do you mean with this "white culture" thing ?

Fabius Maximus wrote:

pres man wrote:

@FAbius, I think you are purposefully not seeing the forest for the trees.

I think it's the other way around. The point is that denigrating a certain group of people because of a perceived shared attribute like phenotype, descent or religion is hostile. Pure and simple.

The label "race" is part of the problem because it is simply incorrect in relation to people. It's not even used in biology anymore.

If you keep on using "race", you're making it easier for people to denigrate people based on that term.

Scientific accuracy and common usage are not the same thing.

And your point is?

Fabius, are you saying it is impossible to classify groups of people based on characteristics?

Or are you just trying to crusade against the word "race"?

Because just getting rid of the word racism isn't going to make the problem go away.

The thing is, Jeff, that you play into the racists' hands if you keep using "race" to describe groups of people that are not races. The concept simply isn't true when it comes to human beings.

'Racism' is another problematic word. The phenomenon it describes exists, of course, but it's to narrow to use it to explain things like 'Homophobia' or 'Islamophobia', even if its definition has been expanded to encompass those phenomena as well.

These 'phobias' are problematic words, too. Sure, fear is a big motivator for people to reject other people. But it's not the only reason.

However, we need a word or a term that describes all of the above, because they are essentially the same: the rejection of people because of a perceived common attribute. German scientists came up with the word monster "Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit" (basically: "group-related hostility towards people"). It's very accurate, but difficult to say or write.

We have a term that describes all of the above: "bigot."

Magus Janus wrote:

So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?

Reverse it and remove the binary.

Children of judges tend to be part of white culture.

People that stick around and call the cops tend to be part of white culture

Individually the list runs from good to meh. Collectively they make a very strong case.

And people who are hispanic, as I showed earlier, tend to have problems with African Americans.

Tendencies of groups do not make actualities of people. Your arguing tendency is, as I stated earlier, a case of fallacy of composition. Just like mine was.

Collectively, they do make a strong case with you presenting them... but not for what you think they do. And not on anything related to Zimmerman. And not a case that is a good one.

The issue of the white culture argument is where it originates; it's an argument originally used by racist whites to keep African Americans out of power. Some African Americans since adopted it to help discriminate against whites and to keep their own people in the African American culture... not realizing that the argument also keeps them out of power. And it's still used by the racist whites for the same reason it once was. It's essentially an attempt at societal conditioning of entire races to make everyone think that being in power requires conforming to certain cultural expectations and that those cultural expectations are tied to being white.

As you just demonstrating, it's working.

German scientists came up with the word monster "Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit" (basically: "group-related hostility towards people"). It's very accurate, but difficult to say or write.

Ach, es ist nicht so schwierig!

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Magus Janus wrote:

So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?

Reverse it and remove the binary.

Children of judges tend to be part of white culture.

People that stick around and call the cops tend to be part of white culture

Individually the list runs from good to meh. Collectively they make a very strong case.

BNW, I read your recent posts like suggesting that only people who are "part of the white culture", whatever that means, can be racists.

I guess that I am likely reading something wrong (not a native speaker of English). What do you mean with this "white culture" thing ?

He is saying that in the case, just because the person, Zimmerman, has a Latino mother that it does not mean that he was raised in or currently has Latino culture. The fact that on appearance many can't tell that he is Latino implies that he may very well "pass" as white, in that he may not receive the negative racial stigmas associated with Latinos and instead receives ones associated with white people.

White culture would be people raised with typical He isn't saying only people part of white culture can be racist, but that the type of racism that Zimmerman exhibitted is more common with white on black interactions than Latino on black ones. A lot of that has to do with Zimmerman being middle class and living in a fairly white neighborhood instead of poor Latino one. The US has a lot of segregation within its communities.

The black raven wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Magus Janus wrote:

So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?

Reverse it and remove the binary.

Children of judges tend to be part of white culture.

People that stick around and call the cops tend to be part of white culture

Individually the list runs from good to meh. Collectively they make a very strong case.

BNW, I read your recent posts like suggesting that only people who are "part of the white culture", whatever that means, can be racists.

I guess that I am likely reading something wrong (not a native speaker of English). What do you mean with this "white culture" thing ?

He is saying that in the case, just because the person, Zimmerman, has a Latino mother that it does not mean that he was raised in or currently has Latino culture. The fact that on appearance many can't tell that he is Latino implies that he may very well "pass" as white, in that he may not receive the negative racial stigmas associated with Latinos and instead receives ones associated with white people.

White culture would be people raised with typical He isn't saying only people part of white culture can be racist, but that the type of racism that Zimmerman exhibitted is more common with white on black interactions than Latino on black ones. A lot of that has to do with Zimmerman being middle class and living in a fairly white neighborhood instead of poor Latino one. The US has a lot of segregation within its communities.

His mother is hispanic, not latino. There's a bit of a cultural difference; not enough for most people outside of those two cultures, but enough within them that it ticks some people in them off if you confuse them.

In general, hispanics are the more wide-spread culture and the one most people are familiar with.

Incidentally, one of the articles I posted earlier (the one on which race Zimmerman claims) describes the people he dealt with on a regular basis. There wasn't much segregation in the neighborhood he was in, given the races cited as most commonly at his house. Plus, Martin had family in that neighborhood, so it wasn't actually a segregated white neighborhood.

I see it better now. Thank you C.

Caineach wrote:

The black raven wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Magus Janus wrote:

So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?

Reverse it and remove the binary.

Children of judges tend to be part of white culture.

People that stick around and call the cops tend to be part of white culture

Individually the list runs from good to meh. Collectively they make a very strong case.

BNW, I read your recent posts like suggesting that only people who are "part of the white culture", whatever that means, can be racists.

I guess that I am likely reading something wrong (not a native speaker of English). What do you mean with this "white culture" thing ?

He is saying that in the case, just because the person, Zimmerman, has a Latino mother that it does not mean that he was raised in or currently has Latino culture. The fact that on appearance many can't tell that he is Latino implies that he may very well "pass" as white, in that he may not receive the negative racial stigmas associated with Latinos and instead receives ones associated with white people.

White culture would be people raised with typical He isn't saying only people part of white culture can be racist, but that the type of racism that Zimmerman exhibitted is more common with white on black interactions than Latino on black ones. A lot of that has to do with Zimmerman being middle class and living in a fairly white neighborhood instead of poor Latino one. The US has a lot of segregation within its communities.

His mother is hispanic, not latino. There's a bit of a cultural difference; not enough for most people outside of those two cultures, but enough within them that it ticks some people in them off if you confuse them.

In general, hispanics are the more wide-spread culture and the one most people are familiar with.

Incidentally, one of the articles I posted earlier (the one on which race Zimmerman claims) describes the people he...

Honestly can't say I have ever heard them used anything but interchangeably.

Sissyl wrote:

If the cops follow the books on how to act, beat people up when appropriate and don't beat people up when not appropriate, then it doesn't matter how many of the people they beat up are race X or race Y, that is my thinking. Unless the books specify differences for various races, of course, but that should be a rather rare problem. Do you disagree with this?

As for hiring people, with anonymous procedures, different races should get representative chances at interviews. Your objection is that that isn't how it's done. You could perfectly well send the evaluations of said interviews to a neutral third party for a recommendation, again, without showing names, which would go a long way toward solving the problem. But, no, the current situation is the only one you are willing to see. No wonder you only see the current solutions.

How are you going to make hiring anonymous? They have proven that ethnic names on the tops or resumes receive different treatment than traditional "white" names. Females get fewer call backs and are offered lower salaries based solely on the name on the resume. So unless you remove pretty much all identifiers before it makes it to the decision makers on whether or not to interview, you cannot remove that bias.

And even if you do that, when they meet the people for the interview, the bias will come in when they go to offer jobs to people. And no one is going to hire people without meeting them.

And even if you outsource your hiring to someone else, they're going to meet them and the bias comes in then. Anonymous hiring doesn't even make sense.

It's even less possible when you start thinking about promotions within a company.

Thank you Cain.

Again, its not that only white people can be racist but that the type or tone of zimmerman's racism seems more like "angry white guy racism" than "latino vs black" racism. Its sad that I live in a country with either much less both, but you can hardly fault me for pointing out whats there. When fox news is your biggest defender I think its a lock that its the former rather than the later.

It's essentially an attempt at societal conditioning of entire races to make everyone think that being in power requires conforming to certain cultural expectations and that those cultural expectations are tied to being white.

I don't make the rules, I just point them out.

Tendencies of groups do not make actualities of people. Your arguing tendency is, as I stated earlier, a case of fallacy of composition. Just like mine was.

Incorrect. I am arguing that Zimmerman in particular is a racist based off of what he said and what he did- which was namely to assume that a black kid walking in the neighborhood must be thief. I am not assuming that he's a racist because he's latino and or because he's white. For the TYPE of racism he's exibiting some of my points went into his background.

If the cops follow the books on how to act, beat people up when appropriate and don't beat people up when not appropriate, then it doesn't matter how many of the people they beat up are race X or race Y, that is my thinking. Unless the books specify differences for various races, of course, but that should be a rather rare problem. Do you disagree with this?

Forget the blatant "beat people up" part. That's the easiest to detect and deal with.

Take DWB because it's common and widespread and no matter what, there's never enough cop time to ticket everyone. Assume a given cop sees about 100 people speeding during his shift and has time to ticket 10 of them. In this neighborhood, about 20% of the drivers (and speeders) are black. The biased cop stops 9 black drivers and 1 one white driver. The unbiased one stops 8 white and 2 black drivers.
All the drivers were speeding and thus all the stops are appropriate. Without collecting data on the race of drivers stopped, there's no way to deal with the harassment.

Does it matter? It does to me.

Extend the same basic concept to other crimes.

Honestly can't say I have ever heard them used anything but interchangeably.

This gives me a headache as well. Distinct racial groups... who are indistinct enough that outsiders can't tell the difference.

I just shrug, write down as my lack of education on them, take their word for it, and move on.

Sissyl wrote:

If the cops follow the books on how to act, beat people up when appropriate and don't beat people up when not appropriate, then it doesn't matter how many of the people they beat up are race X or race Y, that is my thinking. Unless the books specify differences for various races, of course, but that should be a rather rare problem. Do you disagree with this?

Forget the blatant "beat people up" part. That's the easiest to detect and deal with.

Take DWB because it's common and widespread and no matter what, there's never enough cop time to ticket everyone. Assume a given cop sees about 100 people speeding during his shift and has time to ticket 10 of them. In this neighborhood, about 20% of the drivers (and speeders) are black. The biased cop stops 9 black drivers and 1 one white driver. The unbiased one stops 8 white and 2 black drivers.
All the drivers were speeding and thus all the stops are appropriate. Without collecting data on the race of drivers stopped, there's no way to deal with the harassment.

Does it matter? It does to me.

Extend the same basic concept to other crimes.

So, if the cops got a rule in their book saying something like "if EVERYONE in the area is driving like a complete friggin moron, book the first ten you see and let the others go", there would be an objective basis for it. Again, if the cops FOLLOW THE RULES, there would be no problem with the method. But again, that seems utterly beyond the pale, so everyone draws the conclusion that you need all sorts of special cases, exceptions, paragraphs, and so on to handle it. It's sad to see that people are so stuck in how they perceive things.

Thank you Cain.

Again, its not that only white people can be racist but that the type or tone of zimmerman's racism seems more like "angry white guy racism" than "latino vs black" racism. Its sad that I live in a country with either much less both, but you can hardly fault me for pointing out whats there. When fox news is your biggest defender I think its a lock that its the former rather than the later.

Magus Janus wrote:

It's essentially an attempt at societal conditioning of entire races to make everyone think that being in power requires conforming to certain cultural expectations and that those cultural expectations are tied to being white.

I don't make the rules, I just point them out.

Quote:

Tendencies of groups do not make actualities of people. Your arguing tendency is, as I stated earlier, a case of fallacy of composition. Just like mine was.

Incorrect. I am arguing that Zimmerman in particular is a racist based off of what he said and what he did- which was namely to assume that a black kid walking in the neighborhood must be thief. I am not assuming that he's a racist because he's latino and or because he's white. For the TYPE of racism he's exibiting some of my points went into his background.

Thing is, neither of us is disagreeing that he's racist; we're disagreeing as to why. You point to his wording and what it sounds like; I point to his claimed race and the history of racism between that racial group and African Americans. The fact he claims to be of hispanic heritage, combined with the fact his neighborhood was inclusive enough to have some of Martin's family there, suggests to me that the racism in question was more along the lines of the hispanic type.

Here's the problem: Neither one of us is George Zimmerman. So we don't know, and all we have to prove it either way is circumstantial evidence, racial interactions, and societal assumptions. End of the day, we both still agree that he's racist.

Now, note that none of the above has anything to do with the fact that the case is still ticking off the hispanics I know. Whether or not Zimmerman thinks like a hispanic or a white man does not change the fact those hispanics view him as hispanic, view the African American community as being racist for casting him as white, and view it as the African American community being hypocritical. So even if you convince me that Zimmerman is pretty much white, you've still done nothing to solve the very problem I was complaining about to begin with. And as I pointed out earlier, I'm not exactly managing to solve it either.

For me, accepting your viewpoint and going on to advocate it is a losing proposition; it would just get me branded as a racist as well. And I guarantee they would brand you as one too. So, in order to fight for racial equality, I'm facing a scenario where, even if you're right, I still have to oppose you and argue that you're wrong just to keep certain allies I need.

So, basically, you can't convince me because other people suck but I still need those other people to accomplish my bigger goals.

And I do not state all of the above to discourage you. I state it to explain the position I'm in. And to suggest this: Let's agree to disagree.

Assume a given cop sees about 100 people speeding during his shift and has time to ticket 10 of them. In this neighborhood, about 20% of the drivers (and speeders) are black. The biased cop stops 9 black drivers and 1 one white driver.

Typically in a speed trap they won't see the driver until past the time they have to decide, so this may be a poor example. Generally they'll weight how much of an effort it will be to chase down the speeder vs. how much they can nail the ticket for. I've seen safe drivers get pulled over while the dude in the Ferrari with ganja smoke pouring out of his windows rockets past.

So, if the cops got a rule in their book saying something like "if EVERYONE in the area is driving like a complete friggin moron, book the first ten you see and let the others go", there would be an objective basis for it. Again, if the cops FOLLOW THE RULES, there would be no problem with the method. But again, that seems utterly beyond the pale, so everyone draws the conclusion that you need all sorts of special cases, exceptions, paragraphs, and so on to handle it. It's sad to see that people are so stuck in how they perceive things.

Well yes. The only way to tell if cops are following the rules is to get some kind of measurement. And we can't assume cops will follow the rules because doing so would be horribly negligent given the amount of data we have of them not following them. Your rule leaves it entirely up to the cops to decide what they want to do and would do nothing to eliminate discrimination. They would just claim they didn't see anyone prior to the 9 black people they pulled over.

thejeff wrote:

Assume a given cop sees about 100 people speeding during his shift and has time to ticket 10 of them. In this neighborhood, about 20% of the drivers (and speeders) are black. The biased cop stops 9 black drivers and 1 one white driver.

Typically in a speed trap they won't see the driver until past the time they have to decide, so this may be a poor example. Generally they'll weight how much of an effort it will be to chase down the speeder vs. how much they can nail the ticket for. I've seen safe drivers get pulled over while the dude in the Ferrari with ganja smoke pouring out of his windows rockets past.

Yeah, in practice it tends to be more the difference between a written or verbal warning and an actual ticket once the stop has been made. And probably applies more to in town violations than highway speed traps.

But I'm constructing a hypothetical example, not building a legal case.

Yeah, in practice it tends to be more the difference between a written or verbal warning and an actual ticket once the stop has been made.

I've never gotten a "verbal warning"; only tickets. Is that really a thing? Cause I'm about the safest Mayberry-looking white boy you've ever seen.

Sissyl wrote:

So, if the cops got a rule in their book saying something like "if EVERYONE in the area is driving like a complete friggin moron, book the first ten you see and let the others go", there would be an objective basis for it. Again, if the cops FOLLOW THE RULES, there would be no problem with the method. But again, that seems utterly beyond the pale, so everyone draws the conclusion that you need all sorts of special cases, exceptions, paragraphs, and so on to handle it. It's sad to see that people are so stuck in how they perceive things.

Well yes. The only way to tell if cops are following the rules is to get some kind of measurement. And we can't assume cops will follow the rules because doing so would be horribly negligent given the amount of data we have of them not following them. Your rule leaves it entirely up to the cops to decide what they want to do and would do nothing to eliminate discrimination. They would just claim they didn't see anyone prior to the 9 black people they pulled over.

And their cameras would say something else, right? So, random samples should be quite enough in this case. But, no, I forgot. Things are this way (tm), and could never change, no matter what anyone did, right?

thejeff wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

If the cops follow the books on how to act, beat people up when appropriate and don't beat people up when not appropriate, then it doesn't matter how many of the people they beat up are race X or race Y, that is my thinking. Unless the books specify differences for various races, of course, but that should be a rather rare problem. Do you disagree with this?

Forget the blatant "beat people up" part. That's the easiest to detect and deal with.

Take DWB because it's common and widespread and no matter what, there's never enough cop time to ticket everyone. Assume a given cop sees about 100 people speeding during his shift and has time to ticket 10 of them. In this neighborhood, about 20% of the drivers (and speeders) are black. The biased cop stops 9 black drivers and 1 one white driver. The unbiased one stops 8 white and 2 black drivers.
All the drivers were speeding and thus all the stops are appropriate. Without collecting data on the race of drivers stopped, there's no way to deal with the harassment.

Does it matter? It does to me.

Extend the same basic concept to other crimes.

So, if the cops got a rule in their book saying something like "if EVERYONE in the area is driving like a complete friggin moron, book the first ten you see and let the others go", there would be an objective basis for it. Again, if the cops FOLLOW THE RULES, there would be no problem with the method. But again, that seems utterly beyond the pale, so everyone draws the conclusion that you need all sorts of special cases, exceptions, paragraphs, and so on to handle it. It's sad to see that people are so stuck in how they perceive things.

Look, I'll concede that in cases where we can construct hard and fast rules that take human discretion entirely out of the picture, you're right. I just don't think there are enough of those that treating race like it doesn't exist is good plan.

I also think taking human discretion out of the picture is usually a good thing, despite the prejudice that allows. See: Mandatory minimums

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, in practice it tends to be more the difference between a written or verbal warning and an actual ticket once the stop has been made.

I've never gotten a "verbal warning"; only tickets. Is that really a thing? Cause I'm about the safest Mayberry-looking white boy you've ever seen.

They exist. I've gotten a few.

Of course, it helps that it's obvious I'm not entirely that bright, so cops tend not to give me a ticket out of pity.

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, in practice it tends to be more the difference between a written or verbal warning and an actual ticket once the stop has been made.

I've never gotten a "verbal warning"; only tickets. Is that really a thing? Cause I'm about the safest Mayberry-looking white boy you've ever seen.

I've gotten them. Not in years though. Not a lot of tickets in years either.

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, in practice it tends to be more the difference between a written or verbal warning and an actual ticket once the stop has been made.

I've never gotten a "verbal warning"; only tickets. Is that really a thing? Cause I'm about the safest Mayberry-looking white boy you've ever seen.

I've gotten 2 verbal warnings, mostly because I think they were looking for DUIs and I was sober. One of the times the guy was obviously pissed after he flashed the lights in my eyes and my pupils didn't dilate like he was expecting. I had another cop drop a ticket from going 22 over to generic unspecified traffic violation.

I've been in the car with a woman who managed to get the cop to drop the ticket by showing some cleavage.

The simple truth is nothing in life will reflect the population in any way on an equitable level, from how black/white/asian/whatever is arrested to how many of them are going into Harvard or how many of them are being hired as firefighters. Just not going to happen when you take into consideration economic, cultural and gender factors.

Assuming direct control

The long-term goal of myself and others is to equalize the economic and cultural factors. Gender factors are also on the list, but that area is a lot more grey; it necessitates balancing the genders as much as possible while not setting it up so that there is a switch between which which gender is dominant and which is discriminated against.

They exist. I've gotten a few.

Huh. Must be something related to how I used to always get "randomly" selected for "additional screening" at the airport.

A friend of the family always told me that I "just look like a criminal," despite being a polite, clean-shaven, small, unimposing white professional. Go figure.

If the cops follow the books on how to act

In case you haven't been following this thread in which you are now posting, that's a BIG F#+@ING IF.

Thing is, it doesn't work that way, and just because IF the world were perfect bad things wouldn't happen to good people, doesn't mean it isn't useful to know WHICH bad things happen to WHICH good people.

So you're taking the weaker position because its politically correct. All of your "points" are a coin flip , they could go one way or the other to show either side. This makes your entire thought process arbitrary and random when you repeatedly select heads for no reason.

history of racism between that racial group and African Americans.- Goes for either white or hispanic.

One of his parents is white/hispanic Goes for both.

The fact he claims to be of hispanic heritage- which doesn't mean he picked up any racism from that

combined with the fact his neighborhood was inclusive enough to have some of Martin's family there- And was exclusive enough that he couldn't confuse martin with another kid who lived there more often.

suggests to me that the racism in question was more along the lines of the hispanic type

Your exact same arguments work equally well for either side and his own actions and words greatly contradict you.

MagnusJanus wrote:

They exist. I've gotten a few.

Huh. Must be something related to how I used to always get "randomly" selected for "additional screening" at the airport.

A friend of the family always told me that I "just look like a criminal," despite being a polite, clean-shaven, small, unimposing white professional. Go figure.

Joe Pesci is all of those things, and just look at him. :P

Joe Pesci is all of those things, and just look at him. :P

I love in Lethal Weapon IV when Chris Rock calls him a "f~+&ing leprechaun."

I've been to the islamic republic of mauriania, so I always need to plan on an extra hour of "Random" screening even if i get the beard trimmed.

Kirth, from now on, I'm going to imagine all of your posts in the voice of Joe Pesci. Laugh all you want. it'd probably get funded on Kickstarter.

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, in practice it tends to be more the difference between a written or verbal warning and an actual ticket once the stop has been made.

I've never gotten a "verbal warning"; only tickets. Is that really a thing? Cause I'm about the safest Mayberry-looking white boy you've ever seen.

Verbal warning is code for "I didn't have my radar gun on but my gut feeling is you were speeding."

I was once threatened a speeding ticket for going 10mph over, but I was actually going UNDER the speed limit and passing someone who was doing like 47 on the intersate, so it may have looked like I was a speed demon.

I denied I was speeding, asked to see the radar gun (which they're required to do in this state should you ask) and she told me if she let me see the radar she'd give me a ticket, but if I just shut up I'll get off with a warning.

Oh, and a $10 ticket for not wearing my seat belt on LITERALLY the first day in my state in which that was illegal.

Magus Janus wrote:

So people who are not part of the white culture cannot be children of judges?

Reverse it and remove the binary.

Children of judges tend to be part of white culture.

People that stick around and call the cops tend to be part of white culture

Individually the list runs from good to meh. Collectively they make a very strong case.

There's a LOT of BS on this thread. You just claimed many African American, Asian, and Hispanic judges are all part of white culture.

They are all whites according to what you are trying to define.

This is BS in my opinion.

What next, you going to say all lawyers have to be white as well...hence is why Obama is actually a white?

Bet you'll next say Jesse Jackson and Al Franken are white as well.

PS: Zimmerman was placed in the Hispanic category previously, including his previous arrest record.

Basically, he was classified as Hispanic...which sort of blows your entire everyone is labled as white theory waaaaay out of the water.

Personally, I don't know what to think. He seems to have an explosive personality that causes disruption and clashes everywhere. He had violence to a criminal degree BEFORE the classic case that made him famous, and he's had violence to what would probably be a criminal degree AFTERWARDS. It seems here...that Zimmerman may actually be someone who cannot control his violence and hence his multiple threats against others in regards to him simply shooting them.

That said, from what I saw, I also think the other poor murdered boy was NOT SO INNOCENT either. I'd say he was probably a dead ringer for the thefts occurring in the neighborhood (which mysteriously stopped after the kids death from what I've heard....go figure), but that doesn't mean he deserved to die...period.

In either case, it was a bad case with media publicity...as I think there were no real "good guys" with that case...both were bad apples, and as bad apples are apt...they tend to meet and conflict with each other many times.

I think this case is the epitomy of the hard decisions police officers have to make however. Here you have a situation where no one is a clear cut good or bad guy. That makes it tricky. I think their initial decision was perhaps correct...as it was later backed up by a court (irregardless of how controversial you think that decision was). The only difference was when they made a decision, it didn't cost a multimillion dollar court case...which would have saved the govt. millions of dollars.

But an easy decision...definitely not. As we also saw in the court case...it actually may have been able to go either way also.

However, the media wanted it's story in which it sainted someone who probably shouldn't have been sainted, and demonized a man who probably deserved to be demonized.