We aren't talking about the colors of the rainbow and what each color means. We're talking about how you define racism, how the dictionary defines racism, and your comments about white people on this forum.
Schilly, I did not refer to you as a yank. I should've used green font on that to better illustrate my point. Racism has a number of levels. I do not think it can be defined by Merriam-Webster. One can be saying something racist or akin to racism simply by grouping people (IMO nationality, and religion fall under this description) and labeling them as somthing. Hell yeah I love fried chicken but Goddamn it I hate watermelon. Sometimes I'm a little loud in the movies but I don't drink fruit flavored soda... Anymore... LOL
But the point is that using dictionary definitions of racism to define racism is ineffective because those affected by racism aren't in positions to proffer those definitions.
Besides the fact that it is a violation of our fourth amendment rights that's not the only reason why it was wrong. It was wrong because it was ineffective. You are searching so many people every day but you're only finding something 11% of the time. If Damian was shooting 11% from the field people in here we'll be going crazy if you shot over 190K times for the year.
The fact that you think his article supports you, tells me that you have no idea what you're claiming at this point. This was how YOU defined racism "My argument is and always has been that we should not group a demographic of people together and say that they are all one way. Regardless if it's race, nationality or whatever it's all akin racism and that's what I will call it. There's no reason to argue semantics by saying that Muslims or French aren't a race." So your definition is much closer to what the dictionary defines racism as, and yet you don't understand that making generalizing statements about white people is breaking your own moral code about your own definition of racism.
Let's not compare effectiveness percentages of completely different things, now. For instance, you can't compare batting average, field goal percentage, and completion percentage because they're completely different efforts with completely different difficulty and expected success levels. Specifically in regard to policing, neighborhood patrols are likely less effective on a percentage basis than 11%--should they be eliminated too?
Fair enough. I guess my point is if 89% of people are completely innocent (remember they are being stopped and frisked because they look suspicious) what makes the black people more suspicious looking then the 11% of white people that were frisked?
Can we pleeeease get back on topic and talk about sack punching? Or is that sexist? I don't want to offend anyone.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because when I say that all white people experience white privilege, I'm saying that as a person who, by the definition of white privilege, is stating a fact not a generalization. And calling me racist for saying that IMHO says much more about you than it does about me.
Repost: I'm teaching my son to be a sack puncher. This will be his response to ANY physical bullying. He will know that there are no rules in fighting and if a bigger, stronger bully tries to assault him, aim for the nuts. Gouge his eye. Aim for his trachea. Stomp on the top of his foot and break his 5th metatarsal. Son, a human ear only needs 3 lbs of pressure to be removed. Defend yourself. Had I punched a few pairs of nuts in my day, I'd have experienced less bullying. Sorry, not sorry.
That's why I asked for the demos of those who weren't innocent. Those who defined the policy might say, "If of the 11% whom we stop that are actually breaking a law, 56% are black, 29% are Latino, and 11% are white, then we should apply those same percentages to our stop-and-frisk selection process." Again, I'm not saying it's a mindset I'd employ, but I can understand how some would.
You know Paul was probably trying to punch Hendo's sack from behind, but he didn't realize Hendo has balls of steel
I told my wife how Chris Paul broke his hand on Henderson's butt, and her immediate reply was, "Wow, that guy's a real hard-ass!" I love that woman.
It's not just that. You make assumptions about people being white, or not understanding because they're white, all the time. But, bottom line, I'm tired of you being the PC Police. You were the one who derailed this thread. Period. You can make it about me, or try to call me out, but I don't make comments about people's race on here. I don't even consider a person's race when engaging them on this forum. You, on the other hand, do. You shouldn't be running a person's opinion through the filter of race. You shouldn't be thinking, "well this dude is white, so......" That's my problem with you.
Those aren't the numbers though. Let's do the math: In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times. 169,252 were totally innocent (88 percent). 104,958 were black (56 percent). 55,191 were Latino (29 percent). 20,877 were white (11 percent Of the 104,958 stopped 11,545 blacks were guilty. Of the 55,191 stopped 6,071 were guilty. Of the 20,877 stopped 2,296 were guilty. Well, we know that they were stopped because they looked suspicious. The question I have is why do black people suddenly looks more than white people do. Only 21k why people stopped and over 100k black people. This is the problem.
I really could care less about any problems that you have with me. My problem with you is that you don't recognize your white privilege but whatever. I guess we'll continue to have that problem because I'm not changing. And you can continue to keep your head in the sand when it comes to the problems that people of color have to deal with in this country. Go ahead and continue to exercise your privilege and click away from the thread.
But you can't necessarily apply the 11% rate for the entire sample to each segment and know that it matches the actual results. You said yourself that you don't have the demographic breakdown of the 22K that weren't innocent. You're just extrapolating an expected result. I'm asking for the actuals to compare with the expected. If we don't have it, we don't have it, but let's not make assumptions here.
