Confronting Racism

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2016, 01:51 PM)Vlad Wrote: This is funny. Not surprised you are programmed through the media that if you are a serial killer then you must be white.

I never said this atr all.  i think you should be talking to Sovereign Nation about this.  he is the one who claimed that white people were profiled as serial killers.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2016, 01:35 PM)Vlad Wrote: Then you have this black girl who because of who she is, has the privilege of falsely accusing a bunch of white college boys of rape, then has the privilege of going to the leader of black people Al Sharpton who himself is privileged to blather any racist comment or false accusations without repercussions.

White women also make false rape claims.  Also black women make false rape claims against black men.  I Don't see how this has anything to do with race.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2016, 01:51 PM)Vlad Wrote: This is funny. Not surprised you are programmed through the media that if you are a serial killer then you must be white.

Aren't you sort of profiling?  Or perhaps this is a form of black privilege not being identified as serial killers cause ts a "white thing".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8gYc5fvMQ0&list=PLSKu3-GoiQywWjC9MbMDNtUGCya2z4ho6

Black guy driving slowly through a neighborhood known for drug deals gets stopped.  Was he profiled for being black or for being in the neighborhood known for crime?

Black guy driving slowly through a mostly white neighborhood gets stopped.  Was he profiled for being black or for being in the neighborhood?

Now put a white person in the same situations and ask yourself if they would even be stopped in the second one.

We had a guy living at the end of our road who had been a drug dealer.  When there were a lot of cars in and out we were suspicious.  So we watch but there has been no crime so we can't stop every car in and out.

Most serial killers have turned out to be white males.  It makes sense to look in that direction first when they are looking for a serial killer.  However I've never heard of white males being randomly stopped just because most serial killers are white males.

Being vigilant is not the same as profiling. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-12-2016, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Claiming the it is a "privilege" to be the victim of racial profiling is absurd.

What is that straw thingy you keep running your junk-holster about? Not sure I ever said being a victim of racial profiling is a privilege, But you I do see the need to make up things to try and support a feeble argument. 

I simply said people of color have the privilege of saying "It's because I'm black" that white folks do not; because the Fred Toasts of the world keep reminding them that they are victims.  

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They get no benefit from being able to make that claim.

No one in their right mind would claim that it is somehow a "privilege" to be targeted by bpolice just because of their race.

No Fred, you keep missing that the police are stopping these people because they are in the process of committing a crime.

Hence the college professor...

She was speeding, driving on a suspended license, and had 2 warrants for her arrest.

It wasn't like the cops said, "Let's pull her over because she's black! She must have done something wrong!"

If she wasn't speeding, then the cops wouldn't have pulled her over, they wouldn't have found that her license was suspended, and they wouldn't have uncovered the warrants.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 01:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said this atr all.  i think you should be talking to Sovereign Nation about this.  he is the one who claimed that white people were profiled as serial killers.

Yeah and I intentionally left out that the 1st suspected serial killer in the US was a black 17 year old, as well as the Beltway snipers not fitting in with the FBI "PROFILE" of what to look for with regards to finding a serial killer.

I like how you have said that when police are investigating a serial killer that the profiling isn't intrusive as it is for blacks.

How often have you been under investigation for being a serial killer?

I myself have never been under investigation, so I wouldn't know how intrusive it really is.

However, I will say, that being questioned repeatedly, search warrants, cops showing up at different times in the day or week could be a little intrusive, if you fit the profile (there is that word again) and there is strong suspicion that you might be the one they are looking for.

The reason I didn't mention how blacks have also been serial killers was because I wanted to see if you would go "blacks have been serial killers too", but you didn't thus proving my point.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 02:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Black guy driving slowly through a neighborhood known for drug deals gets stopped.  Was he profiled for being black or for being in the neighborhood known for crime?

Black guy driving slowly through a mostly white neighborhood gets stopped.  Was he profiled for being black or for being in the neighborhood?

Now put a white person in the same situations and ask yourself if they would even be stopped in the second one.

We had a guy living at the end of our road who had been a drug dealer.  When there were a lot of cars in and out we were suspicious.  So we watch but there has been no crime so we can't stop every car in and out.

Most serial killers have turned out to be white males.  It makes sense to look in that direction first when they are looking for a serial killer.  However I've never heard of white males being randomly stopped just because most serial killers are white males.

Being vigilant is not the same as profiling. 

See, more proof.  If there is a serial killer, then it is being "vigilant" to question the white man.

It isn't being vigilant, but profiling, to question a suspected drug dealer (most usually involved in violent crimes themselves).

Nebuchadnezzar just give evidence that yes a white guy can and will be pulled over in a mostly white neighborhood.

I know it has happened to me as well.  Though I don't know if it was because I was white, but I have been stopped by police, questioned, then sent on my way.  

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 07:22 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: See, more proof.  If there is a serial killer, then it is being "vigilant" to question the white man.

It isn't being vigilant, but profiling, to question a suspected drug dealer (most usually involved in violent crimes themselves).

Nebuchadnezzar just give evidence that yes a white guy can and will be pulled over in a mostly white neighborhood.

I know it has happened to me as well.  Though I don't know if it was because I was white, but I have been stopped by police, questioned, then sent on my way.  

I'm not understanding your logic. You realize serial killer profiles you keep referring to have more than racial components, right? They take into account race, age, income level, family history, occupation, mental health history, hobbies, even physical appearances.

You're comparing that to stopping someone because statistically if they're black in certain zip code there's a good chance they've got drugs on them.

That's not really the same thing.

[BmorePat87]

(02-12-2016, 12:01 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You and Fred must have had the same teachers. 

Instead of it being you, it is me.  Right?

It isn't the best debating tactic.  It is one that is lazy and shows that the person doesn't have a strong position.

So you resort to, "you just don't understand!"

When it is clear that I do understand, I just refuted you.

Soon someone will start bringing up birds and games.

Hold up, sparky. I just said you seem to have not understood my post. I would suggest that you reread it and address what I said, not what you believe I said.

You were arguing against  a number of points I did not make. Given the fact that I saw you call someone else out for a strawman, I am assuming you were not doing the same in response to my post. Maybe you were, though.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 12:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not ignore the video.  The video supported my position.  

What did you expect me to say about it?

Well, for starters, I would love to see how this video supports your position?


Remember the original argument is how white privilege is the same thing as white shaming and white guilt.

I mean, I wonder what a black person thinks a white person sees when a White man says "hello" to a black woman and she looks away and moves away quickly?

I wonder what a black person thinks when a white person sees, MLK blvd (not all of us hold MLK as a saint) or Malcolm X, or Black Lives Matter shirts?

I wonder what black people think when we whites go into a grocery store and we get suspicious looks? (I am betting the looks might have something to do with the outfit, since I got more of those when I was younger and dressed a certain way, men wearing professional uniforms or suites don't get glared at in stores)

I wonder what black people think we whites think when they try to tell us that just walking up to a white police officer with a smile and a friendly demeanor will always result in the cop being aggressive with them? 

I wonder what black people think when we don't get a taxi?  I know, I myself have had taxis drive right past me, I usually attributed it to the taxi going to a call, I had no idea it was because the driver must have mistaken me for being black.

Here is another question:  My stance is white privilege is the same as white shaming and guilt - your stance is that they are not the same (correct if I am wrong)

If white privilege isn't white shaming or white guilt... then why even bring it up?  Why mention it?  What would be the purpose of mentioning white privilege if NOT to shame or guilt white people about an injustice?

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 07:32 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm not understanding your logic. You realize serial killer profiles you keep referring to have more than racial components, right? They take into account race, age, income level, family history, occupation, mental health history, hobbies, even physical appearances.

You're comparing that to stopping someone because statistically if they're black in certain zip code there's a good chance they've got drugs on them.

That's not really the same thing.

Hmmm where to begin?  How about we ask your question with a twist, we will remove serial killers and replace with drug dealers and criminal activities.

You do realize that there is more to profiling for drug dealers and other criminal activities than the racial components, right?
Police take into account race, age, income level, family history, occupation, mental health history, hobbies, even physical appearances.

I have yet to see any evidence to support that black people have been stopped just for being black.  The black suspect is the one that has made the claim, the officer on the other hand has never came out and said "Yep, I pulled him over for being black."

Please show me where a cop has pulled over a black man in a business suit, driving a well kept vehicle, going the speed limit.  Show me one where the black man was pulled over.  Let alone asked to get out of his vehicle so a search for drugs could be done.

Here is the whole problem with this racial profiling issue.  It is blacks who claim they are being stopped for being black.  If there is a guy that fits the description of a known drug dealer and he is stopped and questioned, then that is not racial profiling.  However, just as in the case of the professor, nothing stops him from claiming it, even if the other factors where observed as well.  

[Vas Deferens]

(02-12-2016, 07:38 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Well, for starters, I would love to see how this video supports your position?


Remember the original argument is how white privilege is the same thing as white shaming and white guilt.

I mean, I wonder what a black person thinks a white person sees when a White man says "hello" to a black woman and she looks away and moves away quickly?

I wonder what a black person thinks when a white person sees, MLK blvd (not all of us hold MLK as a saint) or Malcolm X, or Black Lives Matter shirts?

I wonder what black people think when we whites go into a grocery store and we get suspicious looks? (I am betting the looks might have something to do with the outfit, since I got more of those when I was younger and dressed a certain way, men wearing professional uniforms or suites don't get glared at in stores)

I wonder what black people think we whites think when they try to tell us that just walking up to a white police officer with a smile and a friendly demeanor will always result in the cop being aggressive with them? 

I wonder what black people think when we don't get a taxi?  I know, I myself have had taxis drive right past me, I usually attributed it to the taxi going to a call, I had no idea it was because the driver must have mistaken me for being black.

Here is another question:  My stance is white privilege is the same as white shaming and guilt - your stance is that they are not the same (correct if I am wrong)

If white privilege isn't white shaming or white guilt... then why even bring it up?  Why mention it?  What would be the purpose of mentioning white privilege if NOT to shame or guilt white people about an injustice?

Just because white privilege exists, doesn't mean that you have to feel ashamed or guilty about it.  It's helpful to accept its existence in order to move society forward and shorted the gaps. 

You keep mentioning white people 'giving up power'...  What types of 'power' is being relinquished by merely acknowledging ones own privilege and moving on from there?  

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 08:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They want reparations from their own country that allowed their ancestors to be treated like property for generations. How are they going to get reparations from nations form well after the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade?

That also implies an equal partnership between African tribes/kingdoms and Europeans and downplays Europe's role in establishing this industry. Equating the existence of slavery in Africa to the industry it became with Europeans is like comparing subsistence farming to corporate farming and suggesting that these smaller farmers who were forced into selling out or working for the corporate farms are equal partners in trade.

(02-12-2016, 08:36 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You are reaching here.

Blacks don't want reparations from the US, they want it from the White US.  If blacks were the majority leaders in the US, they wouldn't want reparations.

So are you denying that the slaves were not bought and paid for?  You really think that white men were hanging around with nets, ready to grab unsuspecting blacks?  Europeans had slaves, the slaves they had were white, I don't think anyone denies that slavery has been a part of European history.  

However, slavery wasn't invented by whites.  The pyramids in Egypt weren't created by volunteers, nor where they paid workers either.  Slavery is a part of every races history.  Your analogy doesn't fit, since it implies that the African tribes and kingdoms were forced into providing slaves, and that they weren't just looking for a way to sell their own people to make a quick fortune.

(02-12-2016, 07:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Hold up, sparky. I just said you seem to have not understood my post. I would suggest that you reread it and address what I said, not what you believe I said.

You were arguing against  a number of points I did not make. Given the fact that I saw you call someone else out for a strawman, I am assuming you were not doing the same in response to my post. Maybe you were, though.

So then let us go back and take a look.

Nope:  You claimed that blacks only want reparations from there own country that treated their ancestors poorly. 

I refuted that and pointed out that blacks don't want reparations from black US, only white US.  If blacks were the majority influence in the US then they wouldn't say anything about reparations.  Dino even suggested that they wouldn't need to because, and I am assuming here, he would feel that "Justice would be served".

You then suggested that the slave trade was not an equal partnership and that the black tribes were somehow forced by the Europeans to partake in it.  You say that it downplays Europe's role in establishing the slave trade (this is strawman here, since I didn't downplay it, I was only highlighting that it wasn't just European's involved).

Based off of that suggestion, I asked if you thought white men hung out with nets?  (this is that hyperbole that Dino likes so much)

I then conceded your statement that Europeans had been involved with slavery before the African slave trade, by mentioning how they had white slaves. (see I am conceding your point, as in stating that you are right about this)

I finish up though with a point that while white Europeans did in fact have slaves, slavery itself was around for a long time by mentioning a culture in Africa that utilized slaves long before Europe was in the history books.

I then pointed out how your analogy doesn't fit due to the implication that the tribes were forced to be a part of the trade, as opposed to be force out, like the farmers in your analogy.

So unless you are using different definitions for your words, that I am unaware of, then I am pretty sure I understood your post.

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 07:49 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Hmmm where to begin?  How about we ask your question with a twist, 

... uh... why not just answer the question? Why change the question? Because it doesn't support your opinion?

Quote:we will remove serial killers and replace with drug dealers and criminal activities.


You do realize that there is more to profiling for drug dealers and other criminal activities than the racial components, right?
Police take into account race, age, income level, family history, occupation, mental health history, hobbies, even physical appearances.

...uh... I'm not following. If you stop someone on the street, you have no way of knowing occupation, family history, hobbies or the rest. All you've got is race, sex, age and physical appearance. So... no, you're incorrect.

Quote:I have yet to see any evidence to support that black people have been stopped just for being black.  The black suspect is the one that has made the claim, the officer on the other hand has never came out and said "Yep, I pulled him over for being black."

Please show me where a cop has pulled over a black man in a business suit, driving a well kept vehicle, going the speed limit.  Show me one where the black man was pulled over.  Let alone asked to get out of his vehicle so a search for drugs could be done.
 

Well this is just getting dumb.

Quote:Here is the whole problem with this racial profiling issue.  It is blacks who claim they are being stopped for being black.  If there is a guy that fits the description of a known drug dealer and he is stopped and questioned, then that is not racial profiling.  However, just as in the case of the professor, nothing stops him from claiming it, even if the other factors where observed as well.  

You're not helping your cause here. Departments for years have admitted they do it to a degree. And to a degree it's acceptable. If it wasn't, local, state and federal departments in the last few years wouldn't have started placing more restrictions on what can be just cause for detaining someone. But the general idea is, if you're pulling people over solely because of race, then it's an issue.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 08:04 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Just because white privilege exists, doesn't mean that you have to feel ashamed or guilty about it.  It's helpful to accept its existence in order to move society forward and shorted the gaps. 

You keep mentioning white people 'giving up power'...  What types of 'power' is being relinquished by merely acknowledging ones own privilege and moving on from there?  

Well then, I am sure that blacks in America will have no problem accepting the existence of black privilege, right?  Since there is nothing to feel ashamed or guilty about.  It would be helpful, in realizing that there isn't a need to shorten any gaps and society can move forward.

Fred is under the impression that whites are in control of a disproportionate amount of power.  My point is, even if this is true, it isn't a bad thing.  There is nothing wrong with whites being in control. 

If you acknowledge white privilege, then that only gives power over to those that also have privilege but refuse to acknowledge their own, it would give them a moral high ground from which to constantly ask for things that they aren't entitled to.  If you refuse at any point to concede to their demands then all they have to do is remind you of how privileged you are, and thus you acquiescence.

Look at the college universities, look at the removal of the Confederate Flag.  The push to have the title "Master" removed from certain college positions.  The push to remove Ovid, Aristotle, Plato from literary courses and have them replaced with Toni Morrison.

http://www.charleskochinstitute.org/columbia-university-toni-morrison-trigger-warnings/


How about this: 
Saida Grundy a black professor at Boston college posted that "white males are THE problem in our country" (paraphrasing), she gets to keep her job.  Came under some fire, but still employed and doesn't feel one bit remorseful of her actions.

Yale Lecturer Erika Christakis has resigned over an email that she sent out stating that it should be OK for students to be "a little bit offensive" on Halloween, due to the backlash and extensive coverage that she received. 

Grundy is the benefactor of black privilege, but doesn't acknowledge it, so she gets to keep her job.

Christakis is the victim of black privildege, but probably (again, assuming here) believes in white privilege, so in order for her to atone, must resign and no longer has her job.  

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 08:17 PM)Benton Wrote: ... uh... why not just answer the question? Why change the question? Because it doesn't support your opinion?



...uh... I'm not following. If you stop someone on the street, you have no way of knowing occupation, family history, hobbies or the rest. All you've got is race, sex, age and physical appearance. So... no, you're incorrect.



Well this is just getting dumb.



You're not helping your cause here. Departments for years have admitted they do it to a degree. And to a degree it's acceptable. If it wasn't, local, state and federal departments in the last few years wouldn't have started placing more restrictions on what can be just cause for detaining someone. But the general idea is, if you're pulling people over solely because of race, then it's an issue.

I am not a fan of asking a question in response to a question.  However, there is a time to do so.  This was one of those times.  Your question can best be answered by repeating your question and replacing the words "serial killer" with "drug dealers and criminals".

Then you see that there are plenty of factors involved when a cop stops a person and race is only one of those factors and not even the main factor.

If you don't follow along that is your problem.  However I will try to help you understand.  Do you think a police officer knows any information on a serial killer?  No, they have to build a case, look at the evidence, build a profile, find people that fit the profile and then gather more information on those people.  They won't know what a person's job is, family history, hobbies and all the rest until they run a check on them.  First though, is to look at the factors in the profile that fits their suspect.  If he is white and 18-36, then they start a background on him.  This usually involves questioning him and his family.

Much like a cop who is looking for a drug dealer or other criminal would do.  If you are looking for a drug dealer, is he more likely at a country club or in a run down part of town?  (answer is: depends on the dealer) 

As to it getting dumb, that is probably because you don't understand it.  Please show a case where a cop admitted to stopping someone for just being black.  Every case where the claim was made the claim was made by the black person.  To me that is what I would call unreliable information.  It is biased.

I am not one who is complaining about profiling, departments do it, whites are also profiled, but blacks are the ones that think there is anything wrong with profiling.  We both have established that there are many factors involved that makes a person a target for the police and race is only a small factor at play.

I always find it laughable when I hear "he pulled me over for being black".  Even in broad daylight, you can't tell the race of a driver in front of you, yet blacks seem to think that by making the claim it is true.  For some reason, guys like you and Fred seem to believe them.

You can't even tell the age or the sex of the driver either, that comes after the stop.

btw, there are a lot of white drug dealers and criminals, I bet they were just victims of profiling as well.

[BmorePat87]

(02-12-2016, 08:36 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You are reaching here.

Blacks don't want reparations from the US, they want it from the White US.  If blacks were the majority leaders in the US, they wouldn't want reparations.

Alright, buddy, I gave you two chances to actually address my post but you want to double down on this, so here we go.

This first part was fine. You actually addressed what I said. I am going to suggest that my logic that you can't ask nations for reparations if they were established hundreds of years after the action you want reparations for occurred makes more sense than you saying "they only want reparations from white people".

Here's where it get's interesting

Quote:So are you denying that the slaves were not bought and paid for?

  I didn't even suggest something remotely close to that

Quote:You really think that white men were hanging around with nets, ready to grab unsuspecting blacks?

 Where the hell did you read that?
 

Quote:Europeans had slaves, the slaves they had were white, I don't think anyone denies that slavery has been a part of European history.  

Ok, that has nothing to do with a discussion of the involvement of Africans in the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Quote:However, slavery wasn't invented by whites.

Again, what does this have to do with my post?

Quote: The pyramids in Egypt weren't created by volunteers, nor where they paid workers either.

Again, huh?

Quote:  Slavery is a part of every races history.

So is war. But that doesn't mean you should bring that up when discussing one specific war.

 

Quote: Your analogy doesn't fit, since it implies that the African tribes and kingdoms were forced into providing slaves, and that they weren't just looking for a way to sell their own people to make a quick fortune.

In many cases, they were forced into supplying slaves. Even in the cases that they were not, that doesn't take away from my analogy that the African tribes that participated held far less power in this whole industry that was created. Your attempts to suggest they are equal partners is rejected.



Please go back and look at all the garbage I quoted from your post. This is why I suggested you go back and reread my post. A whole lot of strawman in there. Some of it is just asinine. 
 

[BmorePat87]

Please don't bother responding if you're going to pull that bullshit again.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2016, 02:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Black guy driving slowly through a neighborhood known for drug deals gets stopped.  Was he profiled for being black or for being in the neighborhood known for crime?

Black guy driving slowly through a mostly white neighborhood gets stopped.  Was he profiled for being black or for being in the neighborhood?

Now put a white person in the same situations and ask yourself if they would even be stopped in the second one.

We had a guy living at the end of our road who had been a drug dealer.  When there were a lot of cars in and out we were suspicious.  So we watch but there has been no crime so we can't stop every car in and out.

Most serial killers have turned out to be white males.  It makes sense to look in that direction first when they are looking for a serial killer.  However I've never heard of white males being randomly stopped just because most serial killers are white males.

Being vigilant is not the same as profiling. 

(02-12-2016, 07:22 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: See, more proof.  If there is a serial killer, then it is being "vigilant" to question the white man.

It isn't being vigilant, but profiling, to question a suspected drug dealer (most usually involved in violent crimes themselves).

Nebuchadnezzar just give evidence that yes a white guy can and will be pulled over in a mostly white neighborhood.

I know it has happened to me as well.  Though I don't know if it was because I was white, but I have been stopped by police, questioned, then sent on my way.  

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 10:01 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Then please provide the cases where a black person was randomly stopped when looking for criminal activity, where the officer admitted to stopping the suspect for being black

Not the ones that the blacks suspect claims.