Doing something to deliberately piss off another poster is a bad idea in Great Debates. Announcing your intention is a really bad idea.
Further, if you are going to “reword” another’s post, use quotation marks or italics. Do not use the software’s Quote tags unless you are actually quoting the poster.
[ /Moderating ]
And you are still the one making sure that they cannot be as “American” as anyone else. You want them to de-emphasize their roots while the British-Americans,Chinese-Americans, German-Americans,Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Korean-Americans, Mexican-Americans,Polish-Americans, Slovak-Americans, and a host of other ethnic groups are free to identify themselves without comment.
The premise was holding one’s wallet more tightly, so rudeness is implied regardless of race. The wallet is being held.
What’s the difference between “racial profiling,” “gender profiling,” “age profiling,” “size profiling,” or any other physical characteristics upon which one relies to properly assess levels of risk in any situation? On a rational level, there is none. Only on a societal, empathetic level, do we choose to only allow some types of profiling. But this is purely for emotional appeasement.
I don’t think it’s stupid to say Jews are, on average, more successful. In fact, it’s an insult to my intelligence to suggest that the relatively higher level of financial success of my Jewish friends is not a reality. You may wish it weren’t for the sake of “maintaining your worldview,” but I shall not.
Turn this argument around. Consider a group of older blacks, the men in suits and the ladies in dresses and hats, having Sunday dinner at the restaurant, versus a group of twenty-something white males with lots of tattoos skulking in a downtown alley late at night passing around bottles of booze.
Which group is more likely to be dangerous? If you follow the OP’s “logic,” then obviously you need to be wary of the blacks (who are, after all, black, and might murder you at high noon), whereas you are perfectly safe walking down the alley past the drunken white louts.
Yes, that would be stupidity taking the form of racism.
Let’s deal with this in point #2, which gets to the real substance of the issue.
You honestly believe that there’s no difference? Let me explain the difference. If we talk about statistical differences between, say, the propensity for violence in women vs. men, or in old people vs. young people, we’re talking about behavioral differences that are intrinsic, that result from physical and biological differences. When we engage in racial profiling against blacks, we’re engaging in self-reinforcing stereotypes in such matters as crime levels, education, career, and employment levels – statistics that are unfavorable to blacks because we have always believed that they were – and should be – unfavorable, and have done our very best to make it so, over centuries, and in horrifying ways. If you think this is “emotional appeasement” then you don’t even understand what racism is.
What world view do you think we’re supporting? Again, I have to question your understanding of the nature of racism. What you state may well be true for your circle of friends. It may even be true for Jewish people overall due to whatever cultural factors may drive success. So what? Where gross stupidity enters the picture is when one starts making individual decisions on that basis – like hiring or not hiring a person because they are (or are not) Jewish or black or white or Asian or whatever else bigoted racists may use to justify their bigotry.
The “don’t invest with white owned banks” is absurd and I believe that you know it. If there was a system where banks were somewhat equally owned between blacks and whites, and the statistics showed that the white banks committed financial crimes at a far higher rate than the black ones, then we would be closer to the OP’s question.
The second example is equally flawed. You introduced, at my count, five non-racial elements in the example to show that it is not a racist decision. Like any other study, one must control for the other variables and ask if that everything else being equal, would one be more logical to protect himself from crime by avoiding a black person or a white person.
Obviously, if my choice is between staying the night with Jeffrey Dahmer or Clarence Thomas, the choice is the latter. Even the grand cyclops of the local Ku Klux Klan would agree with me on that point. Cherry picking examples doesn’t answer the question.
You missed the point. It’s one thing to observe that Jews are more successful. It’s another thing to want your kid to marry one sight unseen of the individual in question. In statistical terms this involves focusing on small differences in means as opposed to wider variances in the subpopulation. In common terms, “If I were to tell you that I only employ Asian-Americans to do my taxes because “Asian-Americans do better on the Math SAT,” you would not simply question my sensitivity, but my mental faculties.”
You can’t seem to get your mind off the attributes of each sub-population though. You might want to read the passage again: the author wasn’t disputing the statistics only the lame, ignorant and addled interpretation of them. But you can’t seem to grasp that.
Criminals are not color coded. The fact that black people allegedly commit the most crime in your city does not speak of the character of all black people. Do not put black and white faces on criminals - just put criminal faces on criminals.
The whole point is that there are no divisions that do not have multiple factors that are not solely based on race. Basing anything solely on race is stupid for that very fact.
If you are looking to avoid being the victim of a criminal, it might make sense to avoid a young, black man who is un- or under-employed living in a depressed neighborhood. There is no reason to avoid my co-workers who are male and female, having various ages, making an adequate wage, and living in suburbia and exurbia.
Your Dahmer/Thomas comparison is also flawed. I would much rather spend the night in the room with a quiet skeleton than with a grumpy old man with bad opinions.
I haven’t mentioned anything regarding causality–biological, physical, mental, etc.
I am simply assessing risk based on known statistics regarding propensity for criminal activity. This is, in fact, the rational, empirical methodology of risk assessment.
Assuming any one individual black person is a criminal is wrong. Assuming any one black person is more likely to commit a crime is, empirically speaking, fact.
Again, rational risk assessment is multivariate. If you’re going to use crude statistics in a boneheaded manner, you should be concerned that 83% of white homicide victims are murdered by other whites. But honestly, if you want to make yourself safer on the street, situational awareness is more helpful. Unfortunately there are those who fear having the their worldview toppled more than they fear for their objective safety.
’
Ha ha. Literalist!
I like this thread (even if the OP is something of a McGuffin). If I see any mention of Indians, I’ll be in it like Flynn - er, the The Adventures of Robin Hood Flynn, not the They Died With Their Boots On Flynn (fictionalized account of Custer).
Multivariate risk assessment kinda gives me the hives, as does the guy who thinks that posting “interesting essays” from other sites with no commentary of his own is a valid debate technique.
I don’t really think any amount of arguing (not going to say ‘convincing’ - kinda begs the question, to me) is gonna persuade a racist to not so be. Only persuasion I can see might have an impact would be experiential. Watching the tv news (any channel) doesn’t help, except to bring up the racism for possible self-examination. Yeah, right.
Black women enroll in college more than any other group.
According to Pew Research, black women college grads are more likely to read a book than any other group.
If you find yourself reflexively questioning these statistics but not the ones that support the belief that blacks are all violent thugs, then you might just be a racist.
Not really. A McGuffin is something everybody wants.
I want him to come back and respond to our posts!
Expected a burn.
Not disappointed.
Yah! Come back G-SE. How can we convince you if you will not respond?
I’m beginning to have un-GD thoughts about your worth and intentions as an OP.
Horseshit.
Thank you very much for posting this.
It’s always worth remembering that there’s a reason why there’s so many fantastic black women writers like Alice Walker, Nikki Giovanni and countless others.
… because they have a lot to write about because white people assume they might rob and/or murder them?