Profiling someone because of the color of their skin is 1,000% racism. There is no natural reaction to hate someone because they have different color skin pigmentation. That is a taught trait. We profile because we hate or are afraid of someone.
White Privilege?
- Thread starter Beagle
- Start date
Profiling someone because of the color of their skin is 1,000% racism. There is no natural reaction to hate someone because they have different color skin pigmentation. That is a taught trait. We profile because we hate or are afraid of someone.
I totally disagree, and for clarification, I'm not talking skin color, I'm talking the way the person is dressed, body language, verbal communication, etc.
We don't profile because of hate, we profile due to past experience, reading and understanding our environment.
It's discriminatory.
BuckysBadger24
Member
So you've never profiled someone? Never saw black teens in baggy clothes hanging out in front of a gas station or some such, and wondered if they were causing trouble? Saw a truck driven by a white guy with a Confederate flag and thought he had to be a redneck racist? For that matter saw any homeless person, and thought they should stop being lazy and try to look for a job rather than begging for change?
And if you have, you then consider yourself a racist? Stereotypes exist for many reasons, but sometimes they can end up true. All it takes is one time of seeing it on the news or elsewhere to make you wonder when you see individuals that fit them. I'd hardly consider that racism.
To me racism starts when people start acting on those stereotypes. Whether through violence or shouting pre-assumed slurs, ect. Not by wondering about it when you drive by.
No it's called not being a total dumbass. Everyone profile's, everyone...
I am married to Mexican American woman, you bet your ass if some loked out hommie looking dudes are walking around my vehicle, I am profiling them, and so is my wife. Discrimination? Really dude?
I'm starting to wonder what reality some of you guys are living in. Here in the real world, if you ain't assessing, taking in and processing information and "profiling" the situation. You're all kinds of wrong and honestly wonder how you lived so long, much less a deployment in the bad lands...unless of course you just aren't being honest with yourself.
And yes I've sat through enough EO classes, and bullshit profiling awareness courses to make my head spin. That shit ain't reality, it's clown shoes made up bullshit, by dumbass people with zero real world life experiences, trying to make a name for themselves in an academic setting. Just like "white privilege" and just like them telling people that blacks can't be racist, or that cops killing black is an epedemic, when more whites are killed by cops, and most blacks are killed by other blacks, etc, etc, etc.
But anyway, if you're done emplying I am a discriminating racist
, I will agree to disagree with you and step away until this afternoon.
That's the problem though; it's not just poor black men being profiled. Senator Tim Scott, one of only two black senators, gave a nearly 20 minute speech about this last week:
WATCH: Black GOP Senator Says He's Been Stopped By Police 7 Times In A Year
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,383
To be honest, I think you're dead on. From what I'm seeing, many of the arguments being made about privilege and bias are being written by people that live within the walls of academia. Most of them come from backgrounds that are afforded them relative safety while growing up. It's good that people can have such a nice upbringing, but I just think that they lack credibility. Especially when they start publishing reports on topics that they're out of touch with.
What's surreal, is that these reports gain widespread acceptance and are touted as fact. Whats worse is that they become fodder for good-idea fairies, and people who want to push an agenda that will suit their needs. The academics that hammer sensationalism, are essentially turning the Social Sciences into new age shenanigans.
We might as well get used to it. Shamanism is back, baby! Now where did I put that eye 0f newt...
Really?:wall:
Last edited by a moderator:
Profiling is a legitimate mechanism / tool of security and crime prevention. Also used widely for counter-terrorism. It is used the world over for probable cause coupled with clearly identified indicators to stop and question. "Predictive profiling" assists in the interception of those meeting certain objective criteria, that possess high risk behavior matching specific indicators. Racial profiling and the legitimate use of Predictive profiling are entirely different. This is used widely in airline, maritime and general security applications.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
@R.Caerbannog i disagreed because you just said a bunch of stuff that is not only probably not true, but totally lacking in verifiability. Those academics do things called research. Research very often puts people very much in the real world. Many people who choose to study things like sociology in depth have a wide range of experience. Let's take a random college, say University of South Florida, and look at the staff of the Sociology department.
USF :: Department of Sociology
These people are fucking experts. They study this day and night. They have forgotten more about the shit we are talking about than we know. That is one school. Lumping in academics as out of touch, or not understanding the real world reeks of anti-intellectualism.
USF :: Department of Sociology
These people are fucking experts. They study this day and night. They have forgotten more about the shit we are talking about than we know. That is one school. Lumping in academics as out of touch, or not understanding the real world reeks of anti-intellectualism.
Hate and fear are completely different. Not hating on anyone... After working in South LA for six years there are some trends to be aware of and take in consideration for your personal safety. If I see a group of people gathered on a corner in the middle of the night, they begin to approach my vehicle at a stop light, I'm getting concerned, will have a gun in my lap and will probably blow the light. BTDT outside of Nickerson Gardens more than once, as well as Jordan Downs. I see a sidewalk filled with a group of young men hanging out on the street corner in the hood, I'm not walking through them or even on the same side of the road, if I can help it. And my black friends feel exactly the same...sorry, fact! If I'm in Burbank or West Hollywood and have the same experiences I will react differently. Work a stake out in Oakland or Richmond, see how you respond. If I'm in a white neighborhood and a bunch of scooter trash is hangin out or meth heads I'm feeling exactly the same. Yea, I profile all the time, I see some tatted up peckerwood white trash skulking around, looking like he's capering he's got my attention. Skin color is a side bar issue, behavior profiling coupled with the location and the situation as well as patterns of attack and encounter are the determining factors. Crimes statics and violent behavioral patterns are facts...avoiding the people who meet the profile of a given perpetrator in a specific area are probably a smart thing. If you disagree fine, but I guarantee you aren't walking down the sidewalk thinking everyone is cool and just wants a big hug.
Yeah no issues. It's a stance I've laid out a couple times before- I wanna say on one of the police brutality threads.
In my opinion, America has a serious problem with race. Institutional, pronounced racism. We made great leaps for the black community in the 60's, but blacks are discriminated against in real and frequent ways today. There are a million examples out there, but AIRBNB's latest kerfluffle is a pretty good snapshot- racism is alive and well in this country, and will be for some time to come, I think.
It takes but a quick look/search to find that black and latino men are sentenced much more harshly than what this article calls "similarly situated white men". It's not in a county, province, or city. It's nationwide.
We are talking about WP because the BLM movement finally found a (albeit ham handed) way to describe that thing when whites say things like, "Don't do bad things you wont get arrested; don't get caught doing bad things and you won't be sentenced so harshly; go to school and get a job and stop whining about being oppressed." The real issue is that I believe that our society and judicial system systemically (the entire system) treats minorities unfairly when compared to 'similarly situated white people'.
The two examples I listed here are good examples of why I think the way I do.
We have a part (I won't use words like 'large' or significant) of our society that are profoundly racist, and we have a system that time and time again dishes out much harsher penalties to minority groups even when compared to their non-minority counterparts.
I think that sums it up enough to answer your question, I don't wanna over-explain.
It's been my personal experience through conversation and countless social interactions. That many of the specialized academics live in a bubble of what they study. That's not to say all, but many of them. I am not anti academic research, but my issue is the political and social engineering views that start certain studies, that influence studies.
Example: I can make a study on X, poll targeted area's,with specific questioning that will give me the desired results. Is it research? Sure, now I get my results published in a media outlet and people are qouting it until it is rather debunked (normally quietly) or until it becomes so popular it taken as factual data.
There are more than a few cases of this, one that comes to mind was a few years back when it was stated that 3 out of 4 women in college are sexually assaulted. It was literally a tainted bogus study, that became the rave for several years, but quietly died when proven false.
Now there are plenty of legitimate studies conducted throughout the academic world, that do give a glimpse into social issues, but they don't generally fit the liberal naritive and don't get the media coverage they should. Like the recent study by Harvard that showed no racial biased towards blacks in police involved shooting, however, did observe racial biased in use of force and less lethal force.
I agree with regards to the justice system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,588
To be honest, I think you're dead on. From what I'm seeing, many of the arguments being made about privilege and bias are being written by people that live within the walls of academia. Most of them come from backgrounds that are afforded them relative safety while growing up. It's good that people can have such a nice upbringing, but I just think that they lack credibility. Especially when they start publishing reports on topics that they're out of touch with.
What's surreal, is that these reports gain widespread acceptance and are touted as fact. Whats worse is that they become fodder for good-idea fairies, and people who want to push an agenda that will suit their needs. The academics that hammer sensationalism, are essentially turning the Social Sciences into new age shenanigans.
We might as well get used to it. Shamanism is back, baby! Now where did I put that eye 0f newt...
Do not confuse academic research, and what they have to say, with what the media is shaping, spinning, and presenting. They are not the same.
To add to what @TLDR20 has said:
It is unfair to think of those in academia as having come from the "upper crust" of our society; or being the upper crust. It is true that some have come from pedigreed families, and are carrying on the family tradition. Others have come from the working middle class. Some have come from a family of six or seven kids growing up in a one bedroom apartment in NYC, Philly, San Antonio, South Boston and.....well just pick you favorite big city. That is the beauty of the academic world, they really do not prejudge, but look at the body of work each one brings forth for consideration. They all work to contribute to the knowledge base that undergrad, and graduate students learn from. The academic world may appear sheltered and removed from society, but they look at each others work with a critical eye. They do not look at a body of work that is presented by the media. What the media presents is another story all together; isn't that true?
Know that you can pick and choose what you research, to prove a point. It is a narrow study that brings out the answer you are looking for. Often times media reports come from the "Narrow Research" to drive home a point the editorial staff wants. That is then presented to the viewing/ reading public for their consumption. What we are feeling is not a failing of the academic world, but more a failing of the profession of Journalism. Nobody runs to the academic world to check if what is being reported is accurate. Instead, you channel surf over to CNN, or Fox to see the other side of the story. It is not the academic world that is failing us, just the lack of pure journalism.
My $.02, and back in to my wee cave in The Valley.
Dude there are countless studies being debunked after publishing. In medical, science, social studies, etc. It literally happens a lot.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
Yeah by better or newer research. Saying the media debunks it is not at all true. Saying a poll debunks something is also BS. Other research rarely says the exact opposite of research. When something is debunked it is a huge deal. Like Andrew Wakefield, who originally published a link on autism and vaccines. That was an enormous deal. Not just some footnote in a magazine.
I never said the media debunks anything. Also when conducting studies of social issues, it is primarily done through polling. I will agree in the medical and science world's, it's a big deal. In the social realm, "things" like white privilege, when proven to be false are not made to be as big of a deal. And often are cited in political arenas by politicians and political talking heads, even after they have been clearly proven false.
Let's take the a false narrative like concealed carry would raise the amount of homicides in America. That was the talking points in the mid 90's for the liberal agenda. 20 years later, there has been countless studies showing that homicides decreased after concealed carry became law. Some that were not well researched that tried to push the old agenda but due to CDC and the FBI Keeping close study, the naritive was debunked through unbiased research over a long period of time. However, when ever the issue is brought up, these findings are never discussed, but others are used, like homicides in the UK vs the US per capita, etc.
My overall point, many of the socially based studies on a wide range of issues, are very narrow and do not reflect actually social norms. What might be so in the area surrounding the a study at Harvard, is probably not so in the area surrounding Texas A&M. There is no one mold, hints the difference in cultural and social norms across our country...but I digress.
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,383
I'm probably wrong, but I disagree. Just because one goes out to do research, doesn't give one an all encompassing view of the picture/people you are studying. Not to be disingenuous, but the majority of people doing research aren't actually living with their subjects and experiencing everyday life with them.
In other words, they may pound the pavements. But at the end of the day, they'll go back to their communities or to the halls of academia. That's not to say that there aren't a handful of researchers that still practice participant observation. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't a disconnect, between the researchers and their subjects.
As for certain people being experts, you are right and I cannot refute that. I just can't discount the human factor that plays into the research/presentation of the data. Earlier this year, there was a big stink about how scientists were messing with their data. It came up on the John Oliver show. Where scientists would use p-hacking to change the parameters of their data, until something significant came up. Not only that. Of the data published, how many replication studies are done to make sure that the study is indeed valid?
P-hacking | Sociological Science
Robert Kurzban: P-Hacking and the Replication Crisis (HeadCon '13 Part IV) | Edge.org
Just because someone is an expert, it does not make them infallible. Or make their work above reproach.
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.
I know it's long, but he explains some of the topics and scientists motivations better than I.
Last edited by a moderator:
macNcheese
Member
The data collected for this subject is kind of tricky though. It's based on convictions when it comes to race vs race data. So if you say that white people are more privileged then obviously they can afford a good lawyer and have a better chance of getting away with it and that removes them from the data.
You're innocent until proven guilty so you can't just say that if they were arrested for a crime that they are guilty. So you can't use that as data. It has to be definite. I would say the data that they study is more of a factor than their personal views.
You're innocent until proven guilty so you can't just say that if they were arrested for a crime that they are guilty. So you can't use that as data. It has to be definite. I would say the data that they study is more of a factor than their personal views.
