I was warned in this thread which I think is a BS warning. We were directed to … well I’m not exactly sure. I thought we were directed not to make flippant comments regarding police interaction with Black men.
Basically the modding went like this
DCnDC: Depends. Are you black?
ChronosMod: This is not the time nor the place for that comment.
Grrr!: Exactly what I was thinking. (to DCnDC)
Dorjan: I disagree. That’s a very relevant comment. (to Chronos)
Saint Cad: No it’s not because if he were Black he wouldn’t be running. He would have already been shot in the back. (to Dorjan)
Now the Mod Hammer
engineer_comp_geek:
In other forums perhaps, but not in GQ. (to Dorjan)
Again, keep comments like this out of GQ. (to me)
Further comments along these lines in this thread will result in warnings. (to everyone)
So now we have two question.
One, why is it inappropriate to talk about a person’s possibility of being arrested when it comes to race? It is DEFINATELY GQ material and I could cite many cases where a person was arrested based solely on the color of their skin.
Two, what sort of comments ecg? Any dealing with race or just the smart-ass ones?
The response?
garygnu: It might be flippant, but this forum deals with factual answers, and it is most certainly factual that ones skin color is a big factor when it comes to being stopped by police.
My commentary to garygnu’s post: My thoughts exactly. The question of if you would be stopped by cops for running/parkour away from them will be different if you are white male in workout clothes as opposed to a black male dressed like a gangbanger. I don’t see any difference with discussing that aspect just like we can discuss if you’d be more likely to be arrested if you have a backpack on (suspected shoplifting). Are the mods saying race should not be discussed as a factual component of being arrested or is it merely the style of the comments?
The result? I got a warning for not following mods instructions. I think it’s a BS warning (I thought the instruction was not to be flippant and not an outright ban on any and all discussion of race) and feel it should be rescinded but more importantly given all of the evidence we have of bias in law enforcement why is it NOW against the rules to discuss how race plays a role in your chances of being arrested in the United States in a GQ thread?
IANAMod either, but such comments (“if you’re black…”) almost inevitably derail a GQ thread into something resembling a Great Debates or IMHO thread. Hard to blame the mods for taking a “permitting even 1% of that will derail the 99%” approach. You have to maintain a certain “sterility” in GQ.
When the OP asked that question, he was asking about **legal **things. A GQ question to that would involve only laws, regulations, etc., not things like skin color.
I also agree that that was a phenomenally bad call. “Running While Black” is absolutely a thing. Cite:
The idea that this is somehow not germane to the conversation is only valid if you ignore the fact that racism is an omnipresent force in American society. If GQ cannot account for that, GQ cannot give good answers. Or what, if they asked the same question about open carrying an assault rifle, would it somehow be wrong or “not GQ” to bring up this incident and ask if they’re black or white?
It is not unreasonable or stretching to assume that a white man sprinting and doing parcour will be perceived differently than a black man sprinting and doing parcour, and giving the advice of “sure, go for it” to someone who is black is a lot more dangerous than giving that advice to someone who is white.
My initial reaction was “good warning” but after going back to the thread and viewing the clip I’m not so sure.
The OP ends with
Basically it looks like the OP is asking if the combination of running and acting is illegal. So to me questions of race, age, gender and all come into play. Let’s face it, if some old white guy like me is doing it a cops first reaction is probably going to be looking for the axe-murderer chasing me. If its a young black man I am not so sure. Same basic scenario if its a woman instead of me. Her and the cop will ask what’s up; a young man and my bet is the cop will do a pat-down and cuffs and then ask the follow-up questions.
Setting aside just how it was raised I offer as well that a more CS-type response was offered in the post above ** DCnDC **. So I’m just not sure the original comment by Chronos was on target. I’m also not sure that this isn’t a case where the thread should have been bumped to IMHO or elsewhere rather than trying to force it into GQ form/responses. Like most people said the true answer is “it depends” and in this case it depends on too many different things for a fully factual response.
From that point on — call it “fruit of the poisoned tree” and scale back the warnings from it.
I completely agree with ECG’s statements that the initial flippant comments about “running while black” didn’t have a place in GQ, and the mod notes were appropriate. But I too feel the instructions “no more comments along these lines” were unclear. I interpreted it to mean keep the snark out.
Garygnu and Saint Cad’s subsequent remarks were not flippant or snarky, and were more of a GQ-appropriate discussion of the effect of race on likelihood of arrest. If ECG’s note had said “no further discussions of race in this thread,” I would disagree with that limitation but I could understand the warnings for not following mod instructions.
But given the unclear instructions, I think it’s unfair to give warnings to people who, very reasonably, interpreted the instructions differently.
As with an encounter with police, don’t question or disobey a direct order unless you have some existential reason to do so. Clarification is fine, but don’t question or disobey a direct order. If you disagreed with Chronos’s attempt to nip a hijack in the bud, the proper course of action was to open this thread instead of responding in that thread. engineer_comp_geek was probably trying to tell you not to question Chronos’s ruling in that thread, and he might have been a bit more helpful by saying you can make a thread in ATMB (so there is a little room for improvement on the moderating side), but you should already know that.
The moderators in official capacity are the supreme arbiters of what is allowed in a thread, and that is in the rules. Try to come here before getting warned.
The question as phrased is unclear: does it mean what the law is, or what would actually happen, or what happens in similar cases?
If the first, race isn’t an issue. If the second, it’s a hypothetical unsuited to GQ. If the third, race is an issue.
I don’t think the note was clear enough. If race was explicitly excluded, the most helpful note would have been something like, “please confine discussion only to the relevant laws, not to social factors like race, poverty, etc.” The note about “along these lines” didn’t make it clear enough what “these lines” are, and a warning seems too much.
Amen! I fully agree. But in those cases where a factual discussion (not argument) of the effect of racism is relevant to the exact question asked by the OP, then it’s appropriate to include that discussion.
Sure, it probably does. It shouldn’t have an influence on getting shot in the back, though, unless the police witness you committing a felony, and you’re armed and shooting at them.
This is the dumbest dispute about a warning I can remember. Anyone who’s been on the board for a week understands that is not a GQ post, regardless of your political outlook.
