Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Racial Profiling, Whitesplaining, and White Privilege

Racial Profiling, Whitesplaining, and White Privilege
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 05:26 PM
 
In the other thread we've explored the issue of Racial Profiling as it relates to the events surrounding the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman controversy. Some of us see it as a textbook example of the phenomenon:

Racial Profiling - the use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed or being in the process of committing an offense.
While others swear on a stack of Bibles that it wasn't a "racial issue". Which brings up a clever new term that has recently exploded on social media:

Whitesplaining - The paternalistic lecture given by Whites toward a person of color defining what should and shouldn't be considered racist, while obliviously exhibiting their own racism.

When Dr. Laura Schlessinger used the N-Word eleven times on her radio program, it was to explain to an African-American guest why they shouldn't be offended by it's usage; that patronizing rant was yet another example of White-'splaining.
Or alternatively .....

Whitesplain - The act of a caucasian person explaining to audiences of color the true nature of racism; a caucasian person explaining sociopolitical events and/or history to audiences of color as though they are ignorant children; a caucasian person explaining to audiences of color that what they think will benefit themselves and their families and communities will in fact harm them, and vice versa.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul whitesplained to students at Howard University that a black Republican founded the NAACP.

"'We know our history,' Hay said of Paul's question. 'This is now; that was in the past.'"
So I'd thought I'd juxtapose these two with another phenomenon we see in our society:

White privilege - refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; greater presumed social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. It can be compared and/or combined with the concept of male privilege.
So with that as a backdrop check out this video ... it's a smudge under 5 minutes long .... and post your thoughts. My intent here is to spark a reasoned discussion about these issues in general and not just a rehash of the controversies surrounding the GZ trial. Trolls or anyone without anything substantive to contribute need not apply. And if you are one who is inclined to set your hair on fire whenever such topics are even raised then in all likelihood the shoe fits.

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.

Given that these sort of experiments are remarkably consistent in the results they produce, what does that say to you about the society we live in?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 05:45 PM
 
That's a really general question. Can you narrow it a bit?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 06:05 PM
 
Just saying watch the video and post your thoughts about what you see in the experiment. And why you think it produced the results that it did.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 06:25 PM
 
What the data can tell you depends on the methodology.

The video (unsurprisingly) uses bad methodology, so I don't trust this sample.

I have no reason not to believe you other studies show the same results, but without a better sample, all my analysis can amount to is taking your word for it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 06:41 PM
 
If I had to tell white people one thing to keep in mind when needing to "explain" something about race to a black person, it is this.

If that black person is objectively, 100% wrong about some racial issue (hence the need for correction) there's probably a reason for it.

The reason I've found (almost always) is said black person is ****ing pissed-off.

I personally think black people have every reason to be pissed-off, but even if you don't, that anger is still an order of magnitude more important than whatever correction you hope to make.

If you want to get somewhere, focus on that. Leave your corrections for later.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 06:41 PM
 
What was the bad methodology? I only skimmed the video. Is it that they didn't try a pretty black girl to control for the pretty white girl?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 07:01 PM
 
It's a tiny, random sample. It needs either a bigger sample, or if using a tiny sample, it has to be non-random. If the sample is random and tiny, how do you know what variable is causing the effect?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 07:07 PM
 
Sample size is material only with respect to extrapolating these results onto the larger society. So let's put that aside for the moment and focus on just what you saw in the video. Do you see that as a prime example of White Privilege? Why? Or why not?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 07:32 PM
 
Honestly, I'd say the proper term is simply racism.

Edit: but you have to strip away some of the added cultural baggage.

Think more along the lines of other "ists", such as "sexist". I'm talking that. Not the pointy white hat kind of racism.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 08:09 PM
 
Terminology notwithstanding, what's interesting is that there's no reason to think any of the people filmed were stark, raving white supremacists or anything like that. Just average people. But nevertheless, the white guy ... and especially the white girl ... who were clearly and admittedly engaged in a criminal act were essentially given the "benefit of the doubt". No one ... I mean no one ... seemed inclined to vigorously confront this guy or immediately call the police. Whereas when the similarly dressed black guy was clearly and admittedly engaging in the exact same criminal act the reaction was swift and decisive. And rightfully so. That's undeniably White Privilege in action. But you see Racial Profiling is simply the flip side of that same coin which which you aptly describe as "racism". It's what causes someone to immediately view an unknown black kid walking down the street with a hoodie on because it was raining to be considered "suspicious". Whereas an unknown white kid doing the exact same thing wouldn't warrant a second glance. It's what causes many whites to view themselves as individuals while viewing non-whites as a collective. And that's why white guys aren't viewed with suspicion simply because they share the same skin color with white criminals. Whereas black or brown ... not so much. But I would quibble a bit and call this Implicit Racism to differentiate it from the more overt, virulent, and conscious variety of Explicit Racism. I think what has happened is that 400+ years of slavery and a 100+ years of Jim Crow has created a deep-seated connotation of the generic term "racism" with the latter. And so whenever racial issues arise and that term is used most whites react negatively and defensively. Because in most cases they don't view themselves as purveyors of Explicit Racism. And generally speaking that's true. But society has changed dramatically and Implicit Racism is now the norm. Which makes it ever more insidious when coupled with the abject denial that is so often its wingman.

OAW
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2013, 11:42 PM
 
I'm way out of my element and have little to nothing to contribute, but I've given enough shit in the other threads that I'll blather about a little.

Honestly, no excuses, observations, just some questions. Where was this done? North Dakota? New York? South Carolina? Toronto? Do you consider any of the theories on human tribalism and how our brain processes potential threats, friends vs foes and all that jazz? What if these experiments were specifically staged in predominately white areas. What if they were staged in predominately black areas? What about Chinatown? Hell, why not go all out and do it all over the world. Do you have any idea how nosy German's are?

Based on my own anecdotal experience, I'd say just about everyone in the world has some sort of knee-jerk "you do not belong here" to other races. I've been told I look middle eastern and get a variety of gazes depending on what part of town I bike through. Also, there are quite a few whites that assume all black guys are criminals. Or so they Anchorman 2 trailer led me to believe.

What discussion are you wanting to have?

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 12:29 AM
 
Regardless of where the experiment took place the results are crystal clear. The white guy in that particular area essentially got a pass and the black guy most certainly did not. Why do you think that is?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:07 AM
 
So if there are issues within the black community, that are disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups, a person who isn't black can't mention them. Otherwise, they're labeled as racist.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Sample size is material only with respect to extrapolating these results onto the larger society. So let's put that aside for the moment and focus on just what you saw in the video. Do you see that as a prime example of White Privilege? Why? Or why not?

OAW
I'll try to whitesplain this the best I can. First we need to redo the test with them similarly dressed rather than the black guy being dressed like a street thug. i.e. long baggy, bright colored shirt... hat tipped too much. Then the black guy actually needs to act innocent / confident like the white guy did. Whitey acted confident answering "No!, by any chance you know who's bike this is?" as to divert the next question and imply he was a park employee. While blacky say's "uuuuuhhhh no... it's not mine but it's about to be". He acted totally guilty every step. Even the black people in your video profiled. Once all other variables are the same then we can judge. My whitepothesis is people would still be slightly more trusting of the white guy, but not by much. That's my whiteplanation.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So if there are issues within the black community, that are disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups, a person who isn't black can't mention them. Otherwise, they're labeled as racist.
I can see that reading (I actually had it myself), but I don't think so.

The first definition of whitesplaining only addresses discussing what racism is, while also being obviously racist. This shouldn't apply to discussing issues in the black community.

The second definition would apply, but it doesn't restrict one from discussion, it restricts one from being condescending and assuming the black person you're talking to isnt aware of said issues.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can see that reading (I actually had it myself), but I don't think so.

The first definition of whitesplaining only addresses discussing what racism is, while also being obviously racist. This shouldn't apply to discussing issues in the black community.

The second definition would apply, but it doesn't restrict one from discussion, it restricts one from being condescending and assuming the black person you're talking to isnt aware of said issues.
Aware? Yes. Willing to admit to them? No. So we end up with the perpetual PC tap dance.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Regardless of where the experiment took place the results are crystal clear. The white guy in that particular area essentially got a pass and the black guy most certainly did not. Why do you think that is?

OAW
Fundamentally, it's biological.

We can't process all the sensory input available to us, so our brains have to edit most of it out.

What your brain doesn't edit out is the unexpected or the out-of-place.

From what I could gather from the video, most of the people in the park were white. One can reasonably assume those white people encounter more white people than black people on a daily basis.

IOW, they expect white people. A white person has to be that much more unusual to register as out-of-place than a black person.

Make no mistake however, this kind of biology is going to have strong effects on your social construction.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Aware? Yes. Willing to admit to them? No. So we end up with the perpetual PC tap dance.
What problem(s) are you thinking of? Don't be PC on my account.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 04:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What problem(s) are you thinking of? Don't be PC on my account.
No. There are times when saying something will only make matters worse; you can't change anyone's mind, and the only person that benefits is the individual getting it off their chest. There's enough anger on all sides of this matter, and it's going to get nasty enough in the real world without me contributing to it here.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 04:42 AM
 
Fair enough.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Why do you think that is?
They were racial profiling. it's bad.

The only way I see us all "getting over" racism is a "fake it 'till you make it" strategy. In our parents' generation, they weren't really even pretending not to be racist, most people weren't anyway. In our generation, we're pretending, but a lot of people really are still racist, they have just been PC-trained to stop doing those things things that are especially awful. Those things are generally of the pattern "don't assume the worst of dark people," but this little exercise neatly bypassed that training by letting them fail at "don't assume the best of white people." That's not part of the training, so it slips through the cracks. You'll notice that the guy making the most stink was the oldest guy around...

The eventual goal is to have a generation who grew up never having learned racism, because their parents' residual racism was on mute the whole time and the children never saw it. That's when "fake it" turns to "make it." I wish there was a faster way to cure racists than just waiting around for them to die off. But at least living through the "fake it" phase is better than nothing.

The same progression is happening with homophobia, and I have no doubt that there are other injustices to come that we don't even realize we're doing yet. Human nature is not necessarily kind, and it takes work to fix that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:39 PM
 
I think that only gets us part way. The biology needs to be addressed.

Because of that biology we segregate ourselves. If you're segregated, people not in your group become "the other".


I'm not saying this is an insurmountable issue, but it's going to be thornier than just waiting it out IMO.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 04:20 PM
 
The often-ridiculed but nevertheless ubiquitous PC movement is addressing that. We're not just waiting it out. The waiting is necessary but not sufficient for it to get solved.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The often-ridiculed but nevertheless ubiquitous PC movement is addressing that.
How so?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 05:36 PM
 
"The biology" can only be overcome by effort from the individuals whose biology it is. PCness applies social pressure to make those individuals bother to expend the effort. There's not much else we can do beyond pressuring people to expend the effort over their own biology, not without making the cure worse than the disease. Unless you have an alternative remedy in mind?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I'll try to whitesplain this the best I can. First we need to redo the test with them similarly dressed rather than the black guy being dressed like a street thug. i.e. long baggy, bright colored shirt... hat tipped too much. Then the black guy actually needs to act innocent / confident like the white guy did. Whitey acted confident answering "No!, by any chance you know who's bike this is?" as to divert the next question and imply he was a park employee. While blacky say's "uuuuuhhhh no... it's not mine but it's about to be". He acted totally guilty every step. Even the black people in your video profiled. Once all other variables are the same then we can judge. My whitepothesis is people would still be slightly more trusting of the white guy, but not by much. That's my whiteplanation.
Not sure what video you watched. But the style of dress was essentially the same. The fact that it struck you as a "street thug" on the black guy alone is pretty much the point. Both the black guy and the white guy acknowledged it was not their bike. I mean they admitted it. That was the entire point of the test. And yes ... even the black people profiled. Which is not surprising. Such biases have been ingrained in American culture for hundreds of years. We are not immune. Appreciate the contribution!

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can see that reading (I actually had it myself), but I don't think so.

The first definition of whitesplaining only addresses discussing what racism is, while also being obviously racist. This shouldn't apply to discussing issues in the black community.

The second definition would apply, but it doesn't restrict one from discussion, it restricts one from being condescending and assuming the black person you're talking to isnt aware of said issues.
^^^^ This.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
They were racial profiling. it's bad.

The only way I see us all "getting over" racism is a "fake it 'till you make it" strategy. In our parents' generation, they weren't really even pretending not to be racist, most people weren't anyway. In our generation, we're pretending, but a lot of people really are still racist, they have just been PC-trained to stop doing those things things that are especially awful. Those things are generally of the pattern "don't assume the worst of dark people," but this little exercise neatly bypassed that training by letting them fail at "don't assume the best of white people." That's not part of the training, so it slips through the cracks. You'll notice that the guy making the most stink was the oldest guy around...

The eventual goal is to have a generation who grew up never having learned racism, because their parents' residual racism was on mute the whole time and the children never saw it. That's when "fake it" turns to "make it." I wish there was a faster way to cure racists than just waiting around for them to die off. But at least living through the "fake it" phase is better than nothing.

The same progression is happening with homophobia, and I have no doubt that there are other injustices to come that we don't even realize we're doing yet. Human nature is not necessarily kind, and it takes work to fix that.
Very insightful. And I couldn't agree more.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think that only gets us part way. The biology needs to be addressed.

Because of that biology we segregate ourselves. If you're segregated, people not in your group become "the other".


I'm not saying this is an insurmountable issue, but it's going to be thornier than just waiting it out IMO.
On this I would disagree. As the interaction of young children attests. It's only when they get older and the are subject to conscious and subconscious cultural conditioning that such segregation takes place. Anecdotal, but powerful IMO evidence of what I mean is this ....

'Angry over what?' Kids react to mixed-race Cheerios ad in new video - TODAY.com

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not sure what video you watched. But the style of dress was essentially the same.
They were exactly the same, right down to the clownish sideways ball cap

Both the black guy and the white guy acknowledged it was not their bike. I mean they admitted it.
It looks like they messed up here, the white guy only said it wasn't his and asked whose it was (leaving doubt that he's not some official maintenance worker), while the black guy said it wasn't his but it was "going to be" his. That's a little unequal performance. The black guy also spoke with a more ebonics-y enunciation than the white guy. That may have colored others' first impression somewhat, it's impossible to tell.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
On this I would disagree. As the interaction of young children attests. It's only when they get older and the are subject to conscious and subconscious cultural conditioning that such segregation takes place. Anecdotal, but powerful IMO evidence of what I mean is this ....

'Angry over what?' Kids react to mixed-race Cheerios ad in new video - TODAY.com

OAW
I think what both of you said is accurate, but while it's human nature to segregate "us" and "them," the particular traits we use to draw boundaries aren't innate; they're just a result of what traits we see as "normal" during our formative years, vs traits we only encounter afterwards. That's my impression anyway.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"The biology" can only be overcome by effort from the individuals whose biology it is. PCness applies social pressure to make those individuals bother to expend the effort. There's not much else we can do beyond pressuring people to expend the effort over their own biology, not without making the cure worse than the disease. Unless you have an alternative remedy in mind?
That's the thing. The PC movement only offers keeping quiet about your biology as a solution. IMO that's the opposite of taking control of your biology.

My alternative remedy isn't really alternative. Make a different movement which addresses the fundamental problem rather than a symptom.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's the thing. The PC movement only offers keeping quiet about your biology as a solution. IMO that's the opposite of taking control of your biology.

My alternative remedy isn't really alternative. Make a different movement which addresses the fundamental problem rather than a symptom.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
On this I would disagree. As the interaction of young children attests. It's only when they get older and the are subject to conscious and subconscious cultural conditioning that such segregation takes place. Anecdotal, but powerful IMO evidence of what I mean is this ....

'Angry over what?' Kids react to mixed-race Cheerios ad in new video - TODAY.com

OAW
I half agree and half disagree.

I'd say the conditioning starts almost as soon as they're born. The majority of people infants encounter are of their own race. That's conditioning.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 06:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So if there are issues within the black community, that are disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups, a person who isn't black can't mention them. Otherwise, they're labeled as racist.
That's not what's being said at all. Are there problems within the black community that are "disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups"? Absolutely. Though I would argue that this is a socio-economic issue rather than a racial one. That being said, even if one insists on looking at it from the racial angle what becomes objectionable is to then turn around and use that as an EXCUSE for Racial Profiling. Let's look at the Stop and Frisk program in NYC for example ....

- Black and Latino males between the ages of 14-24 are only 4.7% of the city’s population ... yet comprised 41.6% of the stops in 2011.

- The number of stops of young black men exceeded the entire city population of young black men.

- In 70 out of 76 precincts, Blacks and Latinos accounted for more than half of the stops, and in 33 precincts they accounted for more than 90% of stops. In the 10 precincts with Black and Latino populations of 14% or less, Black and Latino New Yorkers accounted for more than 70% of stops in six of those precincts.

- Black and Latinos are more likely to be frisked than Whites and less likely to be found with a weapon.

- Black and Latinos are far more likely to have police force used against them than Whites.

Seems pretty bad. But wait ... what about all those problems they have that are "disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups"? Ok fair enough ....

Originally Posted by NYPD Spokesperson Paul Browne
Blacks made up 53% of the stop subjects and were 66% of the violent crime suspects in 2011... For Hispanics, 34% were stop subjects and 26% were violent crime suspects.
And it's for this reason that Mayor Bloomberg claims that Blacks and Latinos aren't being stopped ENOUGH when viewed in light of their proportional representation among violent crime suspects.

But here's the problem with that "reasoning". Comparing police stops to violent crime suspects is like comparing apples to oranges because it doesn't take into account that the vast majority of people ... Black, White, Latino, whatever ... are NOT involved with violent crime:

- Only 11% of the stops in 2011 were based on an actual description of a violent crime suspect. In other words, 89% of the stops were performed for some other "reason".

- So it should be NO SURPRISE that 90% people stopped are totally innocent, meaning they are neither arrested nor ticketed.

- And to make matters even worse, NO GUN is retrieved in 99.9% of stops.

I submit to you that this is pure, unadulterated Racial Profiling. And problems that are "disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups" notwithstanding ... the numbers clearly show that the Stop and Frisk policy is staggeringly ineffective. Blacks and Latinos comprise 26.59% and 26.98% of the NYC population respectively. That's 53.57% of the population ... so NYC is a "majority-minority" city. So ask yourself this question, would any corporation run an advertising campaign that alienates over half its target audience only to get a 0.01% response rate?

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's the thing. The PC movement only offers keeping quiet about your biology as a solution. IMO that's the opposite of taking control of your biology.
That is a method that sometimes works. Biology and appearance are not mutually exclusive. You can make yourself legitimately happier by choosing to smile all the time, or legitimately angrier by choosing to scowl all the time. Not always, but sometimes. That is a partial solution; some people will make themselves legitimately less racist through training themselves not to show it.

Other people will curb the spread of their own racism to others, simply by choosing not to show it. That is another partial solution. Conveniently, both partial solutions are achieved by the same method. Meanwhile, no alternative solution exists, partial or otherwise. Ultimately, this strategy might be less than 100% successful, but no line of reasoning suggests that it will either make things worse, or that there is any alternative that would work better.

This description is not consistent with an "opposite." At most it is consistent with "incomplete."


My alternative remedy isn't really alternative. Make a different movement which addresses the fundamental problem rather than a symptom.
It's not really a remedy either
You're basically saying that your answer to the test question is to form a committee whose job it will be to come up with an answer to the test question. Do you have any guesses as to what that committee will suggest? I hope they invent something more useful than forming more committees to do their jobs for them
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd say the conditioning starts almost as soon as they're born. The majority of people infants encounter are of their own race. That's conditioning.
Even outside of (increasingly common) diverse communities, TV and other media are minimizing this factor.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 07:19 PM
 
Oh yeah. TV is what all the hip kids are into these days.

You mention other media. One of the defining characteristics of other media these days is instead of having things curated and pushed to you by corporate overlords, you go out and find it yourself.

The effect this has had on news and politics is a total and utter rejection of the "other". The vast majority of people seek out people who look like them, talk like them, and think the same way they do.

I'm not hopeful for the media to be much of a positive force in this.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That is a method that sometimes works. Biology and appearance are not mutually exclusive. You can make yourself legitimately happier by choosing to smile all the time, or legitimately angrier by choosing to scowl all the time. Not always, but sometimes. That is a partial solution; some people will make themselves legitimately less racist through training themselves not to show it.

Other people will curb the spread of their own racism to others, simply by choosing not to show it. That is another partial solution. Conveniently, both partial solutions are achieved by the same method. Meanwhile, no alternative solution exists, partial or otherwise. Ultimately, this strategy might be less than 100% successful, but no line of reasoning suggests that it will either make things worse, or that there is any alternative that would work better.

This description is not consistent with an "opposite." At most it is consistent with "incomplete."



It's not really a remedy either
You're basically saying that your answer to the test question is to form a committee whose job it will be to come up with an answer to the test question. Do you have any guesses as to what that committee will suggest? I hope they invent something more useful than forming more committees to do their jobs for them
I'm not convinced of the PC movement's harmlessness. The lack of spreading is undeniably a good effect, but beyond that, I think all it accomplishes is getting people to internalize a bunch of thought processes which, because there is a strong biological component to them, can only be successfully met with by full-on, active, mental jujitsu against yourself.

It's almost like a mental illness. One of the worst things to do with that is stuff it away.

I'm not sure what you imagine I'm suggesting as a replacement. Let that replacement be a dialogue about how we've evolved and how it takes work to overcome it. Seems a whole lot better than peer-pressure enforced absence of dialogue.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 09:42 PM
 
I think the most important biological component here is our brain's need to reject information. If you could do one thing to snap people out of the kind of behavior displayed in the park video, it's to get people to realize how much stuff going around them which they completely ignore.

This doesn't apply just to racism, it's at the heart of a lot of social issues.

The most clear cut example to me is the complaint against homosexuals discussing their sexuality when it should stay in the bedroom like with heterosexuals.

The reality of the situation is we're drowning in people's heterosexuality. It's so ever present, our biology sees no use in cataloging it all. It's a waste of resources.

Almost every time you see a mother and child, you're seeing someone who has brought their sexuality out of the bedroom.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I submit to you that this is pure, unadulterated Racial Profiling. And problems that are "disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups" notwithstanding ... the numbers clearly show that the Stop and Frisk policy is staggeringly ineffective. Blacks and Latinos comprise 26.59% and 26.98% of the NYC population respectively. That's 53.57% of the population ... so NYC is a "majority-minority" city. So ask yourself this question, would any corporation run an advertising campaign that alienates over half its target audience only to get a 0.01% response rate?

OAW
Why would you think they were only looking for guns? Violent crime doesn't always mean "armed". What's the percentage of them found with narcotics or in violation of some other law? I'm not saying that there aren't issues of racial profiling, but at the same time, there's no smoke without fire.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Why would you think they were only looking for guns? Violent crime doesn't always mean "armed". What's the percentage of them found with narcotics or in violation of some other law? I'm not saying that there aren't issues of racial profiling, but at the same time, there's no smoke without fire.
See earlier in my post where I said 90% of those stopped are completely innocent. No ticket or arrest for anything. Guns, drugs, etc.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
See earlier in my post where I said 90% of those stopped are completely innocent. No ticket or arrest for anything. Guns, drugs, etc.

OAW
10% is a much better arrest rate than .01%, in fact that's pretty damned high, if the charges aren't purely traffic related.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 11:51 PM
 
Indeed 10% is greater than .01%. But go with the larger number. You are still talking about a policy that is WRONG 90% of the time! As I said ... it's staggeringly ineffective by any measure.

If you had a pickup line that you used on women that crashed and burned 90% of the time ... it seems to me that a change in the game is warranted. Just saying ....

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Indeed 10% is greater than .01%. But go with the larger number. You are still talking about a policy that is WRONG 90% of the time! As I said ... it's staggeringly ineffective by any measure.

If you had a pickup line that you used on women that crashed and burned 90% of the time ... it seems to me that a change in the game is warranted. Just saying ....

OAW
I think the "game" target is 1 in 20... so even there 10% is exceptional.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not sure what video you watched. But the style of dress was essentially the same. The fact that it struck you as a "street thug" on the black guy alone is pretty much the point. Both the black guy and the white guy acknowledged it was not their bike. I mean they admitted it. That was the entire point of the test. And yes ... even the black people profiled. Which is not surprising. Such biases have been ingrained in American culture for hundreds of years. We are not immune. Appreciate the contribution!

OAW
I just re-watched the video. The dress wasn't remotely the same. Do you disagree one of these stands out more than other? White's cap was backwards and turned sideways; black's cap was backwards, and completely on the side of his head so that it wasn't even able to fit over his head, just like one of those creepy young white skater street punks that I grab my sling-shot and call the cops on when I see them loitering around my place. White guy is even shown without the hat half the time.

White's clothes all fit; none of black's clothes fit, pants pulled down like a young white skater street thug. Shirt long like young white skater street kid. Shirt color not just any bold common gang color but the color of anger. Several answers in the video begin with a very suspicious "...uuuuuhhhhh". While whitey doesn't say that once; whitey acts like he's not stealing it with very confident voice; while black argues as to why he should be allowed to steal it. Check out black's hunched over posture and way he looks over his shoulder suspiciously. White's clothes are fitting more mature; the colors are more mature. Whitey looks older/distinguished more filled out; while they picked a young looking black kid to go against him.
People judge based on race, but if you're going to acknowledge that, then you must acknowledge they also judge on all kinds of other visual variables as well. This test conveniently combined a bunch of negatively perceived variables into one situation. I'm glad they made the video though; I think it will serve its intended purpose of making people realize their biases regardless of its skewness.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 07:26 AM
 
Indeed, the white guy acted like a workman (I would have thought he worked for the park), despite the hat. The black kid acted nervous and unsure of himself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Regardless of where the experiment took place the results are crystal clear. The white guy in that particular area essentially got a pass and the black guy most certainly did not. Why do you think that is?

OAW
Track record? Previous experience? Number of blacks committing crimes vs number of white people who commit crimes? The real world isn't a vacuum.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 01:39 PM
 
I want to double up on ec's points. These are all variables which need to be eliminated for it to be a good experiment.

The "same manner of dress" thing is shameful. Red is exactly the same as baby blue.

Of course, it would have been impossible to put them in the exact same outfit, right? These poor TV people tried just as hard as they could, but some stuff is just too complicated.

I think the lesson here is don't trust the TV news as your source for sociology.


The funny thing is I don't think the results are far off from reality, but you can't just design a bullshit experiment and expect me to fly with it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not convinced of the PC movement's harmlessness. The lack of spreading is undeniably a good effect, but beyond that, I think all it accomplishes is getting people to internalize a bunch of thought processes which, because there is a strong biological component to them, can only be successfully met with by full-on, active, mental jujitsu against yourself.
How else is it going to get solved? We don't have an anti-racism drugs (or surgeries?). We don't have anti-racism therapy (and who would pay for it if we did?). People defeating their own demons is the only method available.


It's almost like a mental illness. One of the worst things to do with that is stuff it away.
I don't know much about treating mental illness. The treatments I do know about involve medication. This comparison also reminds me of "treatments" for homosexuality, and how damaging it is, compared with staying gay. But I don't consider "staying racist" to be an acceptable solution, so in that context I don't think the damage done by suppressing one's internal racism is as bad as the damage done by that racism itself. I am hoping you have a more specific example of how the mental illness comparison works, because again I'm just not familiar with it.


I'm not sure what you imagine I'm suggesting as a replacement. Let that replacement be a dialogue about how we've evolved and how it takes work to overcome it. Seems a whole lot better than peer-pressure enforced absence of dialogue.
What I imagine you're suggesting is that we stop doing the actual work it takes to overcome it, so we can talk about how much work it takes to overcome it. If my perception of your point is wrong, then I look forward to you clearing it up for me.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2