Blame on both sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
And what if stats show that those who look or behave a certain are more likely to be up to mischief.... Do you ignore those facts?

Like I said. I had absolutely nothing to hide. So it was fine with me

For me the only thing that matters is the return on investment on targeted stop checks, which should be measured and evaluated locally and nationally.

For example: it would be shameful for a force to regularly use blunt, profiled, stop and search based on such 'statistics' which then return nothing, whilst simultaneously failing to investigate child abuse of children in care (the most vulnerable group I can think of) and when their incompetence comes to light, suggest that 'sensitivity' stopped them doing their job!
 
You mean people who have been speeding? Or drive a certain car? Then yes that's fine. And if they happen to be more likely to be black that's fine in this context. But it's not ok if the only reason they are picked up is because they are black.

If 9 out of 10 times. A crime is committed by a certain type of person. Are the police wrong for wanting to search those same types of people?

I mean no disrespect when I say this. And I could be completely wrong. But I suspect you haven't lived in a really rough area. I grew up in Tottenham and speak from personal experience. I am all for stop and search.

Years ago Me and a friend of mine were once approached by a couple guys. Who asked whether they could use one of our phones. My friend wisely said he didn't have his. I foolishly said yes.

Moments later they began to walk off with my phone (not run). When I told them to hand it back. One of them turned around and said "don't make me pull it out...."!

Needless to say I let them go off with it. But had they been searched during that day. Be it because of their skin colour or anything else. I wouldn't have met them that day.

I get it.. the system isn't perfect. But we're all human. And I'm sure you'd be singing to a different tune if you were a police man/woman. Sod feelings I say and get results.
 
I can see what you mean. I guess what's happening in Tottenham for instance is there are more police due to a higher crime rate, and if there is a higher proportion of black people living there (looks like over a quarter going by the 2011 census) then more black people are going to be searched on average. I'm fine with that, totally makes sense in that area.

I think for the results part, governments and society as a whole need to ensure there is parity between all ethnic groups in terms of opportunities. Short term, yes that's where police come in, but I would like to think police have more than just one way (skin colour) of determining if someone is worth searching, even in a given area.
 
You mean the reality based on evidence and reason, not blind faith and tradition, that reality?

Except the reality is that there is a somewhat amorphous social construct called race that is used widely both positively and negatively.

Otherwise Martin Luthor King spent an awful lot of time and eventually blood on something science says doesn't exist...
 
You mean the reality based on evidence and reason, not blind faith and tradition, that reality?


sure in the same way that literally means metaphorically.

but so far this week we've had "blue eyed is a race", "black isn't a race", "we should all sign contacts before sex" and "a man should be able to tell a woman "i will have no financial responsibility for our child if i offer to pay for an abortion" with legal backing".



just general **** that shows an immense gulf between the conversations and actual human interaction.

please i would love one of you to go tell some black people black is not a race.
 
You mean people who have been speeding? Or drive a certain car? Then yes that's fine. And if they happen to be more likely to be black that's fine in this context. But it's not ok if the only reason they are picked up is because they are black.

Is it OK if the reason is that they're male? If so, why the difference?

Sex profiling is far more common than "racial" profiling, but it's accepted without question.

Is it OK if the reason is that they're a young adult? If so, why the difference?

Age profiling is far more common than "racial" profiling, but it's accepted without question.

I was stopped and questioned by the police quite a few times when I was younger, solely because I was a young man out at night. They politely asked me some questions, I politely answered them, they assessed me as not a problem and we said goodbye and parted ways. No drama. Do you think I was wronged and should have been upset?
 
[..]
please i would love one of you to go tell some black people black is not a race.

I have told and will continue to tell anyone and everyone that race isn't real. I do it online and I do it IRL.

I've had some trouble for it from devout racists, but never from decent people.
 
Except the reality is that there is a somewhat amorphous social construct called race that is used widely both positively and negatively.

Otherwise Martin Luthor King spent an awful lot of time and eventually blood on something science says doesn't exist...
To use the discrimination based on skin colour in the USA and kings struggle against it as a reason to perpetuate the myth that allows idiots to propose segregation is perverse!
I don't know King's understanding of race just that these were his words!

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
 
sure in the same way that literally means metaphorically.

but so far this week we've had "blue eyed is a race", "black isn't a race", "we should all sign contacts before sex" and "a man should be able to tell a woman "i will have no financial responsibility for our child if i offer to pay for an abortion" with legal backing".



just general **** that shows an immense gulf between the conversations and actual human interaction.

please i would love one of you to go tell some black people black is not a race.
Who proposed blue eyes is a race?
Or was it no one, other than to say its as useful a measure of 'race' as skin pigmentation?

It's pretty clear no human is actually white or black, genuine question, what pantone are each 'race', and how many are there? why doesn't it matter that the two most genetically different populations on earth would both be classed as 'black' by these measures or that massive swathes of people throughout time clearly have travelled and reproduced?
 
I'm not sure why you keep asking as it completely misses the point, you're still just getting hung up on biological classification. I'm not generalising by skin pigmentation alone, I am however objecting to you trivialising things by drawing a false equivalence between black skin and say eye colour, having straight hair etc..

In the context of racism someone discriminating against people with 'black' skin is being 'racist' - that doesn't require your human deluxe chart... to be true on the other hand discriminating against curly haired people in general, while perhaps bigoted and irrational isn't 'racist'.

I've acknowledge several times that there are difficulties in drawing boundaries to classify humans into specific racial groups from a purely biological perspective yet regardless of that you seem to ignore the point and repeatedly ask for the very same. Are you really unable to see that in the previous example on the other page the black guy is clearly a black guy and the white guy is clearly a white guy? I'd say the vast majority of black people are perfectly able to identify as such and be identified by others as such and ditto to white people. Sure there are people who no doubt 'pass' as other 'races' or people who are mixed etc..etc..
Why ask that, I have specifically said I have no issue with people choosing to identify themselves by their skin pigmentation, I've also pointed out why your ignorance of recessive and dominant alleles means you should read the gcse bbc bitesize guide!

You haven't explained or addressed any issues in the position you have pushed and you haven't retracted the statements you attributed to me, most of which would be totally out of order, had I ever said them!

For that alone you shouldn't really be allowed to continue to 'contribute' until the behaviour is addressed!
 
please i would love one of you to go tell some black people black is not a race.

Why this example?

In any case the general manager at my place has dark skin, I'd have no problem explaining to him that Aboriginal Australian and African are the two most divergent population genetically, or that in all sizeable populations the difference between individuals inside the population is greater than between theirs and other populations. He's a highly intelligent man with a technical/engineering background, he wont hit me, he uses his brain for a living!

That said he'd likely still follow the discussion up with: "Once you go black, you never go back" :)
 
Why ask that, I have specifically said I have no issue with people choosing to identify themselves by their skin pigmentation, I've also pointed out why your ignorance of recessive and dominant alleles means you should read the gcse bbc bitesize guide!

You haven't explained or addressed any issues in the position you have pushed and you haven't retracted the statements you attributed to me, most of which would be totally out of order, had I ever said them!

For that alone you shouldn't really be allowed to continue to 'contribute' until the behaviour is addressed!

I've not demonstrated any ignorance of recessive and dominant alleles, I've not even mentioned them, I've been very clear to you that I'm not making a biological argument. To repeatedly try and make one to me misses the point and then to link to BBC bitesize is borderline trolling.
 
I've not demonstrated any ignorance of recessive and dominant alleles, I've not even mentioned them, I've been very clear to you that I'm not making a biological argument. To repeatedly try and make one to me misses the point and then to link to BBC bitesize is borderline trolling.
And to describe my friends and family as edge cases that don't matter and suggesting I said thing I plainly haven't, then refusing to acknowledge the behaviour is beyond troll!
 
"The sun goes around the earth"
I've not demonstrated any ignorance of recessive geometry and physics dominant alleles, I've not even mentioned them, I've been very clear to you that I'm not making a biological physics argument. To repeatedly try and make one to me misses the point and then to link to Galileo BBC bitesize is borderline trolling.
 
stewski you've pretty much demonstrated that you've got no interest in meaningful discussion over the past couple of pages but rather your aim seems to be to pick a fight, ignore what has been posted etc..etc.. I'm not really interested thanks
 
stewski you've pretty much demonstrated that you've got no interest in meaningful discussion over the past couple of pages but rather your aim seems to be to pick a fight, ignore what has been posted etc..etc.. I'm not really interested thanks

I will pick a fight with anyone posting statements about my position like this:
black people exist and are discriminated against, that is very real - to deny that

You think that black people who assume some closeness with other black people are 'idiots'?

You don't seem to want to account for say shared experiences/history of oppression

@DAIR has identified himself as being 'black' in this thread, you've just labeled him an 'ill informed idiot' for doing so.
All never stated by me and entirely un supportable and outrageous, called you out, you ignored it!
 
To use the discrimination based on skin colour in the USA and kings struggle against it as a reason to perpetuate the myth that allows idiots to propose segregation is perverse!
I don't know King's understanding of race just that these were his words!


For contrast and in context of this thread:
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.

And Trump more recently
Reporter: Why did you wait so long to put that last statement out?

Trump: I didn't wait long. I didn't wait long. I didn't wait long.

Reporter: It was at least 48 hours.

Trump: I wanted to make sure — unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct. Not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don't make statements that direct unless you know the fact. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts, and it's a very, very important process to me, and it's a very important statement, so I don't want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to — I brought it. I brought it. I brought it. As I said — remember this, Saturday — we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America, and then I went on from there. Now, here's the thing. Excuse me, excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here's the thing. When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn't even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened. Before I make a statement, I need the facts, so I don't want to rush into a statement.

So, making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear is a fantastic young woman — and it was on NBC — her mother wrote me and said — through I guess Twitter, social media — the nicest things, and I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine, really actually an incredible young woman. But her mother on Twitter thanked me for what I said. And honestly, if the press were not fake and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. But unlike you and unlike — excuse me — unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement I like to know the facts.

Reporter: Was that terrorism, that event? Was that terrorism?

Trump: Say it. What?

Reporter: The CEO of Wal-Mart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?

Trump: Not at all. I think the country — look, you take a look. I've created over a million jobs since I'm president. The country is booming, the stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we've ever had in the history of our country. We're doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So, the head of Wal-Mart, whom I know, who is a very nice guy, was making a political statement. I mean, I do it the same way. You know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement that the statement is correct, and there was no way — there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters — unlike a lot of reporters. I know, David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts, and the facts as they started coming out were very well-stated. In fact, everybody said his statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good. I couldn't have made it sooner because I didn't know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don't know all of the facts. It was very important — excuse me, excuse me. It was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly, because if I would have made a fast statement — and the first statement was made without knowing much other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made with knowledge, with great knowledge. There's still things — excuse me, there's still things that people don't know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts. Okay.

Reporter: Two questions. Was this terrorism and can you tell us how you're feeling about your chief strategist, Steve Bannon.

Trump: Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and this country, and that is ... you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That's what I'd call it. Because there is a question. Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer and what he did was a horrible, horrible inexcusable thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom