A brogue means gypsy to you? No, no I think it IS racism, jackass.
A brogue means gypsy to you? No, no I think it IS racism, jackass.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's a very distinctive brogue and yes it does. They are a major nuisance if their caravans arrive in this part of England. A dozen years of experience in hospitality has seasoned me to be cynical and alert when I hear that brogue. You may call it racism, I call it self preservation. I have learnt time and again to trust my instincts.
Two weekends ago on a Sunday morning we had two arrive while we were setting up still wanting drinks in the bar at about 11am. We open at 12 but are licensed then so will serve if we are ready to so I served them but I got a bad feeling and warned my colleagues to keep an eye on them.
Sunday afternoons lately have been exceptionally busy in our restaurant so I was in the restaurant and delegated the bar to some colleagues. I kept checking on the bar and these guys were pushing the limits but not obviously at the point to be chucked out. At 5pm we took a phone call from one of my most regular customers asking if those guys were there still. I went across and the bar was now virtually empty inside besides a group of 5 of these guys at the bar now with almost everyone else in the beer garden or gone despite it being overcast. These guys had been harassing my regulars. I saw them harassing a female member of my team so I cut them off instantly and told them to leave. Which took nearly half an hour with him screaming abuse in my face and threatening violence with me calmly telling him to leave or I'd call the cops and the whole place is covered by CCTV. I saw one family heading into the restaurant see this guy shouting and the dad took his two girls hands, turned around and walked off.
I later found out they're in caravans down the road, here from out of town for a gypsy funeral. One old gentleman told me they'd tried breaking into the pool table but he'd left then rather than pass the message on.
So screw your racism accusations. These guys behaviour caused a lot of damage in lost custom alone let alone him trying to vandalise my machinery or anything else. When it's your life or livelihood on the line then I will trust my instinct every time. I wish on this instance I'd trusted my gut and kicked them out sooner.
Last edited by RandBlade; 08-05-2017 at 10:52 AM.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You typed this out without an inkling of understanding for how awful of a person you truly are...
I mean seriously, wtf.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-05-2017 at 01:29 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
You are a terrible human being. Now I understand your support for Brexit (which was quite inconsistent with you supposed liberalism).
Hope is the denial of reality
Leaving aside the bizarre racism for just a moment, how exactly is being rude to potential violent people a smart move, and good policing?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
A minority of people will not react in the desired way if you ask them something politely. That has got nothing to do with their race by the way, but everything with their personality. Being rude or polite isn't the way to deal with the public; being rude and polite in the right amount at the right time is important. If your standard setting is rude because people might give you trouble, you obviously are the problem.
What little experience I have had with people employed by the US government has given me the idea that ability to adapt to the situation you're dealing with, is way down the list of priorities when they hire people.
Congratulations America
Point is being rude or disrespectful to someone for no reason might provoke a violent response, or an escalation of the situation that might lead to violence (e.g shouting) that would not otherwise have taken place had you not decided to be a dick.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
It kinda does. It not only indicates a lack of professionalism but is also irrational and, not to put too fine a point on it, frickin' stupid. It's unprofessional because cops let their prejudices cause them to treat people in a disrespectful manner. It's irrational because cops apply assumptions that they (incorrectly) believe to be valid at a group level to their interactions with individuals, based on fallacious reasoning. It's frickin' stupid because this kind of behaviour erodes minorities' trust in--and willingness to cooperate with--law enforcement in addition to wasting resources--time, personnel, a great deal of money--that could be put to better use.
Going back to the studies described in the paper:Nor does it not make sense, considering that blacks as a whole are more violent. If you sub-divide whites into skinhead whites and other whites you'd probably get an identical response.
Relevant characteristics of the stops that may offer plausible explanations for the disparity are simply not sufficient to explain why cops in the study were much less respectful toward black people than toward white people.One might consider the hypothesis that officers were less respectful when pulling over community members for more severe offenses. We tested this by running another model on a subset of 869 interactions for which we obtained ratings of offense severity on a four-point Likert scale from Oakland Police Department officers, including these ratings as a covariate in addition to those mentioned above. We found that the offense severity was not predictive of officer respect levels, and did not substantially change the results described above.
To consider whether this disparity persists in the most “everyday” interactions, we also reran our analyses on the subset of interactions that did not involve arrests or searches (N = 781), and found the results from our earlier models were fundamentally unchanged.
[...]
Study 1 found racial disparities in police language even when annotators judged that language in the context of the community member’s utterances. We observe racial disparities in officer respect even in police utterances from the initial 5% of an interaction, suggesting that officers speak differently to community members of different races even before the driver has had the opportunity to say much at all.
Of course, even without these findings--which only corroborate what we already know from previous research as well as the lived experiences of black people all over the US--your argument would be deeply flawed. The vast overwhelming majority of black people, like the vast overwhelming majority of white people, are not violent, are not combative, are not dangerous criminals. For that reason, the vast overwhelming majority of black people should be met with respectful and professional behavior.
What it is is bigotry and prejudice. Now, if you used the same approach in your dealings with eg. black people, and justified your behavior with the same arguments, that would be racism. It would basically be a textbook example of racism. Your experiences with antisocial Travellers are not relevant to the issue of how cops interact with innocent black civilians.I will act slightly differently I'm dealing with someone with a strong Irish accent or a chavvy Brit due to my experiences with gypsies and chavs. I will be immediately on guard and it is not racism, it is self-preservation.
[...]
It's a very distinctive brogue and yes it does. They are a major nuisance if their caravans arrive in this part of England. A dozen years of experience in hospitality has seasoned me to be cynical and alert when I hear that brogue. You may call it racism, I call it self preservation.
Yeah, that's usually how racists justify their confirmation bias.I have learnt time and again to trust my instincts.
Last edited by Aimless; 08-05-2017 at 10:42 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-aclu-lawsuit
Back to Baltimore, since RB and Lewk have no doubt ignored the report:Roadblocks are routinely set up in Canton and other black towns, the suit says, usually in quiet residential streets, outside churches or black businesses, or in parking lots at the entrance to black housing complexes.
Such searches can involve detailed scrutiny of driver, passengers and the interior of the car and take 20 minutes or more to complete, yet they are very rarely staged in the city of Madison or other majority-white communities. Similar intrusive surveillance is imposed on black people walking in the streets, in methodical targeting known as “pedestrian checkpoints”, and in some cases without a warrant in their homes.
One of the plaintiffs, Betty Tucker (no relation to the sheriff), 62, was having a celebratory barbecue in her garden in Canton about three years ago when two plainclothes deputies turned up at her house. They entered her yard without a warrant and without explanation or permission began checking the pockets of Tucker and each of her guests.
They found nothing, but proceeded to carry out a bizarre inspection of her patio on their hands and knees before leaving as mysteriously as they had arrived.
The lawsuit also details the case of the co-plaintiff Quinetta Manning, 29. At about 7am one day last June, six Madison County deputies entered her home in Canton illegally, without a warrant.
The lawsuit alleges that the deputies cajoled Manning into giving a false witness statement relating to a neighbour’s boyfriend. She tried to resist, but they then handcuffed her husband, choked him and threatened to jail him and set his bond at $50,000 if she didn’t cooperate, the filing claims.
“We found evidence that BPD supervisors have explicitly condoned trespassing arrests that do not meet constitutional standards, and evidence suggesting that trespassing enforcement is focused on public housing developments. A shift commander for one of BPD’s districts emailed a template for describing trespassing arrests to a sergeant and a patrol officer. The template provides a blueprint for arresting an individual standing on or near a public housing development who cannot give a ‘valid reason’ for being there—a facially unconstitutional detention. Equally troubling is the fact that the template contains blanks to be filled in for details of the arrest, including the arrest data and location and the suspect’s name and address, but does not include a prompt to fill in the race or gender of the arrestee. Rather, the words “black male” are automatically included in the description of the arrest. The supervisor’s template thus presumes that individuals arrested for trespassing will be African American. …
“One African-American man in his mid-fifties was stopped 30 times in less than four years. The only reasons provided for these stops were officers’ suspicion that the man was ‘loitering’ or ‘trespassing,’ or as part of a ‘CDS investigation.’ On at least 15 occasions, officers detained the man while they checked to see if he had outstanding warrants. Despite these repeated intrusions, none of the 30 stops resulted in a citation or criminal charge.”
[...]
“In addition, BPD’s disproportionate enforcement against African Americans is suggestive of intentional discrimination because the racial disparities are greatest for enforcement activities that involve higher degrees of officer discretion. In the five years of arrest data we reviewed, African Americans accounted for a larger share of charges for highly discretionary misdemeanor offenses than for other offenses, including: 91 percent of those charged solely with trespassing, 91 percent of charges for failing to obey an officer’s orders, 88 percent of those arrested solely for “impeding” and 84 percent of people charged with disorderly conduct. As noted above, booking supervisors and prosecutors dismissed a significantly higher portion of charges made against African Americans for each of these charges. This pattern indicates that, where BPD officers have more discretion to make arrests, they exercise that discretion to arrest African Americans disproportionately. Moreover, the racial disparities in dismissal rates exist only for highly discretionary misdemeanor arrests, not felony arrests. That is, booking officials and prosecutors dismissed charges at nearly identical rates across racial groups for felony charges like first degree assault, burglary, and robbery for which there is little officer discretion about whether to arrest suspects. For every discretionary misdemeanor offense that we examined, however, officials dismissed charges against African Americans at significantly higher rates—indicating that officers apply a lower standard when arresting African Americans for these offenses.
[...]
In one case, police stopped a black man wearing a hoodie in a “high crime area” because he “thought it could be possible that the individual could be out seeking a victim of opportunity.” The incident escalated with police — who had no legal reason to stop the man — beating the man in the face, neck and ribs and deploying a Taser on him twice.
The man was later taken to a hospital, and not charged with any offense. Yet later, the officer’s supervisor determined in a report that the “officers showed great restraint and professionalism.”
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I can only imagine Rand as a prosecutor. Jews are statistically more likely to commit white color crimes; therefore, allocate more money to investigate Jews. Blacks are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes; therefore, apply a lower evidentiary standard for charging them with said crimes. Nothing like supporting explicitly racist actions by the state. You don't want to be discriminated against by the police? Stop being black!
Hope is the denial of reality
We should just strip-search all black people every day #evidencebasedpolicing
I am a little surprised by the bizarre logic RB's been using in this thread, and in the BLM thread, to both defend racial bias and to deny that it exists.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's not bias if he's not part of the group being discriminated against.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ethically, I'm far more tolerant of private discrimination than of the governmental variety. It's easier to avoid dealing with assholes than to avoid the government.
Even for the weaker private discrimination, I'd use two tests. First, just how likely is a negative event to happen to you if you don't discriminate? If a third of group X were likely to jump you if you walked past them, it's reasonable to stay away from that group. If it's 0.1%, you're being an asshole.
More importantly, what is the effect of that discrimination? If you hurt someone's feelings because you cross the street to avoid them, it's not nice, but neither is it the end of the world. If you apply different hiring criteria to members of group X because you've been burned by them in the past, you're causing material harm, and are clearly an asshole.
Jumping back to governmental discrimination: if you support it, you're a horrible human being. You're using the state to harm members of a group for reasons unrelated to individual actions. You're both justifying and perpetuating a system of group Y supremacy. You're opposing the basic tenets of liberal democracy, which requires equal protection under the law. You're guaranteeing second class citizenship to people purely on the basis of their birth. And then you actually expect those people to respect the law and to respect you?
Hope is the denial of reality
It's just a little surprising coming from someone who might say something like, "I don't see skin-colour, I only see individuals," with a straight face. Can't help but wonder what happened.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What racism? Are chavs a race? Are gypsies a race?
I never said it was a good idea, I said in an earlier post it was a bad one that should be dealt with. I just don't think its enough to define someone as bad at their job.
It is bigotry and prejudice to be "on guard"? Oh well so fucking what then!? If even simply being on guard is racism then racism can't be too serious a fucking problem. You guys can all get your heads out of the clouds.
If black people were constantly causing/threatening violence, attempting to commit robberies, pull scams etc, etc, etc then being on guard would be justified. Note in my story I never fucking acted (besides warning people to be alert) until AFTER he had crossed the line. I served him despite my reservations and despite the fact I have a blanket legal right to refuse service to absolutely anyone at any time without any requirement to give any reasons. Unlike almost all other business pubs don't need to serve anyone they don't want to. We can cut people off at any time even if they've not been served yet.Now, if you used the same approach in your dealings with eg. black people, and justified your behavior with the same arguments, that would be racism. It would basically be a textbook example of racism. Your experiences with antisocial Travellers are not relevant to the issue of how cops interact with innocent black civilians.
I'm out of pocket due to the damage he caused, I have upset team members who I value more than any customer and you think I'm out of order for being on my guard? Screw you: Unless you think I should tolerate letting my female staff be sexually harassed by drunks let alone everything else. I'm sorry but my people come first.
I didn't say "no I don't serve your type" or anything like that, I served him and acted the same as I would without anyone else while merely being on guard to the risks involved.
Gypsies aren't a race, chavs aren't a race. They are ways of behaving and I have an issue with the behaviour not the skin colour which is the same as mine.
Useful overview including links to recent studies and reports:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...ce-racial-bias
Time to stop making excuses.POLICE KILLINGS OF UNARMED AMERICANS
1. A study by a University of California, Davis professor found “evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is about 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police on average.” Additionally, the analysis found that “there is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
2. An independent analysis of Washington Post data on police killings found that, “when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are, in fact, less likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police.” According to one of the report’s authors, “The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black. . . . Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”
3. An analysis of the use of lethal force by police in 2015 found no correlation between the level of violent crime in an area and that area’s police killing rates. That finding, by the Black Lives Matter–affiliated group Mapping Police Violence, disputes the idea that police only kill people when operating under intense conditions in high-crime areas. Mapping Police Violence found that fewer than one in three black people killed by police in 2016 were suspected of a violent crime or armed.
HOW POLICE DETERMINE WHOM TO STOP
4. A report by retired federal and state judges tasked by the San Francisco district attorney’s office to examine police practices in San Francisco found “racial disparities regarding S.F.P.D. stops, searches, and arrests, particularly for Black people.” The judges, working with experts from five law schools, including Stanford Law School, found that “the disparity gap in arrests was found to have been increasing in San Francisco.” (Officers in San Francisco were previously revealed to have traded racist and homophobic text messages, and those working in the prison system had reportedly staged and placed bets on inmate fights.)
In San Francisco, “although Black people accounted for less than 15 percent of all stops in 2015, they accounted for over 42 percent of all non-consent searches following stops.” This proved unwarranted: “Of all people searched without consent, Black and Hispanic people had the lowest ‘hit rates’ (i.e., the lowest rate of contraband recovered).” In 2015, whites searched without consent were found to be carrying contraband at nearly two times the rate as blacks who were searched without consent.
The Department of Justice’s investigation into the behavior of police in Ferguson, Missouri, found “a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law.” The scathing report found that the department was targeting black residents and treating them as revenue streams for the city by striving to continually increase the money brought in through fees and fines. “Officers expect and demand compliance even when they lack legal authority,” the report’s authors wrote. “They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence.”
“African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search,” the authors wrote. Nearly 90 percent of documented uses of force by the Ferguson Police Department were used on African-Americans, and every documented use of a police canine bite involved African-Americans.
6. In Chicago, a 2016 Police Accountability Task Force report found that “black and Hispanic drivers were searched approximately four times as often as white drivers, yet [the Chicago Police Department’s] own data show that contraband was found on white drivers twice as often as black and Hispanic drivers.” The police department’s own data, the report found, “gives validity to the widely held belief the police have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color.”
7. A 2014 analysis of Illinois Department of Transportation data by the American Civil Liberties Union found the following: “African American and Latino drivers are nearly twice as likely as white drivers to be asked during a routine traffic stop for ‘consent’ to have their car searched. Yet white motorists are 49% more likely than African American motorists to have contraband discovered during a consent search by law enforcement, and 56% more likely when compared to Latinos.”
8. A 2015 analysis by The New York Times found that in Greensboro, North Carolina, police officers “used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists—even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.” That pattern held true for police departments in four states. In Greensboro, “officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.”
9. A 2013 ruling by a New York Federal District Court judge found that the New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” practices violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens of the city. Between January 2004 and June 2012, the city conducted 4.4 million stops. Eighty-eight percent of those stops resulted in no further action, and 83 percent of the stopped population were black or Hispanic, despite the fact that those minority groups, together, made up just over half of the city’s overall population. (The number of stop-and-frisk stops has dropped dramatically since its peak in 2011.)
10. A 2011 investigation by the Justice Department found that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, headed by Joe Arpaio, had “a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos,” and that the office also tried to interfere with the department’s investigation. The sheriff’s office “engages in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and arrests Latinos; and unlawfully retaliates against individuals who complain about or criticize [the office’s] policies or practices,” the report’s authors said. (Arpaio responded by saying, “We are proud of the work we have done to fight illegal immigration.”)
RACE AND THE USE OF NONLETHAL FORCE
11. A controversial working paper by Harvard professor Roland Fryer Jr. found that police officers are more likely to use their hands, push a suspect into a wall, use handcuffs, draw weapons, push a suspect onto the ground, point their weapon, and use pepper spray or a baton when interacting with blacks. The study found no evidence of racial bias when it comes to police shootings, but Fryer’s methodology has come under criticism. The study relied on police reports, which have been previously shown to be a flawed data set, and its finding on justified shootings focused largely on data from Houston, Texas. (Fryer defended his work, but admitted his research is far from perfect.)
12. A study by the Center for Policing Equity found, as characterized by a preview in The New York Times, that “African-Americans are far more likely than whites and other groups to be the victims of use of force by the police, even when racial disparities in crime are taken into account.” The study looked at 19,000 use-of-force incidents between the years 2010 and 2015.
13. A 2016 study by a team of professors from U.C.L.A., Harvard, Portland State University, and Boston University analyzed suspects’ booking photographs for phenotypical signs of whiteness to test the following hypothesis: “the Whiter one appears, the more the suspect will be protected from police force.” Their findings: “police used less force with highly stereotypical Whites, and this protective effect was stronger than the effect for non-Whites.”
14. At least one study found that Latino populations suffer from similar effects. A Department of Justice investigation into the Seattle Police Department found that more than 50 percent of cases “determined to be unnecessary or excessive uses of force” involved minorities. “Analysis of limited data suggests that, in certain precincts, S.P.D. officers may stop a disproportionate number of people of color where no offense or other police incident occurred,” the report said, though it stopped short of determining that the department was engaging “in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing.” (The investigation found that, regardless of the race of the suspect or victim, police using force were doing so unconstitutionally nearly 20 percent of the time.)
WHEN OFF-DUTY OFFICERS ARE KILLED BY POLICE
15. A 2010 governor’s task force examining police-on-police shootings found even black and Latino police officers face a greater risk of being killed by police. In cases of mistaken identity, 9 out of the 10 off-duty officers killed by other officers in the United States since 1982 were black or Latino. “Inherent or [subconscious] racial bias plays a role in ‘shoot/don’t-shoot’ decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities,” the report found.
FINDINGS ON THE USE OF HANDCUFFS
16. A Stanford study of police practices in Oakland, California, found that officers were disproportionally handcuffing blacks. “Regardless of the area of the city, disproportionate treatment by race was similar and the raw totals were stunning,” according to a Washington Post summary of the findings. The Post continues: “2,890 African Americans handcuffed but not arrested in a 13-month period, while only 193 whites were cuffed. When Oakland officers pulled over a vehicle but didn’t arrest anyone, 72 white people were handcuffed, while 1,466 African Americans were restrained.” The researchers also found significant differences in the way officers spoke to African Americans: “Using only the words an officer uses during a traffic stop, we can predict whether that [officer] is talking to a black person or a white person” with 66 percent accuracy.
STUDIES THAT FOUND LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE OF ANTI-BLACK BIAS
17. There are some studies that draw other conclusions. Research by a Washington State University professor found that, while shown video simulations, officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects. They also took an extra 0.23 seconds, on average, before firing on black suspects in the simulations. “We found that officers were slightly more than three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects,” the researchers noted, while allowing for the possibility that the officers might act differently in live situations, and that the officers may have adjusted their behavior because they were being tested.
18. In a 2007 study, University of Chicago researchers used simulations to compare the abilities of police officers and the general population to determine whether to shoot a target that was flashed before them. The targets featured a mix of armed and unarmed black and white people. While “both samples exhibited robust racial bias in response speed,” researchers concluded that “officers outperformed community members on a number of measures, including overall speed and accuracy.” The bias related to response speed was found to be anti-black.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's like saying, "If the common cold is a disease then diseases can't be too serious a fucking problem." It's illogical and you might want to rephrase that.
But they are. They are violent, homicidal gangsters, which is why cops are justified in using excessive--even lethal--force against them in addition to speaking to them in a disrespectful manner, based on an incorrect understanding of flawed statistics. Have you already forgotten that black people are murderers?If black people were constantly causing/threatening violence, attempting to commit robberies, pull scams etc, etc, etc then being on guard would be justified.
Then I guess we've established that your anecdata have no relevance to the issue of racial bias in police interactions in the US.I didn't say "no I don't serve your type" or anything like that, I served him and acted the same as I would without anyone else while merely being on guard to the risks involved.
No, but "black" is generally considered to be a racial category according to informal definitions used in the US, and in this thread as well as in the BLM thread you've consistently defended race-based discrimination against black people, by police, using arguments of the sort you used to justify your views about Travellers and chavs, with no regard for what the evidence actually shows.Gypsies aren't a race, chavs aren't a race. They are ways of behaving and I have an issue with the behaviour not the skin colour which is the same as mine.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Oh, so you think something only counts as racism, or as bigotry, or prejudice if it causes a material harm? So speech can't be racist? Or is it you think they only count as those if the other side is aware it happened? In which case as long as they aren't aware of the reason that you've kicked them out or double-charged, be it becas because of their ethnicity, their accent, or the lower-class way they dress, so long as they don't know WHY it happened was because you're a bigot, that means it doesn't count? I think maybe you need to go back to school, try and master your basic language skills this time. Because I'm not really seeing a difference between you and a modern Klansman right now.
Which is why Minx and I used words like jackass and bigot. No, you don't have a problem with the behavior, you have a problem with the group, as demonstrated by the textbook definition expression of prejudice and the concomitant bigotry when it's associated with identity-aspects like class and distinct cultural groups (which the Irish travelers display. A quick review of material immediately demonstrates they are about halfway toward being a completely independent linguistic and ethnic linguistic identity, showing distinct biological markers stretching back as far as 1,000 years from the general source population)Gypsies aren't a race, chavs aren't a race. They are ways of behaving and I have an issue with the behaviour not the skin colour which is the same as mine.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I understand that your difficult experiences with travellers have made this an emotionally charged subject for you, but I would like for you to realize that those experiences have little relevance for the subject of this thread.
You've repeatedly attempted to argue that the disparities we say are caused by race-based discrimination either do not exist or are justified eg. due to characteristics of individual police encounters that act as confounders. We have repeatedly demonstrated that substantial racial disparities do exist and that they persist even when you adjust the models for relevant characteristics of individual encounters. At this point, your insistence that cops are either neutral or acting legitimately in these respects is beginning to look quite irrational and borderline prejudicious. Your repeated use of an ecological fallacy to justify your position only makes matters worse, although I don't doubt it's a fair approximation of the explicit reasoning used by cops and police departments that are guilty of racist policing.
It's not too late to step back from this cliff. Try to look at this issue as if it has nothing to do with your personal experiences, your dislike of liberals, etc. Peruse the sources linked above. Realize that you might not have had the whole picture.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
TBH; I don't understand how his difficult experiences with travellers should excuse what he does. In my work I encounter people of all ethnicities and I would consider myself to be doing an extremely lousy job if I would let pre-judice decide how I treat them. Let there be no mistake; I use my experience with different cultures to react to certain types of behavior in different ways but that is not the same as presuming the behaviour to follow just because somebody has a certain skin color or dresses in a certain way.
You can't even be certain about 'blatant racism'; I once was in a training with an officer who told me she saw no reason to remove her shoes if she entered the house of muslim families where that was the norm. That was taken as culturally insensitive and borderline racist as she was defending her opinion on the basis that 'this is The Netherlands and there is no reason why she would have to adapt to 'their' customs by taking off her shoes.
Guess how stupid I felt when she told that she carried those plastic shoe covers in her handbag in case she was going to visit a shoes off household.
Congratulations America
Not to mention that his casual racism / bigotry due to his anecdotal experiences will only cause a vicious circle - he expects them to be bad and thus he'll treat them badly which they'll most likely promptly reciprocate.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I didn't say it's excusable, I said it's understandable. Because I understand what he's saying and recognize that his thought-process and his feelings about these experiences are common and natural to many--or even most--people, although many will not articulate those thoughts in the way RB has done here. What RB described of his encounter with Travellers is not all that different from the time Loki explained how he might alter his behavior if he were about to encounter "dangerous"-looking black men. That doesn't mean RB is right or that he's good, and the attitude he demonstrates can certainly be an obstacle to professionalism, esp. when it's transferred to a different context eg. police racially profiling or just generally mistreating racial minorities.
Becoming explicitly aware of prejudices, regardless of whether or not one personally feels that those prejudices are legitimate/justified, is a prerequisite for dealing with them and developing some semblance of a professional demeanor. You know this as well as anyone. I'm shocked but, honestly, quite glad that he said what he did, because it makes it more clear where he's coming from.
I'm not going to hold RB to the same standards of professionalism I do myself, or my colleagues, or that you hold yourself to. His profession doesn't require it. The appropriate standard to apply to RB--in real life--is basic decency, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that he can meet that standard in his real life, even if he can't seem to do so here. The appropriate benchmarks for him in these online discussions are accuracy, rationality and truthfulness. I'll try to focus on that for the time being.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes I am primarily concerned with material harm and hurtful speech because that is what affects people more. Material harm like that which I materially suffered from him. Hurtful speech like the sexual harrassment that my female colleague was subjected to by him. Both of which I've already mentioned.
Or that it did happen yes. I was the one subjected to material harm and abusive language. My female employee that I am responsible for is the one who was subjected to sexual harassment. He was subjected to nothing other than a bit of extra attention - as would anyone else acting suspiciously. Yes I am more concerned with that which really happened and which hurts people. Also call me selfish but I'm more concerned with harm to myself and my employees than I am perceived harm to others. As an employer I have always taken the attitude that my people come first - you harass my employees and you are not welcome in my establishment. If you don't like that, you can go somewhere else. I will not apologise for that!Or is it you think they only count as those if the other side is aware it happened?
I already told you why I kicked him out: He was sexually harassing my employee. That was the final straw. I will kick out anybody that harasses my staff.
I didn't overcharge him, I didn't kick him out until after he crossed the line. I fail completely to see how I am in the wrong for kicking out somebody sexually harassing my employees.
Oh, right ...Which is why Minx and I used words like jackass and bigot.Gypsies aren't a race, chavs aren't a race. They are ways of behaving and I have an issue with the behaviour not the skin colour which is the same as mine.
Yeah nobody used the word racism to describe those who aren't a race. Moving on ...
No I have a problem with the behaviour. Again I did nothing other than say keep an eye on this guy and I wish I'd been able in hindsight to keep more of an eye on him and kick him out sooner rather than the other way around.No, you don't have a problem with the behavior, you have a problem with the group, as demonstrated by the textbook definition expression of prejudice and the concomitant bigotry when it's associated with identity-aspects like class and distinct cultural groups (which the Irish travelers display. A quick review of material immediately demonstrates they are about halfway toward being a completely independent linguistic and ethnic linguistic identity, showing distinct biological markers stretching back as far as 1,000 years from the general source population)
Right ...
My young female employee was sexually harassed because I'd warned my colleagues to keep an eye on this guy. She was asking for it I guess.
A regular customer was pestered to hand over his watch because my colleagues had been warned to keep an eye on this guy.
He attempted to vandalise the pool table because we were trying to keep an eye on him.
Perhaps you're deliberately being obtuse, but that was in reference to the earlier observation that the reasoning you use to justify your views of and attitude towards travellers is not very different from the reasoning used by racists--such as racist American cops--to justify their racism.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yours may have been but I don't think the others were. Though simply because someone uses good logic for bad reasons doesn't mean in other circumstances it isn't good logic.
You said that in response to my saying that I know to trust my instincts. Lesson number one in any management security training I've ever done is trust your judgement. If you have a feeling that something is wrong it's better to be on guard and wrong than complacent and right.
Of course, the point being made is that it's not really "good logic".
That may be lesson no. 1 in management security training, but it's poor advice in any context that requires a person to develop good, accurate, reliable judgement--such as in law enforcement, medicine, social work, etc. It causes selective perception and establishes a one-directional calibration mechanism that ultimately risks making your judgement grossly miscalibrated. In law enforcement, this attitude has severe consequences. When a person such as a police officer is "on guard", he perceives the world in a different way, and he perceives that which has caused him to be on guard in a different way. His wariness alters his perception of anything that may potentially be a threat, and lowers his threshold for acting on the perception of a threat. With time, the inclination to perceive threats--even where there is none--increases, accuracy decreases and the threshold for action is lowered with devastating outcomes for innocent people caught in the crosshairs of officers with systematically corrupted judgement. We see this clearly in the evidence from studies that find that police officers excessively and inappropriately target black and hispanic men, subject them to illegal or just unnecessary searches with a lower hit-rate than among white targets, subject them to greater levels of force even when inappropriate, etc. Lesson no. 1 in management security training needs to be modified if it is to be incorporated into police training.You said that in response to my saying that I know to trust my instincts. Lesson number one in any management security training I've ever done is trust your judgement. If you have a feeling that something is wrong it's better to be on guard and wrong than complacent and right.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Trusting your instinct is something entirely different than trusting your (good) judgement. Your instinct will typically tell you that you can expect trouble with someone who looks like someone you had trouble with before. Your good judgement will tell you to keep past experience in mind but treat the person at hand as if he's a tabula rasa. Untill such moment that he isn't an unknown quantity to you any longer.
For the last year and a half I've been living in a minority-majority neighborhood, with all kinds of 'scary looking' people around me most of the time. Yet I tell anybody who bothers to ask me that this must be one of the most welcoming and friendly parts of the entire city of Amsterdam. One of those places where people aren't afraid to wish you a good day even though they don't know you. Or stop to have a little chat about the weather if they actually do know you. A place where big burly black guys in the gym politely ask you if you are using a machine. Simply because that's the way we do things.
Congratulations America
That's not what I asked. I don't give a rat's ass whether you're primarily concerned with something, you're an acknowledged bigot and a jackass. I asked whether it was racism even if someone did not suffer material harm. Do you understand what racism is? Because you seem under the impression that it's an injury. So are you mentally deficient as well as a bigot and a jackass?
You can try and refer to specific anecdotes all you want. That wasn't what I challenged you on and they will never justify what you've already acknowledged, the way you judge someone and alter how you will respond to them or the manner in which you'll provide them with service the instant you hear that "distinctive" accent. A GENERAL, PREJUDICED ATTITUDE. Bigotry. You jackass.Or that it did happen yes. I was the one subjected to material harm and abusive language. My female employee that I am responsible for is the one who was subjected to sexual harassment. He was subjected to nothing other than a bit of extra attention - as would anyone else acting suspiciously. Yes I am more concerned with that which really happened and which hurts people. Also call me selfish but I'm more concerned with harm to myself and my employees than I am perceived harm to others. As an employer I have always taken the attitude that my people come first - you harass my employees and you are not welcome in my establishment. If you don't like that, you can go somewhere else. I will not apologise for that!
You were wrong because you decided they were going to be a problem before they'd done anything but open their mouths and let you hear the sounds of their voices. And you're a jackass and a bigot because you say you do that every time you encounter someone who sounds similar.I didn't overcharge him, I didn't kick him out until after he crossed the line. I fail completely to see how I am in the wrong for kicking out somebody sexually harassing my employees.
And I did not address every person in the forum, or in the wide wide world. I specifically said who I was referencing, the same two people you had actually replied to and the specific contexts of their reply to those comments of yours which themselves did not address race. So added on to your mental deficiencies and inability to understand your own native language or display basic reading comprehension by realizing who you're responding to or that explicitly mentioning specific people means those are the people being referenced is that you can't comprehend the use of an analogy because the only one of your examples there which was made by the people I explicitly said I was talking about and in reference to the specific comments we talked about was exactly that, an analogy.Oh, right ...
Yeah nobody used the word racism to describe those who aren't a race. Moving on ...
No, you have a problem with the group because you'd decided what his behavior would have to be before he'd given any sign of behavior at all beyond what you assumed was affiliation with the group based solely on the sound of his voice. Your words.No I have a problem with the behaviour. Again I did nothing other than say keep an eye on this guy and I wish I'd been able in hindsight to keep more of an eye on him and kick him out sooner rather than the other way around.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Replying on my phone so no quotes.
Yes I know what racism is, it is being biased against people due to their race. Gypsies, chavs and skinheads aren't races.
I had not decided he would be a problem, I had decided he *might* be a problem. He was! That's not jackassery. Nor was it a lucky guess or clairvoyance.
You may not have referred to everyone but you personally used the words "it IS racism, jackass."
I didn't predetermine what his actions would be, I was concerned by what they might be. And they were what I was concerned about.
The sound of the voice is very distinctive. It is not a bizarre sign at all and I doubt any honest person in my shoes with experience would deny otherwise. Note that I didn't simply say Irish accent, I can tell the difference.
As for my line that you've quoted you seem to be skipping past two key words: slightly and strong.
So its invalid to ever be concerned prior to actions being taken? So if skinheads with swastika tattoos on their foreheads had come in I would not be able to be concerned?
Yeah, you promptly ignored the word "bigot" which I included for a reason, you bigot.
I also have yet to meet a bigot who isn't also a racist.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote