What is the definition of Bigotry?

Great Debates
1

In our efforts at eradicating ignorance on the SD, we seem to be a little lax when it comes to basic terms. Specifically, bigotry -– Has anyone noticed how it’s not what it used to be? As far as I know, it used to mean, “buddy, you’ve an unsubstantiated bias which explains why you make no sense,” which has degenerated to mean “You don’t agree with me because I’m a protected class, you asshole!”

I hope I’m not alone when I say… Gwar?

What the heck do we now mean by bigotry? Dictionaries have the meaning as I’ve understood it:

Is it that people are mutating the language for their own political benefit? What makes a bigot in this day and age? Who determines what is narrow minded, and what is unreasoning? Reasonable people? I’d like to believe that, but which of these common occurances are reasonable interpretations of bigotry?[ol][li]A cop who pulls over more black men than white men.[/li][li]A statistics firm that publishes perp skin-tone information[/li][li]A cop who develops an accurate racial profile of drug smugglers coming through his county.[/li][li]A cop who develops an wildly inaccuarte racial profile of drug smugglers coming through his county[/li][li]A religious tract which states that homosexuality is a sin.[/li][li]A fundamentalist who overtly concurs with his religous teachings.[/li][li]A young man who thinks gay sex is ‘icky,’ and refuses to discuss it.[/li][li]A gay man who, upon meeting a fundamentalist at a party, gets up and leaves.[/li][li]A Lesbian couple who refuse to have a male presence in their household, extending this ban to children and animals.[/li][li]A single woman who states that “all men are dogs.”[/li][li]A political campaign which refuses to interview women on the grounds that they lack the toughness to sling mud.[/li][li]A law firm which pays women less based on their lesser career orientation.[/li][li]A police precinct which retires detectives at 65; no reason is ever given.[/li][li]An orator who refuses to appear at an event with anyone younger than 30, on the grounds that “Having foolish youngsters on the panel demeans the event.”[/li][li]A well-known white politician, who crosses the street when followed by a young black man or young latino man for safety reasons.[/li][li]A well-known black politician, who crosses the street when followed by a young black man or young latino man for safety reasons.[/li][li]A black guy who picks fights with white guys who he perceives as racists.[/li][li]A white guy who picks fights with black guys who he perceives as weak.[/li][li]Black children who accuse the successful among them of ‘acting white.’[/li][li]A staff member who threatens to quit at hearing the word ‘niggardly’ in a meeting.[/li][li]Black parents who stage a near-riot upon being informed that their kids’ teacher may have said ‘racial tables’ for ‘ratio tables.’[/li][li]A black politician who stages a anti-racist riot, which culminates in the burning of a jewish store.[/li][li]A white politician who stages a race-riot which culminates in the burning of a jewish home.[/li][li]A federalized security agent at JFK who specially scrutinizes muslim men.[/li][li]A federalized security agent at LGA who detains swarthy latinos, indians, and muslims.[/li][/ol]Which of these are evidence of bigotry and narrow-minded intolerance? For some people, it’s all of them, for others none; where is the reasonable interpretation, the litmus test?

For me, it is whether generalizations are discarded upon meeting an individual. Are there others?

Is the problem founded or compounded by our growing innumeracy? What’s the deal there? When I hear about a policeman who pulls over X number of Black Men and Y number of White Men, I couldn’t possibly care less; for me, it’s what percentage of criminals were caught – isn’t that the ultimate test of bigotry? If the cop is doing his job?

For instance, If the cop were to stop and frisk 100 black men, arresting 80, and 20 white men, arresting 2, to me, he is biased against white men! 90% of the white men are needlessly searched, versus 20% of the black men. Be it his inadequate racial profiling skills, or the statistical facts of the color of crime, he is a better policemen when he focuses on the black men. As far as I can tell, your percentage arrest rate should be the same across all skin tones; In the above example, the profile should be refined, and the attention should be shifted towards the criminal element to pick up the most criminals off the streets regardless of skin tone. Our officer’s numbers, as I see it, should be BL: S&F 115, Arr 92 / WH: S&F 3; Arr 2. Less people stopped, more arrested. Isn’t that the cop’s goal? Any focus on external variables – excepting needful ones to produce accurate criminal profiles – would seem to me to be evidence of bigotry. Since when do criminals have quotas? Hey, I can’t mug that guy, my perp skin tone is over quota?

This all seems so obvious to me – I must be doing something wrong … am I?

2

Moved to GD at the poster’s request. :wink:

3

This supposes that rate of arrest is objective, which seems like a silly assumption to make in this case.

4

“this supposes that rate of arrest is objective.”

You lost me on that. Are you saying that crime may be subjective? That may be true for speeding, but isn’t at all true for Stop & Frisk. Either he’s carrying or he isn’t, more so in this idealized case.

5

I think what WL is asking is if the policeman is frisking more black people because they’re black(and therefore suspicious), or because more black people happened to be acting suspicious (according to a race-blind standard) that particuar month.

6

Why on earth would one assume a race-blind standard? That’s precisely clashing with the point in question, namely, does is the use of a racial standard a bigoted one.

I say no, rather obviously no. Do all classes commit crimes the same way, at the same times, with the same methods? No. Why would a cop blind himself to any aspect that allows him to catch criminals?

That makes him a rather bad cop; and perhaps bigoted, too.

The “objective” proof is in the pudding, no? If he catches more criminals by using his racial profile than by blinding himself to its wisdom, it follows that his racial profile is an accurate component of his criminal profile.

In other words, Supergnat, your argument falls apart in the parenthetical. What if “suspicious behavior” requires a different threshold for the class of “black men?”

7

Further, it’s irrelevant. Let’s suppose everyone on the force is suspicious with good reason at 80%. Why would we care from which spring the good cops get their suspicions? They could be consulting a crystal ball, tea leaves, or even racial profiling, but they’re accurate when it comes to catching crooks and not bothering ordinary citizens.

Shouldn’t that be all we care about? We can’t evaluate his mindstate – all we have at the end of the day are his numbers, and many cops are called out for having “bad” numbers. I’d like to here such racial crime quotas defended, but I’m not holding my breath.

8

I’ll focus on the cop example, since otherwise I’ll spread myself too thin.

Why is the cop stopping the people he’s stopping? That’s gonna tell you whether he’s a bigot.

Given your stats, I can think of a couple scenarios:

  1. He’s stopping black people for one reason, and white people for another reason. Chances are good that he’s a bigot, but we need more information before we decide.
  2. He’s stopping everyone who comes through an area, and black people are both more common in this area and more criminal. In this case, he’s not a bigot, although he may not be very effective either.

This is a pretty implausible case, I think; can you elaborate?
Daniel

9

In what way do you want me to elaborate, Daniel? Originally the question was one of needing a criminal quota – you seem to answer it forthrightly; Quotas are irrelevant (good!), he could either be a bigot or a good cop, depending on … information …

what information?

I think the answer is, how efficient is he at stopping crime? Suppose he’s black and he knows the signs of a black criminal inside and out; can catch them 100% of the time, but only 20% of the white “suspicious” types are criminals. Is he bigoted, and if so, against who? Suppose the cop was white – does your answer change?

I believe the information you seek is how efficient and accurate the cop is, and I think you’re on the same page as me.

I’d say accuracy is the opposite of bigotry. You buy that?

10

quote]If he catches more criminals by using his racial profile than by blinding himself to its wisdom, it follows that his racial profile is an accurate component of his criminal profile.
[/quote]

No, no it doesn’t. Your logic is shocking, especially given your typically liberal ideology.

In a perfect world, an arrest yielding a conviction would be an accurate measure of criminality. But many people reasonably claim that an unfair number of minorities are rotting in jail due to systemic disadvantage and prejudice.

So if your goal as a policeman is to round up as many suspects as possible and to secure convictions, then yeah, racial profiling sure is grand. While you’re at it, ratchet up judicial racism in addition to law enforcement racism, and then you’ll be nabbing and bagging “crooks” right and left. Should this be the goal of our justice system?

Because, Lord knows, if a man is arrested and convicted, he must be guilty. In Texas, at least. A real model of American justice.

This proceeds from the faulty assumption that there is a direct relationship between arrests and convictions and some nebulous idea of “stopping crime.” Which is more effective in stopping crime, convicting a dozen black street level pushers or the white boss of a local drug racket? Since either one or the other party ends up in jail, how do you evaluate the crimes they would have committed if they were on the street? Or the seriousness of said crimes?

I think the goal of our justice system ought not to be maximizing the number of people we imprison but putting the right kind of people in prison with a minimum of racial bias. The kind of uncritical bias that you defend must be fought on both the law enforcement and on the judicial levels.

11

Maeglin, I honestly don’t know what your beef is with me.

You take an ideal hypothetical and turn it into a rant about racist police states, a la Texas, with several ad hominem attacks for good measure.

I’ll ask you, for the third time, to restrict that kind of argument to the pit.

Back to the matter at hand. This isn’t a real world situation – yet. If we could get an answer to this question, we can add other layers, like the malfeasance of law. My question, at least the one that some saw fit to question, is strictly a simple matter of statistics and selection bias, not of correct expenditures of enforcement or faulty crime-prevention thinking – again, not yet!

Once again, under the scenario I provide, would that cop be bigoted?

and

By what measure would you calculate his racial bias if you were so inclined?

12

My beef is with your arguments, Ace. They stink from the head.

This is a mischaracterization of my post. You also clearly do not know what an ad hominem fallacy is, either. I really thought we had been over this.

Once again I would challenge your assumption that more arrests plus more convictions equals more stopped crime.

Furthermore, it is obviously tautological that if you pull over more black/white/green people randomly, you are going to end up arresting more of that race. This says nothing about the incidence of crime among a particular race or between races.

Finally, the arrest statistics themselves are subject to objection, especially if they are compiled by the very people doing the racial profiling.

So, *Ace, your model requires the following assumptions:

[ul]
[li]Black people have a higher incidence of criminal activity than white people.[/li][li]This higher incidence of crime can be proven demonstrably using unbiased statistical data.[/li][li]Enough police officers do not engage in racial profiling in order to collect current accurate statistical data, in order to avoid using data to justify policy, which policy in turn creates the data.[/li][/ul]

Your model is flawed and useless from the beginning, and hence will not be able to support additional layers of abstraction and complexity.

13

No, it doesn’t say any of that.

It’s not a real-world case as I’ve said twice; you’re making assumptions that are specifically denied in the question, therefore you are not making a good faith attempt at answering the question.

A telling thatch in your house of straw is your use of gross comparitive numbers on the arrest rate when I’ve been quite purposely using percentage success rate. You don’t seem to be willing, or able, to understand the difference.

Nor does the question contain any assumptions about the causality of the crime, nor the motivations of the officer or the society that employs him.

He simply is a simple man with a simple task – I’ll abstract away some more layers; he’s more successful per unit with Class A; he’s less successful per unit with Class B; He has average efficiency compared to other cops; I ask for the third time:

Is he a bigot or can you not tell based on this information?

I note that I am still waiting for an answer. Are we all such reitiring violets here that we cannot address these questions?

14

Because your question is fucking tautological, Ace.

There are fifty marbles in a bag.

Forty of them are green, ten are blue.

The game has two players. The person who picks the most green marbles out of the bag in three picks wins.

Player A can choose marbles with his eyes open, Player B must close his eyes.

Of fucking course Player A is probably going to win more of the time. Congratulations. What does this, and consequently, your “model” prove?

Absolutely nothing.

Ace, I specifically used the word incidence, and used no comparative numbers at all. Do you know what incidence means? Or are you being purposefully obtuse?

You are crying on the cross that no one is willing to answer your “good faith” question, when you have specifically designed it to make all answers but one impossible. Tautology much?

I have pointed out the assumptions that your model rests on, hence why the question you pose is pointless and flawed. Perhaps if you adjust your model to bring it more in tune with reality, meaninful debate will result.

15

Uh huh. Consumed with rage much?

Your models, your analysis, and your tone are all badly flawed.

Forgive me if I wait for a poster who actually came to debate and not rant.

16

The fact that I am using strong language with you has no relationship with my emotional state. That’s the biographical fallacy, Ace.

My tone is not flawed whatsoever. What you have to realize is that your arguments merit my tone. It is an appropriate response to your consistent obtuseness, your verbal diarrhea, and your failure to respond to substantive criticism. I am well within my rights in the course of a discussion to abuse your arguments in a colorful manner if you continue to exhibit your current behavior in this thread.

It’s nothing personal. I am not disparaging your personal characteristics in order to undermine the validity of your arguments. I am dealing only with the arguments themselves.

Is that so? Where are my models, Ace? Why don’t you tell me how your “question” isn’t tautological? That would be a good start.

Perhaps you could also share with the class what you think I am ranting about. You couldn’t possibly be evading my criticisms by mischaracterizing them as pointless vituperation, could you?

You have not responded to a single substantive argument on this entire thread. I am going to continue to press you because it amuses me, and because I do think this is a subject worth discussing. To make it real easy for you, here is a list of my objections.

[ul]
[li]Your principle of “efficiency,” that is, number of arrests leading to convictions, is a lousy measure of “stopping crime,” and hence ought not be used either to justify any policy of racial profiling OR to answer any hypothetical question.[/li][li]Your “good faith question”, by its very design, admits only one possible answer. Unsurprisingly, this is the answer that you hope will prove your case.[/li][li]Using statistical data to support police racial profiling is nonsensical, since it relies on data obtained by racial profiling.[/li][/ul]

These are my three main objections. Can you reply on the level of the logos, Ace?

17

The answers to your questions are given, if only because you managed to maintain a veneer of civility, and I suppose I should reward such small steps:

[ol][li]The end goal has not yet been stated. Whether he stops crime or not is not his concern in the model. This point is irrelevant.[/li][li]You’ve assumed an answer, but have yet to provide it, or your reason for why it is tautological, so this point is utterly insubstantial.[/li][li]You’re arguing with an assumption that you provide. When and if I use such a model to “justify racial profiling,” feel free to bring it back. For now it is irrelevant.[/li][/ol]As you can see, I’ve dealt with your “substantial” arguments. Perhaps you could answer my question in good faith (please note, the good faith refers to your answer) before you pose questions of your own.

18

Do you even read what you are writing?

The end goal has not been stated? From the OP:

and:

So, if by “irrelevant” you mean “bloody fucking crucial,” then I guess you’re right.

You cannot backpedal from this, Ace.

You do not know what tautological means. A proposition is tautological, not an answer. I explained why your proposition is tautological with my crude bag of marbles game.

What don’t you understand?

You have set up your “question” in order to demonstrate that a policeman who does not maximize his “efficiency” is doing a poor job as a policeman. You have tried to reduce his behavior to this term “efficiency” with respect to “Group A” and “Group B.” Thus you are essentially defining “bigoted” conduct out of the debate entirely, since anything that undermines maximum “efficiency,” as you have defined it, is suboptimal. And anything suboptimal is, of course, not desirable.

The answer you are trying to provoke by restrictively posing your question is “no.”

If I answered “cannot tell,” you would argue that no more information is needed, since you already have all of the data required to optimize a search/arrest ratio.

If I boldly answered “yes,” you would rehash your original nonsense, that failure to profile racially would be bigotry against white people, which is obviously suboptimal.

In the way you defined your question, the only optimal outcome can be reached by answering no. Hence the utility of your model for a debate on actual policy or even the philosophy of law enforcement is nil. It has no predictive or normative value whatsoever.

Malarky. Remember this, from the OP:

Look at that, sample statistical data. How do you arrive at criminality figures for black men? Profile them, round them up, and arrest them. If you are going to make value judgments about “better” or more “efficient” cops using self-serving criteria, your argument will tell us nothing new whatsoever.

Not so fast. Do play again.

19

There is no backpedaling; only your rather deliberative miscomprehension of fundamentals of logic and argument.

E.g: your “tautological” proof assumes my responses to your arguments, a tactic that is the epitome of bad-faith arguing, I will let you continue to rail against yourself without further interference from me; I hope that makes it easier to carry on your onanistic dialogues.

20

Nope, not gonna let you get away this time. Though you make it really, really difficult. You have joined december as a true “anti-debater,” to use Kimstu’s felicitous term.

Oh? Where are my logical errors? What arguments am I deliberately miscomprehending?

It is written plain and clear in your OP.

Good cops stop as few people as possible and arrest as many as possible.

The goal of police activity, as you argued it, is to maximize the ratio of stops to arrests.

But no, you would like to magically “abstract” away all of that and narrow your “model” to a nonsensically posed question. A question which is so obviously tautological that I could not scream it any louder if I tried.

It doesn’t assume your answers, it shows how, in the little system you created, any answer other than the one you are looking for is impossible and undesirable.

This isn’t bad faith arguing, Ace, it’s calling out your bullshit. The only reason why this is bordering on onanism is because of your complete and total unwillingness to engage any issue or accept any criticism, or god forbid, question your demonstrably faulty assumptions. The onanist is you.