[Dragon]

If you demonstrate that you don't think an entire race of people are inherently more likely to attack you than anyone else (as opposed to a government), those people are not going to like you.  No ****.

The problem? As far as I've seen, they are. There are cases where discrimination is not "for the sake of it", but is motivated by very real reasons. This is what Sandwich is talking about. While there is more to the dangerous demographics than race, but it's the first thing people notice and there's plenty of correlation. It's very hard to convince an average person not to use a "rule of thumb" regarding race, especially in generally lawless areas where such a rule might even be lifesaving. While not exactly racism, I tend to give anyone dressed in football club colors a wide berth, for the exact same reason (football hooligans are a big problem in my city). It doesn't matter if one is actually a peaceful fan or a hooligan, the latter is likely enough to warrant precautions. You could accuse me of discrimination on this basis, but I (and everyone who lives in the city) would consider this common sense. And it doesn't matter that the colors are (unlike race) not "permanent". Were football clubs divided among ethnic/religious lines, like in Glasgow, I would likely look at those as well (at least on people otherwise looking likely to be hooligans).

The line between common sense and racism can be very thin indeed, especially in places like Israel (but in the US too, in certain places). This also makes clear-cut racism very hard to uproot in such places, because the advocates will fall back to such borderline cases to distract attention from clearer examples. It's very easy to start associating unwanted behavior as inherent to the race instead of a certain group of people who just happen to be of a particular race.

[Luis Dias]

One of the worst problems is also that fear of accusations of racism preventing the police force from doing their jobs.

See: UK and all the ****ing shenanigans that have occurred in the last decade.

[Dragon]

That's another problem entirely. Overdoing "political correctness" can be just as harmful as forgoing it altogether. It's a problem in general, and is often a side-effect of a large-scale "equality movement". Indeed, it seems that once such movement achieves its goals and winds down, die-hards will usually keep trumpeting "it's not enough!" long after they've achieved equality. While equal rights are great, it's important to note they're not the same as giving the previously discriminated group privileges over the majority.

[Hellzed]

While there is more to the dangerous demographics than race, but it's the first thing people notice and there's plenty of correlation.

You don't notice "race". You notice a set of physical attributes, make them fit in the social construct you know and identify as a "race", and induce probable cultural traits.
"race" happens in your mind first.

It's very hard to convince an average person not to use a "rule of thumb" regarding race, especially in generally lawless areas where such a rule might even be lifesaving.

Again, this "rule of thumb" is called racism.
In Europe, places where you would get killed for talking to a random stranger on the street are actually close to non-existent. Even "dangerous" neighbourhoods are not that bad.

Most of my friends know about their white privilege, and don't need such a "rule".

Please give one example of a post-WW2 equality movement that has achieved full equality yet ?

[Flipside]

The problem here is that we do not get to decide how other cultures are portrayed, and, in pretty much every case, neither do the other cultures.

As a quick example, today in the UK, a soldier was jailed for having built a nail-bomb that the Police found during a search when they were not even looking for it..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30247980

The article also notes that the soldier was associated with 'Far Right Politics'.

If that man had been a different colour, had his extremes been in a different direction, how much more prominence would this story be getting?

It's not anyone's fault directly, it's true that people work too hard to live up to their own stereotypes, it's also true that when they do so, the Media are more than happy to point fingers, which only serves to strengthen the stereotype that people think they have to live up to, and so round it goes...

[Luis Dias]

Prejudices don't only happen by themselves due to irrational racisms alone, Flipside. They tend to to sum correlations of behaviors. They are not determining specifics, but generalities. And that's the problem, obviously, but still this coming up of singular counter examples as evidence that the wider prejudices are false is not intelectually honest.

[666maslo666]

It's very hard to convince an average person not to use a "rule of thumb" regarding race, especially in generally lawless areas where such a rule might even be lifesaving.

Again, this "rule of thumb" is called racism.

I think we have come to the root of our disagreement.

Racism in its original definition is a belief that races or ethnicities are inherently (genetically) superior/inferior. That belief is demonstrably wrong - and thats the only reason why I disagree with it. IF it was true that some races are genetically inferior, there could be nothing wrong with advocating racial segregation (not genocide of course), in fact, it could be the right thing to do (depending on the degree of difference).

Modern left is trying to redefine the term racism to basically conflate it with "culturism" - a belief that different cultures or ways of life are superior/inferior, or a belief that different ethnicities are currently superior/inferior in some quality, but only because of their present strong association with a specific culture - a non-genetic cultural association that can and probably will change over time.

Trying to conflate these two concepts is wrong, because the premises are entirely different and only superficialy similar. Disproving the former does not disprove the latter. The latter "racism by proxy" does not depend on the premise that the differences are genetic and correlation is enough for it to be valid, no need for causation. If you want to disprove it, you need to attack the correlation itself, not causation. Or you need to show that even if its true, guiding yourself by it will still bring more harm than good - that is indeed a very valid argument in many situations, but good luck trying to persuade people to that when it comes to the matters of life and death or personal safety.

[Flipside]

Thing is, look at how completely wrong almost every stereotype of 'First Nationers' in the US is, and almost every single one of those stereotypes comes from Media, mostly in the form of films. I'd say that pretty much the same thing applies to Africans and Caribbeans, almost every stereotype that exists about them was originally dispersed through Media, from The Black and White Minstrels to Blacksploitation and onwards, the roots of it are all there.

I'd not like to hazard a guess on how much 'reflection' is going on, as in Media gives a sensationalized view of a culture, which leads to members of that culture starting to follow that 'new' norm. It's a psychological trait that isn't unknown and is deliberately used in things like marketing all the time, however, it gets dangerously close to the 'media affects behaviour' argument, which I don't think it does, but it can affect attitudes and does all the time.

All I can really say is that a Stereotype is something that, whilst based on things that at their core are true, still doesn't explain why they are true.

[Luis Dias]

Oh definitely. It's very complex, especially because the media is so important at conveying those same stereotypes. It's a ****ing mess. Having said all that, I also find the usual stereotype of the white supremacist racist douchebag who is always destroying minorities' way of life with their superior imperialistic mindset just absolutely overplayed. People just feel entitled to be racist against whites because we are the privileged majority. And however you may feel about that right, I don't think this obession with oppression and revenge against this "Bad Big Other" who is "Screwing You Over" is actually accomplishing anything other than more and more balkanization, more racism, more inequality, more hatred in general.

[666maslo666]

You don't notice "race". You notice a set of physical attributes, make them fit in the social construct you know and identify as a "race", and induce probable cultural traits.
"race" happens in your mind first.

It doesnt matter what you call it at all. The very fact that people look differently and this correlates with certain behavior is enough. Human brain at its core is a big correlator. Race, skin color, age, gender, dress style, all are valid targets to use in its correlations. In fact this process is at the very basis of evolved intelligence! x implies y. Which is why completely ignoring the connection between race and crime, assuming it is statistically real, is dumb.


Now we may talk about where we should let this correlation influence our policies and where it is discriminatory to do so. But if you are going to call every person who is more wary around blacks racist, then such position cannot be defended. You are asking people to shut their brains down.

[swashmebuckle]

I think Scotty pretty much said it all in his post at the bottom of the last page, but for those maintaining that Black Americans should be treated differently from White Americans because they are statistically more prone to violent crime, please take a moment to consider that the history of race relations in America is overwhelmingly a story of white-on-black violence, not the other way around.

Asserting that blacks are more violent than whites is being complicit in the states' supporting/ignoring/forgiving the vast majority of white-on-black violence here over the past 300 years. That is a completely ahistorical perspective, and it's at the heart of what the riots are about.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Now we may talk about where we should let this correlation influence our policies and where it is discriminatory to do so. But if you are going to call every person who is more wary around blacks racist, then such position cannot be defended. You are asking people to shut their brains down.

They're being wary around someone based on their skin color; this is inherently racist. Pretending this is not the case is really asking people to shut their brains down.

[Hellzed]

Modern left is trying to redefine the term racism to basically conflate it with "culturism" - a belief that different cultures or ways of life are superior/inferior, or a belief that different ethnicities are currently superior/inferior in some quality, but only because of their present strong association with a specific culture - a non-genetic cultural association that can and probably will change over time.

That doesn't change anything for people who are discriminated against. I don't give a f*ck if people have "good reasons" to discriminate, if it's about supposed genetic differences or supposed ties with a different culture.
A system that discriminates directly or encourages discrimination, hence creating second class citizens who don't have the same rights (even basic ones like... not being discriminated against, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 2) is unacceptable to me.
I don't have to "disprove" any statistic correlation, because it's not about statistics, and it has never been.
It's about (international) law, and the ethics behind it : a human being is not a number when it comes to their individual rights. After WW2, some people chose to believe humans have an essential dignity that cannot be taken from them, and I think they were right (mostly because we all know what happens when a country starts stripping people from their dignity and treating them like numbers). Ethics are a self justified framework, one can never prove it's right or wrong. We can only acknowledge the effects, and trying to use "science" to to determine who should get more/less rights has proven costly in human lives and useless suffering.

Call me self-righteous if you want, I think there's a clear moral high ground here.

Also, if I'm not clear enough yet, even if some human group was proven to "inferior" regarding some arbitrary criteria defined by the dominant, they would still be humans, with the exact same rights and dignity.

Oh definitely. It's very complex, especially because the media is so important at conveying those same stereotypes. It's a ****ing mess. Having said all that, I also find the usual stereotype of the white supremacist racist douchebag who is always destroying minorities' way of life with their superior imperialistic mindset just absolutely overplayed. People just feel entitled to be racist against whites because we are the privileged majority. And however you may feel about that right, I don't think this obession with oppression and revenge against this "Bad Big Other" who is "Screwing You Over" is actually accomplishing anything other than more and more balkanization, more racism, more inequality, more hatred in general.

When you look at the sad state of minorities pretty much everywhere, I'm not absolutely sure that's so overplayed.
I'm still waiting for serious cases of white people who couldn't get a job or a house because of their skin colour (I think affirmative action is not a good idea, but no one has ever seen some white guy's life completely destroyed because of it). As the dominant group, white people don't need special politics to reach equality, that's obvious.

Violence against white people from minorities ? It happens as individual reaction from some thugs. It's not an ideology, it's rarely a thought reflex, it's not an institutionalized system : in the end, it's not racism, it's a by-product of a segregated society. Violence caused by poverty is much more intense inside discriminated groups. Most often from the same thugs.

What's strange is a how progress towards equality is seen as "revenge" only by people who are part of the privileged group.

EDIT :

But if you are going to call every person who is more wary around blacks racist, then such position cannot be defended.

Thank you for the good laugh. You made my day.
Honestly, what's wrong with your logic ?!

[Bobboau]

now this is a better use of energy then burning down your own neighborhood:
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_a021f116-773d-11e4-828e-fba99a32213d.html

[Luis Dias]

Oh definitely. It's very complex, especially because the media is so important at conveying those same stereotypes. It's a ****ing mess. Having said all that, I also find the usual stereotype of the white supremacist racist douchebag who is always destroying minorities' way of life with their superior imperialistic mindset just absolutely overplayed. People just feel entitled to be racist against whites because we are the privileged majority. And however you may feel about that right, I don't think this obession with oppression and revenge against this "Bad Big Other" who is "Screwing You Over" is actually accomplishing anything other than more and more balkanization, more racism, more inequality, more hatred in general.

When you look at the sad state of minorities pretty much everywhere, I'm not absolutely sure that's so overplayed.
I'm still waiting for serious cases of white people who couldn't get a job or a house because of their skin colour (I think affirmative action is not a good idea, but no one has ever seen some white guy's life completely destroyed because of it). As the dominant group, white people don't need special politics to reach equality, that's obvious.

Violence against white people from minorities ? It happens as individual reaction from some thugs. It's not an ideology, it's rarely a thought reflex, it's not an institutionalized system : in the end, it's not racism, it's a by-product of a segregated society. Violence caused by poverty is much more intense inside discriminated groups. Most often from the same thugs.

What's strange is a how progress towards equality is seen as "revenge" only by people who are part of the privileged group.

Thanks for misreading everything I stated. That is always so rewarding when it happens.

[Sandwich]

I'd like to point out that as far as I've seen, it doesn't look like anyone here thinks that anybody is superior or inferior to anybody else, especially not because of idiotic differences such as skin color (heck, one could argue that when it comes to physical feats, blacks are often better than whites). Instead, the argument being made is based on past behavior of certain people, and how we deal with any correlations that exist between the people doing the misbehaving and a shared common element between them. Ignore the correlation? What if it helps save lives? Does a person's right to not be racially profiled trump another person's right to live in safety?

[swashmebuckle]

Yes, having the state collectively punish and oppress entire groups of people because some of them might commit crimes is really wrong. It's also a really good long term way to make sure those people do go on to commit lots of crimes because they will grow up in an environment where it is clear that the state is working against them, so the security argument for profiling is pretty bunk.

[Sandwich]

Who are you replying to? I didn't say anything about the state issuing collective punishments.

[Phantom Hoover]

jfc his point is that the 'reasonable measures' you're defending amount to nothing more than collective punishment

[Black Wolf]

Does a person's right to not be racially profiled trump another person's right to live in safety?

Really? You want to talk about racial profiling saving lives and people living in safety because of it in a thread about an incident where racial profiling was a factor that led to a man's death?

Look, the human brain is a fantastic pattern recognition device, and as a result, racial profiling is probably inevitable. Race is one of the most easily recognizable characteristics of a person, it's no surprise that people remember it, and assign meaning to it based on past experience. If you, private citizen Sandwich, want to live your life based on those patterns and ideas, fine, do so. That's your right, and who knows, it might even keep you safe than if you didn't.

But, when you stop being a private citizen, and become Police Officer Sandwich or, perhaps be in your case, Occupying Soldier Sandwich, you absolutely can not allow yourself to think like that. People in positions of power (and the authority and weapons granted to cops and soldiers puts them in such positions) have to think past such notions, and restrict their ability to inform their actions, because of they don't, the inevitable result is the entrenchment of those beliefs in society, with all the associated problems that they cause, for the profiler, the profilee and society at large.