Oh, a solid haymaker from Nate. Let's see if DVISS can recover. Both fighters are looking rather lathered up and breathing heavy. This fight MAY GO THE DISTANCE!
As I stated before you have a skewed view of what racist means. Your interpretation above was sophomoric at best.
If it does exist like you say ALL of you experience it. And yes it is as simple as the stop and frisk numbers. Let me post them for you. I posted numbers from 2013 because that's when stop and frisk was in full swing: 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). The black people much more often than white people had their 4th amendment rights trampled on simply because they were black. 88% of them were completely innocent.
I was literally quoting to you the first definition of racism when you go to Google. Give it a try. It's not my view of what racism means. It is quite literally an actual definition of the word.
Not that it matters to your point, but do you have a demographic breakdown of the 22,306 people who were not totally innocent?
That's where you screwed up. Letting a book define racism is a mistake. Look up definitions for white and black. White means honest? Black means evil?
Again.... what does this have to do with your behavior? We're not debating the existence of racism. We're not debating the existence of white privilege for some people. We're talking about you making assumptions about people on this forum about their race and about their lives based on their race.
I don't. But who cares? If you search over 190K people you're going to find something. The bad thing is that you only found something 11% of the time. Sounds to me like a waste of police resources.
dviss in all seriousness so that maybe we can all glean something positive from this whole thread. I don't recall you really explaining to us what racism is. You've really only called our ideas stupid or idiotic, skewed. You've called us Yanks, apparently in a way to be derogatory. Maybe I missed it, but I don't really recall you explaining what racism is to you. You've gone off about France being our ally and fighting wars along side us. I get that. You've pointed out that we don't know what racism is even when Nate cited the definition. You've beat the white privilege drum towards us. Fine that's all fine. But waht is racism to you, explain it to us, you want us to understand, so explain it to us... Because just being mad at us and putting us down isn't educating anyone in the least.
Speaking of Google results for racism, this article is the 4th result. It talks about the updated notion of racism, that it is power-based, and that the dictionary definitions are incomplete because of the very fact that the dictionary publishers are run by the very people who would prefer for racism's definition to not be power-based.
You let books define most of the words in the English language. Why is this word different? You let a book define the rules for basketball, no? You have decided that your definition of racism is the correct definition, and yet you yourself are expressing views that are textbook racism. Now you're trying to defend your stance and wiggle yourself out of it.
I'm teaching you. Because to this day you still don't have a clue of what white privilege is. You like to say that you understand what it is but don't understand that all of you experience it. And then you call me racist for saying that. That just doesn't make any sense nor does it meet the definition that you described earlier. Again, using the dictionary to define racism was wrong from the start.
I'm not wiggling out of anything. Go ahead and look up the definition for white and black. Go ahead. Look them up.
Ohhhhhhhh the crowd hushes, as both fighters continue to throw blow after blow into one another. No one seems to let up. The rounds keep passing, the round girls are getting tired!
But that doesn't support Dviss because he uses racist/racism as a catch-all for any kind of bigoted or generalizing comment about a group of people. That article is stemmed in the idea that racism is power driven, essentially saying that you can't be racist unless you're part of the majority group, which is a whole other debate.
Because some might argue that if the percentages of those found to not be innocent matched the percentage of those stopped, then it could potentially support the thought processes behind the selections. Many people believe in ends-justify-means mindsets. In fact, your post ("11% success rate indicates waste of resources") implies that line of thinking. Stop and frisk was bad because it was wrong, not because it was ineffective or executed poorly.
