Let me rephrase my question: what does your question have to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Let me rephrase my question: what does your question have to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
If a smart commentator such as yourself seems to imply the answer is 'nothing', then surely that must be the correct answer.
To be fair, it has a great deal to do with your unfounded racism, there's that at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
:D Now I'm curious what you'd consider 'founded' racism, but I wouldn't wish to upset you.
Gingers don't have souls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I understand that gingers aren't a race.
...I'll let myself out.
*shrugs* I just wanted to emphasise that your racism is unfounded in case you were under any delusions about the legitimacy of whatever argument it was you wanted to make about cultural differences and race. Even though I can't think of any examples of "founded racism", I think you might believe that your racism is well-founded. My phrasing reflects what I think you think. Does that clarify things for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Not particularly, just being angry at someone isn't very liable to change their minds. But that wasn't your goal anyway, was it? Much more satisfying to vent.
Of course my goal isn't to change your mind :o not only does no-one really know what your mind is, because you make sure we can't, but there is also no hope of my ever being able to change what I think it is. But to clarify the previous posts: I believe what you were doing was expressing racist views that you hold to, and I told you that those racist views are unfounded. I also questioned the legitimacy and relevance of any point you were trying to make with your remark about people who encourage rape and leeching off of the state. I'll concede that I couldn't get a really clear signal there, so I may have missed something about your post that'd change my opinion on it, and I'd welcome clarification about what it was you were getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I'm going to separate two things out of this, for the sake of my own thinking if nothing else (and you've already cast me into a role where that's only fitting), so I'm sorry if that confuses the issue further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Saying, axiomatically, that all racism is unfounded is pretty meaningless when it comes to discussion or conveying information. I could say that Josif Stalin is the sun around which all culture revolves, but that does not get us anywhere closer to what physical, manifest reality actually holds. You can tell me what you like, but if you're unwilling to enter into the usual tit-for-tat between the savage and the civilized educator (role you've obviously cast for yourself), we're going nowhere slow.
What Lewkowski was originally saying was about how certain cultures lead to, shall we say, less productive outcomes. It is a simple statistical fact that in, for instance Finland, foreign-born rapists are over-represented per respective capita each year. It's a statistical fact that the ratio between those supported by and those making a living is 2 among "native" Finns and 10 within the imported population of heroes of the horn. If a Mohammedan cleric declares to his followers that it is the will of God himself that a Mohammedan "fifth column" should strive to destroy, by way of bankruptcy, the Western state they've found themselves in, that to me sounds like a genuine clash between cultures. And you are as familiar as I am about the attitudes towards women touted in arguably negroid musical circles, eagerly consumed and fawned over by negroids. I think all of these things, circumstantial as they may be, support Lewkowski's argument that not all cultures are created equals.
Naturally, this is an equally moot point as we must, fairly arbitrarily, decide the criteria by which we value cultures and peoples. You've shown that your axioms are different from mine (and possibly Lewkowski's, but I don't claim to speak for him), and therefore this entire exercise only serves the purpose of making you feel better about yourself. I have no objections to that, I'm probably healthier for you than chocolate, but I'm old-fashioned and prefer calling spades spades.
It's appears there are differences in what some members here think what 'culture' means.
I'm a bit surprised that Aimless is calling Ness racist for pointing out what a 'leader' in a community actually said and then calling him on it.
*shrugs* I'm fairly sure the burden of proof is on you when you claim to have good reasons for being a racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Culture =/= race. Do you know what race is? Even in the informal sense?Quote:
What Lewkowski was originally saying was about how certain cultures lead to, shall we say, less productive outcomes.
That's the statistical analysis of a simpleton. In reality, it's only a "simple statistical fact" that foreign-born people are over-represented among rapes that are reported, and possibly among rapes that lead to a conviction. In reality, the actual number of rapes that occur in Finland every year are likely to be far, FAR higher, mostly unreported, and the vast majority of those are suspected to be commited by someone close to the victim, making reports less likely.Quote:
It is a simple statistical fact that in, for instance Finland, foreign-born rapists are over-represented per respective capita each year.
We all know Finns are kinda racist so I reckon most of those perpetrators are not in fact foreign-born. We also know that ethnic Finns tend to be drunken douchebags (just ask any Swede about how wonderful Finns are) so I reckon it's the ethnic Finns we should be shaking down for rapists, once they sober up. We also know that such "simple statistical facts" as the one you refer to are so simple that they just BARELY account for demographic factors, do even worse with psychological and socioeconomic factors, and come with no qualitative analyses. As such, they're kinda worthless.
With all that said, it's entirely possible that, even after accounting for all relevant non-racial explanatory variables, foreign-born people may be significantly over-represented among rapists. However, that would once again bring us back to the issue of culture =/= race. Anecdotally, I--unlike you--consort with both immigrants and Swedes from different backgrounds and with varying views on various things. The most disgusting attitudes towards women and towards humans in general that I've heard from these people have come from ethnic Swedes. Sweden, fyi, is considered by some to be the rape-capital of the West, and it's not exactly known for being the most ethnically diverse country in the West.
*shrugs* On the whole immigrants are not much more likely than ethnic Swedes to be reliant on welfare in spite of the extraordinary racism that immigrants face on the Swedish labour market that makes it so hard for them to even get interviews. If things are very different in Finland then that difference speaks as much towards the crappiness of Finland and Finnish society as it does towards any purported cultural differences. And, once again, culture =/= race.Quote:
It's a statistical fact that the ratio between those supported by and those making a living is 2 among "native" Finns and 10 within the imported population of heroes of the horn.
Sure, it sounds like a clash between cultures, and that statement brings us back to my original question: what does that have to do with anything? Just how many Finnish Muslims do you know that are following the cleric's advice and engaging in welfare-jihad? I don't know a single Swedish one personally. Just how many Muslim people in Finland do you think actually belong to that particular culture? And, finally, culture =/= race.Quote:
If a Mohammedan cleric declares to his followers that it is the will of God himself that a Mohammedan "fifth column" should strive to destroy, by way of bankruptcy, the Western state they've found themselves in, that to me sounds like a genuine clash between cultures.
What you and Lewk both fail to realise is that culture =/= race and that respect for the dignity of individual humans prohibits us from letting the police act as if race == culture. In Lewk's case it's because he's as thick as two thick planks nailed together, whereas in your case it's probably because you neither respect human dignity nor see people of other races as being human. Perhaps that's why you're inclined to abandon any intellectual integrity you have that would stop you from misusing circumstantial evidence.Quote:
And you are as familiar as I am about the attitudes towards women touted in arguably negroid musical circles, eagerly consumed and fawned over by negroids. I think all of these things, circumstantial as they may be, support Lewkowski's argument that not all cultures are created equals.
Yeah look I'd be happy if you could drop the victim-act and start using words like "race" and "culture" properly before starting on spades. And btw, we all know spades are black, but anyone with eyes and a third grade education knows that some blacks are clubs.Quote:
Naturally, this is an equally moot point as we must, fairly arbitrarily, decide the criteria by which we value cultures and peoples. You've shown that your axioms are different from mine (and possibly Lewkowski's, but I don't claim to speak for him), and therefore this entire exercise only serves the purpose of making you feel better about yourself. I have no objections to that, I'm probably healthier for you than chocolate, but I'm old-fashioned and prefer calling spades spades.
I'm not surprised that you're surprised, but what I'm doing is 1. saying that Nessie is racist and 2. that what a "leader" in a "community" says does not lend support to racism except to racists who conflate culture with race and forget people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Nessus seems to be repeatedly conflating culture with race. I'd be curious to know what the black culture is. In America, it's fairly clear, because most blacks identify as being part of the same cultural grouping (the exception is African immigrants, who frequently don't subscribe to that culture). In specific European countries, there might also be a somewhat homogeneous black population. But if we're talking about the black race as a whole (to the extent that race is a meaningful concept), is anyone really prepared to argue that there are strong cultural similarities between the black people of America, the Caribbean, South America, Western Africa, Eastern Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australasia? Nessus mentioned the Islam angle, but there are far more Christian blacks than Muslim ones.
I just wrote out quote tags instead of copy-pasting the one with the tag to your post, Aimless, but I'm sure we both know I'm just quoting your latest post. Sorry if this hampers readability!
Why? Assuming I have, I don't recall either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In honour of you finding pretty much all the stereotypical fall-backs of the "tolerant" green-lefts, I'ma go with "race is a social construction". How's that?Quote:
Culture =/= race. Do you know what race is? Even in the informal sense?
Hang on just a minute there Hoss, I like your steed but you're riding awful high. I'm saying we have numerical data which displays foreign-born (and yes, thereby from a different culture) as more likely rapists, and you fall back on...Racism? Surely whitey rapes and beats and who knows what else, no one just tells anyone! That's real convincing.Quote:
That's the statistical analysis of a simpleton. In reality, it's only a "simple statistical fact" that foreign-born people are over-represented among rapes that are reported, and possibly among rapes that lead to a conviction. In reality, the actual number of rapes that occur in Finland every year are likely to be far, FAR higher, mostly unreported, and the vast majority of those are suspected to be commited by someone close to the victim, making reports less likely.
We all know Finns are kinda racist so I reckon most of those perpetrators are not in fact foreign-born. We also know that ethnic Finns tend to be drunken douchebags (just ask any Swede about how wonderful Finns are) so I reckon it's the ethnic Finns we should be shaking down for rapists, once they sober up. We also know that such "simple statistical facts" as the one you refer to are so simple that they just BARELY account for demographic factors, do even worse with psychological and socioeconomic factors, and come with no qualitative analyses. As such, they're kinda worthless.
With all that said, it's entirely possible that, even after accounting for all relevant non-racial explanatory variables, foreign-born people may be significantly over-represented among rapists. However, that would once again bring us back to the issue of culture =/= race. Anecdotally, I--unlike you--consort with both immigrants and Swedes from different backgrounds and with varying views on various things. The most disgusting attitudes towards women and towards humans in general that I've heard from these people have come from ethnic Swedes. Sweden, fyi, is considered by some to be the rape-capital of the West, and it's not exactly known for being the most ethnically diverse country in the West.
If your axiom of choice is that the "plight" of the negroid, or the hair-palm, is the oppression they feel due to white society structurally discriminating them, then sure, it's perfectly reasonable to just blithely assume that whites rape in record numbers but no one hears about it because racism. Over here in the "idiot-land", or whatever it was you told me my place of residence was, we look at actual factual evidence. Not suspicion based solely on racial discrimination, which you so gleefully demonstrate. (All the while remaining the pure, virtuous educator, of course.) :)
Ah, yes, of course! It is the fault of the host society that the bacillus isn't thriving! How silly of me!Quote:
*shrugs* On the whole immigrants are not much more likely than ethnic Swedes to be reliant on welfare in spite of the extraordinary racism that immigrants face on the Swedish labour market that makes it so hard for them to even get interviews. If things are very different in Finland then that difference speaks as much towards the crappiness of Finland and Finnish society as it does towards any purported cultural differences. And, once again, culture =/= race.
A study released this spring categorically demonstrates the fact you quoted. It is not somehow the responsibility of the Finnish tax payer to fund uneducated, racist and misogynistic bucks that the "tolerant" green-left are insistent on importing. Nor is it the responsibility of the tax payer to fund endless government agencies whose sole purpose is to bleat and wring hands about these representatives of a different race and culture, who just haven't had enough help from the public sector.
If you do not speak the local language, do not know what a hammer is (this one is an anecdote, but you set a precedent), and have a "varied conception" of things such as work ethic, the place of women in society, and whether or not it's a-okay to flay some genitals apart, I am not surprised you'd have a hard time finding gainful employment.
Who died and made me kommissar of Mohammedans? What difference does it make to anything how many Mohammedans I personally know? One need only look at the societies they've fashioned for themselves, and the sworn statements of their clerics that it is the only acceptable order anywhere in the world, and make the next logical step.Quote:
Sure, it sounds like a clash between cultures, and that statement brings us back to my original question: what does that have to do with anything? Just how many Finnish Muslims do you know that are following the cleric's advice and engaging in welfare-jihad? I don't know a single Swedish one personally. Just how many Muslim people in Finland do you think actually belong to that particular culture? And, finally, culture =/= race.
You've got great big brass balls (not intended in any way to refer to your skin colour or culture of choice, which is mostly not your own) to come and cry about "intellectual integrity" after this pile of garbage you managed to vomit out. If there were a gymnasiet writing competition on who managed to be the most heart-string-tugging teenager without rhyme or reason, you'd come right on top. You blatantly fantasize up racist day-dreams when presented with actual hard facts, and that's just the running start. Please.Quote:
What you and Lewk both fail to realise is that culture =/= race and that respect for the dignity of individual humans prohibits us from letting the police act as if race == culture. In Lewk's case it's because he's as thick as two thick planks nailed together, whereas in your case it's probably because you neither respect human dignity nor see people of other races as being human. Perhaps that's why you're inclined to abandon any intellectual integrity you have that would stop you from misusing circumstantial evidence.
It is hardly an act when you come at me rather viciously and seemingly for little reason. Or with little reason, either. I don't expect you to be polite or "intellectually integrate", but your tone certainly is taking a turn toward the worse.Quote:
Yeah look I'd be happy if you could drop the victim-act and start using words like "race" and "culture" properly before starting on spades. And btw, we all know spades are black, but anyone with eyes and a third grade education knows that some blacks are clubs.
I don't disagree that there are several cultures fashioned by our dark-skinned friends, but by and large it seems none are worth spit. Which is what Lewkowski's argument boils down to, at least in my reading, he may disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're the one making a positive and fairly extraordinary (read: dumb) claim while I'm just pointing out the fact that race =/= culture so I'm fairly sure I'm right about where the burden of proof lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I'd say that's a D- even if you believe people think black skin and funny eyes are "social constructs". "Race" has always primarily been in reference to biology, even though biological differences between races may be smaller than differences between individuals. In today's discussion, "race" is mostly used in reference to observable and mostly heritable physical features. If you believe that a person's black skin in and of itself justifies treating him as a de facto thug and a gangster then you fail at logic, and that's just the beginning.Quote:
In honour of you finding pretty much all the stereotypical fall-backs of the "tolerant" green-lefts, I'ma go with "race is a social construction". How's that?
And I'm saying 1. that you don't actually have the data you think you have, and 2. that neither the data you have nor the data you imagine having actually say what you want it to say.Quote:
Hang on just a minute there Hoss, I like your steed but you're riding awful high. I'm saying we have numerical data which displays foreign-born (and yes, thereby from a different culture) as more likely rapists, and you fall back on...Racism? Surely whitey rapes and beats and who knows what else, no one just tells anyone! That's real convincing.
If your axiom of choice is that the "plight" of the negroid, or the hair-palm, is the oppression they feel due to white society structurally discriminating them, then sure, it's perfectly reasonably to just blithely assume that whites rape in record numbers but no one hears about it because racism. Over here in the "idiot-land", or whatever it was you told me my place of residence was, we look at actual factual evidence. Not suspicion based solely on racial discrimination)
The "numerical data" you refer to does not control adequately for demographic characteristics, nor does it control for socioeconomic variables or psychological/psychiatric variables. If you actually have numerical data that does control adequately for such factors, feel free to share the studies. The data you refer to also does not take into account the number of unreported rapes. Are you so blinded by your racism that you have forgotten that most rapes go unreported? The notion that unreported rapes vastly outnumber reported rapes should not be new to you if you've ever done any sober reading on the plight of your gender. The notion that the majority of rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances and people with whom the victim has some sort of established relationship should also not be new to you. The notion that you can't draw the conclusions you want to draw from a severely flawed and limited dataset should also not be new to you. But, on second thought, perhaps it IS news to you that a dataset with very incomplete data may be useless and biased, but, Nessie, you have to remember that you're talking about a heterogenous and imperfect real world here.
Re. your counter-accusation of racism, I don't think that a person's white skin justifies treating him as a likely rapist, even were I to believe that ethnic Finns are more likely to be rapists than foreign-born Finns. Because you're such a racist and devour conspiracy theories, you believe that my claim about most rapes being unreported is founded on prejudices against members of the white Finnish race. In fact I started out from the often-observed realities that most rapes seem to go unreported, that most rapes in the West seem to be committed by acquaintances or people close to the victim, that such closeness between victim and perpetrator seem to make reporting less likely. I tagged on a few remarks about what that's likely to mean about the races of rapists in Finland but anyone with half a brain should be able to see that that was what they call "baiting" which I wanted to flavour with racism so that you could get an idea of how vile it really tastes.
You're not surprised because you don't actually know what you're talking about.Quote:
Ah, yes, of course! It is the fault of the host society that the bacillus isn't thriving! How silly of me!
A study released this spring categorically demonstrates the fact you quoted. It is not somehow the responsibility of the Finnish tax payer to fund uneducated, racist and misogynistic bucks that the "tolerant" green-left are insistent on importing. Nor is it the responsibility of the tax payer to fund endless government agencies whose sole purpose is to bleat and wring hands about these representatives of a different race and culture, who just haven't had enough help from the public sector.
If you do not speak the local language, do not know what a hammer is (this one is an anecdote, but you set a precedent), and have a "varied conception" of things such as work ethic, the place of women in society, and whether or not it's a-okay to flay some genitals apart, I am not surprised you'd have a hard time finding gainful employment.
If a person with a Muslim name can't even get an interview with the same formal qualifications that'll land a person with a Finnish name a hundred interviews, then, yes, it is the fault of the host society, because a name alone doesn't tell you whether or not a person knows the Finnish word for "hammer". If immigrants are systematically excluded by Finnish society, then, yes, it might actually be your fault if they have a hard time getting into Finnish society. If immigrants are systematically given worse educations in Finland than ethnic and wealthy Finns are, then, yes, it may in fact be the fault of an incompetent state and, in extension, Finnish society.
It is absolutely the responsibility of the Finnish tax-payer to support the integration and the good treatment of every single immigrant you import, as long as you've decided to import them and give them the rights accorded to other human beings and citizens in your country. A legal responsibility, because your laws aren't founded on racism. A pragmatic responsibility, because you don't want your society to turn into a hell-hole. An ethical responsibility, because, well there are so many reasons. If you've decided to import them for real-reals then you have the same responsibilities towards them, as a tax-payer, as you have towards any ethnic Finn that wastes your money through alcoholism, criminality, drunken assault, unemployment, etc. If you believe that bad behaviour justifies exclusion from or abandonment by society, mistreatment etc. then you should feel the same way about ethnic Finns who misbehave.
The fact that your language is kinda retarded is another important matter :o and, on the topic of retarded, do you have any idea how retarded it is for a member of a welfare state to whine about people who feel entitled? :bulb:
Unless the Finnish police is about to arrest Pakistan, I repeat: Just how many Finnish Muslims do you know that are following the cleric's advice and engaging in welfare-jihad? Just how many Muslim people in Finland do you think actually belong to that particular culture?Quote:
Who died and made me kommissar of Mohammedans? What difference does it make to anything how many Mohammedans I personally know? One need only look at the societies they've fashioned for themselves, and the sworn statements of their clerics that it is the only acceptable order anywhere in the world, and make the next logical step.
What difference does it make? Well, for starters, it might help you wake up to the fact that, just because a person is a Muslim, doesn't mean he agrees with what hate-filled extremists have to say. It is retarded--and typical of the ignorant racist--to conflate culture with race and to believe that extremists speak for everyone all over the world even remotely like them. In reality, a Muslim person, an individual, can actually choose to not engage in Welfare Jihad. Most of them choose not to leech off of the state any more than anyone else does. Do you have proof saying otherwise?
If you still don't get it, let me be the first to treat you henceforth as if you are Dreadnaught.
Look man, I'm just calling a spade a spade and I'm right in my assertions that you're using the terms "culture" and "race" incorrectly, that you're making simple and unacceptable errors of reasoning, and that you failed to critically appraise the data you tried to summon in defense of your silly beliefs. I don't need to tug on any heart-strings; It's easy enough to dispassionately dismantle your delusions.Quote:
You've got great big brass balls (not intended in any way to refer to your skin colour or culture of choice, which is mostly not your own) to come and cry about "intellectual integrity" after this pile of garbage you managed to vomit out. If there were a gymnasiet writing competition on who managed to be the most heart-string-tugging teenager without rhyme or reason, you'd come right on top. You blatantly fantasize up racist day-dreams when presented with actual hard facts, and that's just the running start. Please.
How do you expect me to treat a delusional racist no better than the likes of Lewk (and possibly worse)? :confused: Shouldn't you be happy to be treated better than you'd treat my brothers? Suck it up and take it like a man.Quote:
It is hardly an act when you come at me rather viciously and seemingly for little reason. Or with little reason, either. I don't expect you to be polite or "intellectually integrate", but your tone certainly is taking a turn toward the worse.
And what's this nonsense about immigrant work ethic?
Muslim is a race?
Let's go with Ness is prejudiced , maybe bigoted, but not going with true rasict. Cause, you like splitting hairs all day.
Sounds like circular reasoning to support your pre-conceived notions about, and excuses for, certain law enforcement tactics. What the hell does "more likely to be guilty" mean in the UK anyway? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Your predominantly white neighborhood is more likely to be using/abusing/trading/selling "legal drugs" like prescription meds or alcohol, according to 2011 census and WHO data. Ditto for universities or colleges famous for underaged drinking, 'sharing' prescriptions for ADD or anxiety or insomnia. So it depends on what you and your police consider "drugs", and whom to search.Quote:
Certain neighbourhoods have certain problems and in those neighbourhoods where drugs are a major problem then those that live/work in those neighbourhoods are going to be far more likely to be stopped and searched. This is not ethnic profiling, this is simple common sense.
I live in a town where drugs are not considered a major problem. This town happens to be 95.9% White and 2.59% South Asian according to the 2011 census and all those Whites and South Asians (and any others) will be less likely to be searched for drugs than in a town or city where drugs are a major problem.
Hard to compare a tiny British town's "local" policing policy with the US, but you were probably stopped for specific driving behavior --- speeding, weaving in and out of lanes, aggressive driving --- or due to violations like a burnt out brake light or expired tags. Performing a breathalyzer is the next step in some of that driving behavior.Quote:
Instead the local Policing priorities appear to be alcohol and driving. I have been stopped and breathalysed repeatedly - had I been guilty of drinking and driving I would have been charged and lost my licence and gone to prison - would that be ethnic profiling or not?
We sometimes have county or regional Drunk Driver Dragnets, where every single driver has to pass through a police barricade, but it's usually on state roads/highways and in cooperation with State Police. They're fairly rare now....because they mostly pissed off hundreds of drivers, choked traffic and caused back-ups and delays, and only caught a couple of drunk drivers in the process. :bored:
Wait, are you trying to compare walking down the street and being stopped-and-frisked, to driving through speed traps and getting a fine in the mail? Seriously? :picard:Quote:
I have been caught by a mobile speed trap once - for which I was charged a fine and given points on my licence. I have driven through mobile speed traps probably hundreds of other times - because of not breaking the law on those occassions nothing has come from it.
Quote:
I would definitely like to see the evidence here which was categorically not in the OP. So you are claiming just to be clear that whites have a higher drug use than blacks, so I imagine in your opinion it'd be reasonable for whites to have a higher arrest/charge rate?
Flixy is right. Drug use by race and income are similar among western nations. The biggest disparities are in policies and implementations that favor wealth and privilege, ie whites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
My argument is that certain cultures have different outcomes based on the values they hold. The 'thug life' culture (which does NOT include all blacks) is obviously shallow and worse then other cultures. The point of my argument is that racism is not the cause of higher arrest and conviction rates, the actions of the people getting arrested is. I'm getting tired of the grouping by black/white/Asian - most people don't care what race they are. What matters is their belief structure. Is stealing OK? Should you avoid harming others? Should you not take what isn't yours (through redistribution or flat out theft). These are cultural issues not racial issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Lewkowski, I agree with what you say as far as it goes, it just doesn't go very far. You have to ask yourself where these destructive cultures come from. People don't just pick them out of a hat. The fact is that certain sub-groupings, will, if treated like dog-shit by the parent culture, develop their own cultural values hostile to that parent culture (and usually pretty self-destructive to boot). Plenty of material from de-converted ex-Jihadi British muslims explains the role that being on the receiving end of racism had in their radicalisation - if you're made to feel like shit on a daily basis by the culture around you, then you gotta get your sense of self-worth from somewhere.
Some cultures have problems endemic to their own culture that precede 'being on the receiving end of racism'. There are historical basis for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
EG I do not believe the poor treatment of women - including "honour killings", FGM, treating as second class citizens etc, etc has to do with receiving racism. Its worth noting historically our own culture treated women as second class citizens and we've changed past that and certain other cultures haven't.
I do not believe the poor treatment of homosexuals is due to receiving racism etc
There is only one culture I have personally had many problems with over years and that is Gypsies. I do not (from personal experience) respect Gypsy culture. A culture where unfortunately from my experience too often the worst stereotypes are based on truth - that allows and even encourages theft, deception etc. If dealing with a Gypsy then I will be on my guard to not be distracted or stolen from. Having worked in a shopping centre years ago it wasn't due to racism that all shops were warned whenever Gypsy caravans moved into one of the parking lots.
The point is about how you treat an individual before you're aware of any wrongdoing and dickishness on his part.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I will treat everyone the same but if I believe that someone is a Gypsy I will be more cautious. Polite and friendly still, but on my guard. Is that wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I will also be more cautious and on my guard around drunks and many other more suspicious individuals who are probably not up to anything bad but could be. Is that wrong?
Wrong? I don't know. But you may end up making someone innocent and decent feel distrusted and creepy for no good reason. Would that be right? It'd be wrong if you were to repeatedly stop such a person in the middle of the street, interrogate them, and then frisk them for guns and drugs. For the record, when you're cautious, on your guard, suspicious, the person you're talking to can actually pick up on that--no matter how polite and friendly you think you are acting--unless his brain is wired differently from the brains of most humans. No RB, you're not a professional actor.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I'm not a professional actor. But when you work in a shop, it is your job. When every few months caravans turn up in your carpark and the people in those caravans try their luck at scamming and stealing from as many shops as they can before they move on is it racist to warn people when the caravans turn up next time?
When I started working there I thought naively that it was. After a while you realise sadly its not.
Who's more responsible for the concern? The person trying to get on with their job who's been attempted to be scammed repeatedly or the people doing the scamming?
Do you or do you not understand the differences between "guilty people" and "innocent person"?
Do or do you not understand the concepts of caution and concern?
Being cautious with people who concern you is your job. Being cautious with everyone can also be your job. If you put gloves on before handling a bleed on someone else are you implying that they have a disease you don't want to catch or are you just taking precautions?
FYI Story Amanda told me about how messed up attitudes can sometimes be in SA which is behind that example:
Amanda when she was a student in South Africa worked at a Hairdressers. Her father had taught all his daughter's First Aid and got them to carry a First Aid kit to work. One day a black woman came in bleeding and needing First Aid and nobody else wanted go near her. Amanda went and got her personal First Aid kit her dad had given her, put on her gloves and treated the wound. Afterwards she got accused of being racist as she'd put on gloves before handling the bleed. As she'd put on gloves she was implying the woman had HIV because she was black :bulb:. The fact she was the only one to help was neither here nor there, she should have helped without putting gloves on :bulb:
And btw, while I've always assumed that crime rates are likely to increase substantially in an area when travellers camp there, I've never actually seen any good studies supporting that assumption.
Not sure how high it would be to justify substantial. But while not all Travellers are dodgy, enough are to warrant taking sensible precautions.
If you are very much more "cautious" when dealing with a girly-man or a black person because of a fear of catching HIV then you may be closer to doing the former than to doing the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you or do you not understand the concept of differential treatment of individuals based on prejudices about groups?
Let me ask you again, but break it down into simpler sentences: do you understand the difference between guilty and innocent? Yes or no? Okay, now do you understand the difference between "people" and "person"? Yes or no? Okay, now do you understand why it may be problematic to treat an innocent person--who hasn't by any actions of his own given you good cause to believe he's guilty of anything--as if he's guilty based on your prejudices about guilty people who happen to look like him or come from the same country as he does or anything similarly superficial?
Would you like to be treated like a likely rapist by passing police officers simply because you happen to be a white man? Or would you prefer to enjoy the presumption of innocence and being treated like an individual?
I'll answer your questions if you answer mine. Yours first:
Understand the difference between guilty and innocent? Yes.
Understand the difference between "people" and "person"? Yes.
Understand why its problematic ...? Yes.
Would I like to be treated as a likely rapist by Police Officers? No. But if there was an investigation going on I'd be happy to co-operate.
Would I prefer the presumption of innocence? Yes.
Question you never asked:
Would I be OK at being treated as a potential rapist be a woman? Yes.
Now will you answer mine:
Do you understand the importance of taking precautions?
Do you accept that some can displays more signs of suspicious behaviour than others?
Do you accept people reacting to that?
Do you understand the difference between Police actions and individual safety?
If you as a man walking down the street alone in the dark saw a woman walking alone in the dark the other way and she crossed the road to the other side would you think that is objectionable sexism? Or if she made sure to walk under street lights?
Do you care more about your feelings of innocence than her feelings of safety?
I would rather my female friends, family and my wife take precautions than not. If we have daughters then I'd want them to.
It's not an individual's job to place the feelings of another person over their own safety. The way I think about it, if you have a brief interaction with another person, and this interaction doesn't make much of a difference to either of your lives, you should act on the basis of probability and gut feelings. If I know that drunk teens are substantially more likely to attack me than an elderly couple, I would cross the street if I saw the former heading toward me. I don't care if they feel bad as a result. If, on the other hand, those teens are my students or they're potential employees, it would be incumbent upon me to examine their personal characteristics and base my actions on those. Doing the same in the brief interaction is neither feasible nor desirable (from a cost-benefit point of view).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
As I live in Maine, the teens that are dangerous are white, thus when I see a group of unruly teens I keep an eye out for trouble...thus I must hate white people. It is unreasonable for me to ready my self for trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
You're correct in that it's not necessarily an individual's job to place a stranger's feelings over their own safety in brief otherwise meaningless interactions. But if many individuals are treated like scum throughout their lives on the basis of prejudice rather than on the basis of observable and demonstrably dangerous behaviour then the society in which they exist has a problem and it'd also be understandable if many of those individuals kinda feel like shit in interactions with the people who treat them like scum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's curious that you two both bring up the example of roving gangs of drunk teenagers. Is there any particular reason why you believe that's analogous to a solitary young black man happening to stand outside his own home? Drunkenness and rowdiness are often clearly observable behaviours that can be causally linked with eg. being hassled, assaulted, disturbed, etc. Do you believe in treating a well-behaved sober teenager in the same way as you'd treat a gang of drunk teenagers?
I don't think those actions would be objectionable regardless of any sexist component, nor do I think men in general should feel slighted--in general--by such actions considering the otherwise privileged position men enjoy in society (compare this to white men crying about being subjected to "reverse racism" in the form of affirmative action :o), considering the public awareness of how scary it is to walk home alone at night as a woman, and considering the negligible impact a woman crossing the street has on an innocent man walking home alone at night. I do think it'd be sad if a woman were more inclined to treat a coloured man as a potential rapist than a white man.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Now, do you think walking home alone at night constitutes "suspicious behaviour"? Do you think the police should stop and interrogate and frisk a man for exhibiting that particular behaviour? Do you think that should happen over and over again?
Wrt responsibility, I think that in any non-threatening interaction, and in any longer interaction, both sides have a responsibility to keep a somewhat open mind, to give each other the benefit of the doubt and to be ready to re-evaluate each other. Unless they hate each other of course, but they should hate each other for reasons better than "you're a brownie from Bangladesh with a Muslim-sounding name".
A third of black males ages 20-29 have spent time in prison. If you see two young black males late at night, you're faced with a ~45% probability that one of them is a felon and little prospect for getting help. They're also a large enough group that they're responsible for a large portion (often the majority) of the crimes in a given area. Think about that.
In Britain, the percentages for poor white youths are probably not much better, which is why it's a good idea to avoid white youths traveling in groups wearing a specific style of clothing.
Hey, what happened to scrutinizing police policy, what they consider "suspicious behavior", and profiling by race that has nothing to do with actual behavior? :confused:
Rand, you didn't answer my questions a page back, but added anecdotes about Gypsies/Travelers/Roma. That describes your take on personal safety (that may/may not be related to racism or bigotry), but doesn't address the role of police in the community. :confused:
The US also has roving caravans, especially after disasters when construction trades are needed but hard to find...but they're not all Roma gypsies, let alone scammers. Sometimes they're a group of unemployed white guys pooling their resources to go where the work is, and yes sometimes they are scammers. Local police want to be notified, to check out permits and validity of insurance or warranties, and pass on "suspicious behavior" to state or federal officials that track interstate fraud, or elaborate scams that harm the public.
That doesn't mean restaurants or grocery stores (or even motels) can deny them service, based on some vague feeling that they're "bad" people or scheming crimes. That kind of soft bigotry is just as insidious and destructive as outright racism, with the added element of vigilantism that's outside the criminal/legal justice systems.
Yeah, let's think about what that actually means. That stat shouldn't be seen in isolation, or used to presume "black males are more likely to commit crimes". It's also a reflection of disparities in income, tax bases, and conflicts-of-interest within our police and legal systems. Public defenders are understaffed/underfunded, compared to police and prosecutors. Tax payers are more likely to vote for "tough on crime" Sheriffs, DAs, or Attorney Generals. And traditionally more willing to approve public funding for prisons/jails....even outsourcing to private for-profit entities....while cutting funds for early Education, Social Services, Mental Health, Rehab facilities, Halfway Homes, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If I see two young black/brown males late at night in Philly (where my son lives), your "probability" stat doesn't really mean shit. It doesn't mean much more in my home city (which BTW has a statistically higher rate of theft and violent crime, per capita, than Philly!).
I take it that's what "Chav" means to Brits, and they're identified by their clothing? Same could be said about US gangs that use 'colors' and certain clothing to identify themselves. Difference is that US gangs generally commit crimes against other gangs, not 'random' attacks on just anyone walking down the street. They have a (perverse) criminal code similar to the Mob or organized crime, something "chavs" don't seem to share. :bulb:Quote:
In Britain, the percentages for poor white youths are probably not much better, which is why it's a good idea to avoid white youths traveling in groups wearing a specific style of clothing.
Except that we're now fast moving on from prejudice purely on attacking someone based somebodies skin colour etc outside their control to areas of self-preservation where there is a concern based on legitimate observable trends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If I'm alone at night I'd keep a wary eye on any teenager (black or white).Quote:
It's curious that you two both bring up the example of roving gangs of drunk teenagers. Is there any particular reason why you believe that's analogous to a solitary young black man happening to stand outside his own home? Drunkenness and rowdiness are often clearly observable behaviours that can be causally linked with eg. being hassled, assaulted, disturbed, etc. Do you believe in treating a well-behaved sober teenager in the same way as you'd treat a gang of drunk teenagers?
Go on compare it. You said compare it so do so please.Quote:
I don't think those actions would be objectionable regardless of any sexist component, nor do I think men in general should feel slighted--in general--by such actions considering the otherwise privileged position men enjoy in society (compare this to white men crying about being subjected to "reverse racism" in the form of affirmative action :o), considering the public awareness of how scary it is to walk home alone at night as a woman, and considering the negligible impact a woman crossing the street has on an innocent man walking home alone at night. I do think it'd be sad if a woman were more inclined to treat a coloured man as a potential rapist than a white man.
What great privilege does a white child of a trailer-park single mother have over the black child of two wealthy and successful Harvard Law School graduates? You pointedly refused to ever answer this in that thread so if you are now talking about "crying" about "reverse racism" I'm guessing you are implying that such privileges do exist and/or that in your opinion racism is perfectly acceptable in the right circumstances?
Maybe. Need further information.Quote:
Now, do you think walking home alone at night constitutes "suspicious behaviour"? Do you think the police should stop and interrogate and frisk a man for exhibiting that particular behaviour? Do you think that should happen over and over again?
Do you think driving home at night constitutes "suspicious behaviour"? Do you think the Police should stop and interrogate and breathalyse a man for exhibiting that particular behaviour? Do you think that should happen over and over again?
You can simultaneously both give the benefit of the doubt and treat people with caution etcQuote:
Wrt responsibility, I think that in any non-threatening interaction, and in any longer interaction, both sides have a responsibility to keep a somewhat open mind, to give each other the benefit of the doubt and to be ready to re-evaluate each other. Unless they hate each other of course, but they should hate each other for reasons better than "you're a brownie from Bangladesh with a Muslim-sounding name".
It has nothing to do with racism. Travellers are not a race and are not identifiable by skin or accent or any such - and I never said Roma, I've never dealt with Roma. They're identifiable by behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Then that would be a different situation. Its more common for people to live in mobile homes in the US and of course after natural disasters (which we don't get so aren't relevant) its different. :rolleyes:Quote:
The US also has roving caravans, especially after disasters when construction trades are needed but hard to find...but they're not all Roma gypsies, let alone scammers. Sometimes they're a group of unemployed white guys pooling their resources to go where the work is, and yes sometimes they are scammers. Local police want to be notified, to check out permits and validity of insurance or warranties, and pass on "suspicious behavior" to state or federal officials that track interstate fraud, or elaborate scams that harm the public.
I've NEVER denied service to someone. I would refuse to swap change (due to "change scamming" which I've been burned by just one before) but since I've never worked in a bank that's not a denial of service. They'd be served but I'd make sure the payment went through smootly.Quote:
That doesn't mean restaurants or grocery stores (or even motels) can deny them service, based on some vague feeling that they're "bad" people or scheming crimes. That kind of soft bigotry is just as insidious and destructive as outright racism, with the added element of vigilantism that's outside the criminal/legal justice systems.
I was a victim of a change scam once when new to dealing with cash and the public. Since then keeping precautions has prevented it being repeated.
Chavs are identifiable by appearance. Hard to exactly put your finger on it other than a "know it when you see it". Typically shaved head, particular style of clothing, etc, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT