Saturday, July 20, 2013

Adventures in Profiling: Racism or Common Sense?

What I find hilarious is that race baiters like to make the contention that profiling is racial.  I'm sure there are some people out there who will look at a person of color and automatically suspect that he/she is up to no good, simply on the basis of skin color, but I highly doubt that this is the case for a vast majority of white Americans, at least in generation X and beyond.

The real issue that race baiters refuse to acknowledge that profiling someone as being a criminal or "up to no good," goes way beyond skin color, and it has more to do with how a person presents him or herself.  So what I'm going to do is put up a series of pictures to help illustrate what I'm trying to say.  The purpose is to allow everyone to acknowledge their automatic assumptions about the character of the following people.

If you claim you don't have automatic assumptions, then you're lying.  Everyone does.  Even me.

Brace yourselves!

Which one of these men most likely has a business degree?

Which of these young men do you think were voted "most likely to
succeed," in high school?
Now for a real challenge . . . one of these men belongs to a gang and
would make you nervous if you saw him walking around at night?

To prevent anyone from bitching, I placed the "stereotypes" of the same race/ethnicity next to each other.  Again, the whole point is that people actually do fit into stereotypes, because if they didn't then the stereotypes wouldn't exist.

I want to leave you all with one final picture.  Out of the two people presented, based solely on statistics, which one would you single out for an extra pat-down in an airport security check?


Silverfiddle said...

I'm waiting for Jersey and his liberal ilk to come in here and fight the stupid fight against your common sense.

Michail Bloombergovich, whom I detest, pointed out recently that NY City's Stop and Frisk program oversampled whites. He said, based upon population statistics, they weren't stopping enough minorities!

Thank Gaia for him that he is a gun-grabbing, nanny state, doctrinaire progressive. Imagine if Rudy Giuliani had said something like that, speaking of profiling.

But lets talk about Sanford and White Hispanic George Zimmerman's gated community.

Our self-styled African American president, himself a white black man, has deplored racial profiling.

To accurately gauge the situation, we should have a statistical breakdown, by race, of perpetrators caught committing crimes in Zimmerman's gated community.

Until libs can show that it was not overwhelmingly black people, they should stfu.

Anonymous said...

Ok Jackie, I will bite.

First pic, I would say the guy on the left is the more likely college educated one.

Second pic, I would actually say the guy on the left again. Because readin books is a white thang homey, and you can make mo money pimpin, trickin, druggin, and rappin than you can by readin any dam book.

Third pic, I would say the guy on the right. He would be a part of the gang of lawyers who would have the balls to convict you when you break the law. That isn't right. You should be able to break the law and get away with it like whitey do.

The last pic, both get a pat down. The left because he is a terrorist, and the right because TSA has closet pedo bear workers who thinks that the object in the little girls hands is a phallic gesture, and that she secretly wants to be groped.

8 year olds dude.

Joking aside, this has been my argument since day 1. If you don't want to be "stereotyped" don't reinforce those stereotypes, and if you do happen to resemble them, don't be surprised when people treat you as such.

Dave Chappelle had a comedy bit where he was making fun of women who dress in such a manner that their "assets" are pronounced. You may not be a whore, but you are wearing a whore's uniform.

He made the correlation that if he as Dave Chappelle the actor and comedian walked around the city dressed as a police officer, that people would get confused easily.


"Uhhhh just because I am dressed this way, does not make me a police officer"

that's damn right.

It goes beyond your looks and your appearance, when Rachel Jeantel came across as semi-illiterate in the courtroom and was outright combative, everyone has made excuses for her since she was black, and now has a full ride to wherever because tom joyner wanted to vicariously get famous.

With all the noticeable problems and incomprehensible mutterings Rachel's testimony had, she never once got admonished by the judge for being clear as mud.

Trayvon's parents did not suffer the same malady, nor did Alexis Carter when he testified, and they are black... so what gives?

Is there racial discrimination, sure there is. Only a fool would deny it exists. However, the burden of "overcoming" it, should not be on the people who largely are not committing the discrimination. 93% of all known homicides of black people are committed by other black people. Only 7% of all black homicides are committed by whites, and whites means hispanic, asian, and everything that isn't black.

There is a huge disconnect from the reality of the situation and the victim mentality the professional black grievance industry is trying to fuel.

Actual countrywide racial discrimination would be no media coverage for Trayvon Martin, and the Zimmerman trial being swept under the rug in the media. I am white, and I have an IQ of 163, No one is asking for my opinion on television because I refuse to say a popular message if it isn't true. I would not go on CNN and racebait, or chum the waters for the sharks to feast upon.

You want the truth? Black people can more or less choose their destiny in America, as evidenced by the millions of black people who are productive, law abiding members of society. To suggest otherwise, either because of a practice that was abolished 150 years ago and is of negligible impact today, or that the white man has been suppressing the education of black people... is the real racism. The belief that black people are incapable of helping themselves is a truly racist mindset.

Anonymous said...

Whenever I see a split infinitive, I just stop reading.

There's no excuse for this kind of grammatical, syntactical slovenliness in those who vainly imagine themselves to be "educated."

Anonymous said...

Ahh I see, one of those people eh? Where is the love *at*.

I would like to explore your thoughts, *to better understand* an actual argument.

Joe Markowitz said...

So your point is that it's not just race that people stereotype. A black man in a business suit looks less suspicious than a black man in a sweatshirt. OK, but so what?

What you also need to acknowledge is that race is part of the equation of stereotyping. A news crew staged a series of bike thefts in a park. In each case the thief was a young person in similar casual attire, very obviously trying to break the lock of a bicycle with clippers, hacksaw, etc. When the thief was a white kid, people gave the kid a few glances, but hardly anyone intervened. When it was a black kid, again in almost identical clothing, people gathered around in a threatening and very belligerent way, challenged him and called the cops. And when it was a pretty girl stealing the bike, men stopped to offer to help her!

Check it out and tell me you don't find this a bit scary. Then try to imagine seeing the world from the point of view of the black kid.

Jack Camwell said...

I know what you're referencing, Joe, but there's a particular reason why I inserted the final picture, the one with the actual terrorist and the little girl.

STATISTICALLY, more acts of terrorism have been perpetrated by Arab Muslim men in the last decade than have been perpetrated by small caucasian girls.

Of course that's so obvious that it's a little bit ridiculous to even say it, but this common sense fact didn't stop the TSA from singling out a small girl, around age 6, for an extra pat-down.

And the *ONLY* reason they did it was to give the appearance that the TSA doesn't racially profile.

I'm intelligent enough to know that not every black person is a thief, and I probably wouldn't have thought that ANYONE would just steal a bike in broad day light. Actually, I probably would have just not cared either way.

But when most Americans are aware of the crime stats, and the disproportionate amount of black people who commit particular crimes compared to white people, it's not all that crazy for people to make such generalizations.

That doesn't mean their generalizations are RIGHT, but when you consider that most Americans are morons who actually buy into things like media hype, then it makes sense.

Put the redneck against the black kid who is well dressed, and what assumptions would you make?

Put the well-dressed latino up against the white guy in a suit, and what assumptions would you make? Chances are, you wouldn't really make any assumptions other than that they are well-kept, likely both very successful and happy men.

Sure, racial profiling does happen, but it's not because people are racist. I know that's really hard for a lot of people to grasp, but it's because they don't want to admit that racial groups in America--white people included--have problems.

Proportionally, black men are more likely to be thieves, rapists, and murderers than white men. Proportionally, white men are more likely to be child molesters, serial killers, and the perpetrators of white collar crime than black men.

Don't believe me? Just look up the statistics.

Jack Camwell said...

And to the anon who either is admonishing me or my readers:

So few people give a shit about split infinitives. Honestly, it's simply a choice of style. The only reason that it is sometimes considered gramatically incorrect is because someone back in the 19th century decided that it sounded less formal, or tacky.

In my limited time on this Earth, I've found that those who pick apart the grammar of others are usually the same people who disagree with the general message. And so, further to elevate themselves as intellectually superior, they adminish their opponents for their "syntactical slovenliness," as if to imply that their opponents must inherently be wrong because they are not "educated" enough to always remember to never put a preposition at the end of a sentence.

In short: you're a snob, and it's probably best that you stopped reading anyway. You might have had some good insight to add to the conversation, but I guess we'll never know since you can't get over your superior grasp of the English language.

What a shame.

Jack Camwell said...

Also, Joe, let's not pretend that whites aren't "racially profiled."

When I attended Ohio Dominican University, someone wrote "I hate niggers," on a bathroom stall in one of the dorms. Word got out, and the Columbus Dispatch did a big story on it.

Well, while waiting for the light to change so I could cross the street to the parking lot, a car drove by, slowed down at the cross walk, and then some black guy stuck his head out of the window and shouted at me and the 5 other white people standing next to me "racist assholes!"

The funny part about the whole thing was that after an investigation from the administration, it was discovered that an African American student actually did it. He confessed, and all of the black students that protested at the front of the main building felt pretty retarded. The kid did it because he thought it'd be funny.

Now you might say "well it's reasonable for that guy to assume that the white people at the school were racist, because there's a long history of whites being racist in America."

You probably wouldn't say that, because you're an intelligent man, but I'm sure you see where I'm going with that. The truth is that it actually WAS a safe bet that the culprit was a white racist. It was completely unfair for me to be called a racist, but I can understand how the minds of morons work.

So please, let's not pretend like white people don't know what it's like to be judged by the color of their skin.

Joe Markowitz said...

What you said in your post Jack, is that it is race baiters who make the contention that profiling is racial, and that the vast majority of white Americans do not engage in racial profiling. I challenged that statement and now you are saying that because black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it is rational for people to engage in racial profiling. So let's agree that lots of racial profiling does exist.

And let's also consider the possibility that one of the reasons that black people seem to be committing such a disproportionate amount of the crime is that the cops and the prosecutors are engaged in a lot of racial profiling also. The black kid stealing a bike or a purse is going to jail, while the white kid is probably getting a slap on the wrist.

Jersey McJones said...

This whole "race baiting" thing is just the right wing holding their fingers in their ears and singing loudly. Often people make claims of "race baiting" for a variety of reasons, and some well-founded. But when some people make that accusation, what they're really saying is that they simply don't want to talk about it. It makes them uncomfortable.

In your case, Jack, I think you are just thinking too personally. You're not, as Joe said, acknowledging other understandable and often well-founded points of view. If you simply don't believe these people who hold that point of view, then Jack, I would suggest you take a broader look around.

One does have to wonder if Zimmerman would have surveilled a white kid walking down that street. It seems pretty clear Martin wasn't up to no good. Why else would Zimmerman surveil him?

Black people have enough of that in their lives with the police. They don't need play-cop morons with loaded guns following them around too.


Jack Camwell said...

"Why else would Zimmerman surveil him?"

Per Zimmerman's account, and per his report to the 911 dispatcher, Martin was not using the side walk. He was moving in and around people's houses.

The break-ins that he mentioned on the 911 call were supposedly perpetrated by dark-skinned people wearing hoodies. Wouldn't you think that a bit odd?

And Joe, my point is that racial profiling isn't as rampant as people want us to think. The GZ case was NOT a case of racial profiling. As I mentioned, if GZ had spotted a well-dressed black kid walking down the sidewalk, he probably would have thought nothing of it. The whole issue is how people present themselves.

If you dress like white trash, people are going to assume you're white trash. If you dress like a thug, people are going to assume that you're a thug. Given that an overwhelming majority of gang members are hispanic or black, if you're hispanic or black and dress like a thug, chances are people are going to think you're in a gang.

Had he spotted a white kid, walking in people's yards and close to their houses, wearing a dark hoodie, he probably would have done the same thing: i.e. surveiled the kid and followed him.

Note that Trayvon bolted behind the houses and what not almost immediately, even before GZ got out of the car. Doesn't that seem a bit suspicious?

My point is that skin color is only part of the equation--and skin color when combined with certain other aspects will often cause people to make instant categorizations of someone's character. So yes, just about everyone partakes in profiling, but not solely based on skin color.

What the baiters want us to believe is that had TM been walking down the sidewalk dressed in a polo and kakhis that GZ would have messed with him just because he's black. Maybe someone from the "Greatest Generation" in like, 1950s Mississippi, but not from some Hispanic Gen X guy in 2012 Florida. Utter nonsense.

Jack Camwell said...

And Jersey,

The only time I throw around the term race baiter is when the race card is thrown where there is NO CLEAR EVIDENCE that racism played a factor.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that GZ is racist and that he racially profiled Martin. ZERO.

The only evidence that people present is that a half-white man killed a black kid. That's not really evidence of racism, that's just circumstantial. Are we now to assume that ANY TIME a white man kills a black man that it was definitely racially motivated?

The only other piece of "evidence" people provide is some asinine hypothetical notion that GZ wouldn't have bothered TM if TM were white. Since there is absolutely ZERO credence to that, and since the hypothetical situation is 100% impossible to prove, that's not really evidence . . . now is it?

What about Roderick Scott? Was that racially motivated? Probably not. How about the black teen that shot a white baby in the face. Was that racially motivated? Why won't either of them be investigated for civil rights violations?

Oh, that's because Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton actually racially profile: they assume that because GZ is "white" that he is racist.

Ironic, isn't it?

So in summary, I only throw race baiting around when race is brought up without a shred of evidence. Usually that happens when the race baiter knows he has completely lost the argument. Unfortunately, people like you are tools of the asshats who want America to be a place where white men are never, ever allowed to criticize a person of color for any reason.

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, I think you need to get to know more black people.


Micky said...

And there you have it.
Jack needs to get to know more black people.
Is Jersey profiling Jack by some means ?
Is Jack a fat white rich trailer park racist ?
Did Jersey just peg him as a sheltered ignoramus with no cultural backing whatsoever ?
Jersey cannot refute the truth in any intelligent means, so its Jacks fault.

I remember way back in 2008 on Erics blog we were debating the existence, or the non-existence, of the existential threat of radical Islam.
My position was that if little green men are hijacking your jets you might want to pay closer attention to them.
Jersey referred to these terrorists as "unruly children".
Maybe they should be on the cover of Rolling Stone.

To judge people by first impressions, which are usually visual, is normal. Its a natural defense mechanism so we can reassure ourselves of what next action to take. We can only make our best educated guess as to who were dealing with until we actually learn more than what appearances give us.
In the interest of fairness liberals will put common sense caution aside.
I wonder if they'd be so fair and tolerant if some person were carrying a bible and a flag.

Micky said...

If you strip everyone of anything that defines them into any stereotype demographic, race, religion or ideology then you can have world peace.
Theres only one catch...
It would be Communism

Jack Camwell said...


I know plenty of black people, I've had these same discussions with them, and you know what? They agree with me.

Before you (yet again) make assumptions about my life and my experiences, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself.


Jack Camwell said...

"And there you have it.
Jack needs to get to know more black people.
Is Jersey profiling Jack by some means ?
Is Jack a fat white rich trailer park racist ?
Did Jersey just peg him as a sheltered ignoramus with no cultural backing whatsoever ?"


Micky said...

Well Jack, look at it this way.
Liberals are allowed to profile folks because its for a good cause.
You and I are pretty much two different people, but because were not liberals, were the same.
Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Look up the word prolix. You need to understand what it means, and realize how guilty you are of it.

Fidel Eisenstein

Jack Camwell said...

Fidel Eisenstein,

Fuck you.

Was that concise enough?

Anonymous said...

Split infinitives and prolix huh?

I can't tell if you are you trying to be cute by "profiling" us and that is the left-handed point of your trolling comments, or you are a genuine wart on the ass of progress with nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

Whatever the case, please contribute more than just your petty insights into our communication preferences.

The Smoking Man said...

To poorly troll.