Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i noticed that conservatives here also are obsessed with the race of people when a crime is committed and will make sure its known that they are black if its a black who committed the crime.
the constant flash mob threads this summer were proof of that. a thread with a black man attacking a homeless guy got over 100 responses, a story buzzing all over the internet right now of a white thug beating up a homeless guy hasnt even been posted here.
i noticed that conservatives here also are obsessed with the race of people when a crime is committed and will make sure its known that they are black if its a black who committed the crime.
the constant flash mob threads this summer were proof of that. a thread with a black man attacking a homeless guy got over 100 responses, a story buzzing all over the internet right now of a white thug beating up a homeless guy hasnt even been posted here.
I think he has a valid point, af. A lot of conservatives do support racial (and religious) profiling. Herman Cain wanted special loyalty tests for Muslims in government, remember?
That's just stupid. Everyone should take the same test. That's not really profiling, that's just Cain being a dick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
This proves no point. It's just a reminder that sometimes white, little old ladies can pose a threat too.
Hence the word "profiling" rather than flat out discrimination. It's all about probabilities.
Mr. Sykes, problem is that profiling works the majority of the time. It's simply becoming "PC" to deny that it works or at least deny that anyone uses it. They do~
First kudos to OP for the post; very insightful to have noticed that juxtaposition. You will have me thinking about this all day, damn you! (lol)
As Sam Barrow says, everyone profiles. Jesse Jackson famously said (paraphrase) 'when I hear footsteps behind me on the street, I feel relief if I turn around and see a white.'
I am a conservative who will argue in favor of affirmative action, at least up to a point. The example I always give is that when I was a kid (long ago), I lived in an all white neighborhood. When a Chinese family moved in down the street some of the neighbors went out of their way to try to make them feel welcome, inviting them over for dinner, etc, which they would not have done for a white family. That was affirmative action, and I think it was great.
Conservatives tend to have a kneejerk reaction against afirmative action, not because of racism, but because of the threat to meritocracy, which is a kind of corollary to individualism, the bedrock of conservatism. The ever popular example is of quotas for whites in the NBA. This same threat to meritocracy does not apply to profiling. So this is one element to resolve the seming inconsistency.
Secondly I would say that conservatives support profiling only up to a point. I remember hearing Michael Medved talking about James Golden, who lived on Mercer Island, WA for a while. Medved reported that James got pulled over all the time because he was a black guy driving a nice car, and Medved was none to happy about it. Conservatives do not support profiling as a tool to allow some racist cop to get jollies.
anyway, once again, very good & thought provoking post, OP.
The two concepts are different. The first one is based on absolutes. Hire X of Y for example. The second is based on statistical averages, but the characteristic is not used as a final decision maker (who to admit to a school, charge with a crime, etc). The first one is also not based on effectiveness, but on social engineering, whereas the second is strictly for the purpose of effectiveness.
If a school were to judge based on SES, and make assumptions about races (based on rational statistical race/income correlations) during the consideration process simply for the purpose of expediency, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And in the inverse, if cops were to take an absolute position of "pull over all black drivers" I would have a problem with it.
As far as racial profiling goes, it's simply not effective if race is a large factor anyway - I just don't think we should bar ourselves completely from looking at traits which are after all arbitrary for the sake of political correctness. If I go to a certain neighborhood, there is a higher likelihood I will get pulled over (they think I'm buying drugs for example). Not exactly my idea of fun but it is based on common sense.
-
Anyone who tells you they have never profiled is a damn liar. And why is profiling by race any better or worse than profiling by gender for example? Profiling is simply risk analysis, there is no "right" or "wrong" as long as it's based on logic. As I said, the problem arises when it comes down to absolutes - but in that case it is no longer effective profiling, because it is no longer logical.
I reckon you summed that up perfectly. The OP needs to think outside the box.
Because they are racist hypocrites. There is no rocket science here.
If you truly believe the mindless partisan drivel you continuously spew I feel sorry for you. It's got to be difficult to make it through the day burdened with such an overwhelming level of ignorance.
The two concepts are different. The first one is based on absolutes. Hire X of Y for example. The second is based on statistical averages, but the characteristic is not used as a final decision maker (who to admit to a school, charge with a crime, etc). The first one is also not based on effectiveness, but on social engineering, whereas the second is strictly for the purpose of effectiveness.
If a school were to judge based on SES, and make assumptions about races (based on rational statistical race/income correlations) during the consideration process simply for the purpose of expediency, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And in the inverse, if cops were to take an absolute position of "pull over all black drivers" I would have a problem with it.
As far as racial profiling goes, it's simply not effective if race is a large factor anyway - I just don't think we should bar ourselves completely from looking at traits which are after all arbitrary for the sake of political correctness. If I go to a certain neighborhood, there is a higher likelihood I will get pulled over (they think I'm buying drugs for example). Not exactly my idea of fun but it is based on common sense.
-
Anyone who tells you they have never profiled is a damn liar. And why is profiling by race any better or worse than profiling by gender for example? Profiling is simply risk analysis, there is no "right" or "wrong" as long as it's based on logic. As I said, the problem arises when it comes down to absolutes - but in that case it is no longer effective profiling, because it is no longer logical.
All good points. Race considerations in policing very often do track throughout multiple levels of the criminal justice system, from the likelihood of being charged to the likelihood of being convicted to the likelihood of being given a relatively harsh sentence, so the argument could be made that race very often does act as the point of final determination for those so targeted. Moreover, the distinction between effectiveness and social engineering naturally leads one to the question of whether one purpose is more "acceptable" than the other, or whether they both should be equally pursued/eschewed.
If the purpose of effectiveness consistently leads to racially disparate outcomes, then just how is it really all that different than the "absolutism" supposedly entailed in social engineering? And if race should be considered at all in either case, exactly to what degree should it be considered? And to what degree should we even bother to continue pursuing the colorblind ideal in either case without risking self-contradiction?
not sure i understand your post. u mean are the laws and rules regarding law enforcement different than hiring for a job ? yes they are. profiling is used in law enforcement extensively.
does TSA look for 8 year old boy scouts at check points or men in robes with towels on their heads sweating alot and chanting in arabic looking around very nervous and wild eyed.
yes indeed law enforcement profiles.
The question then is why many conservatives seem to decry the racial "profiling" involved in hiring and admissions (screening and singling out prospective applicants based on race) while at the same time encouraging or at least supporting the same kind of profiling in law enforcement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
