Why I Don't Talk About Race With White People

http://able2know.org/topic/333307-3#post-6227956

Can someone who speaks Bob decipher this gobbledygook?

It's pretty basic stuff. Did you finish kindergarten?

Yes I did finish kindergarten it was about 55 years ago so I'm out of practice trying to relate to ramblings of an immature mind.

Maybe it's time for a refresher.

Nah...it's not that important.

Here, you complain about the collective being blamed for the actions of individuals


And here you blame the collective for the actions of individuals (systematic talks about the system, which is the collective) – as did the shooter in Dallas, and Baton Rouge. This is not to say that you would do such a thing - it is just to point out the end result of a person holding that view who is also inclined to violently back up his beliefs.

Holding such beliefs, or speaking in such a way, is not helpful. What happens now, is even the good police start getting edgy. Just as you don't like being targeted for the colour of your skin, it should go without saying that police won't like being targeted for the uniform they wear - the principle holds both ways.

Just throwing out suggestions on some ways forward:
- everyone recording police: hopefully more of those officers who commit murder get locked up,
- police carry out better vetting
- the community stop seeing every police officer as a collective (the police)...for just as every other person in the world asks to be judged on the their own merit as an individual (ie not being subject to prejudice & racism), so to does each police officer...who is also the same as the above - an individual human being, wanting to be judged on his or her own merits.


A really good way of looking at things - if in place of the word 'black' you could also substitute any other race / group, and still hold to that principle.

Hopefully solutions will be found, but they will no doubt be long term solutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------


It has to do with the ‘collectiveness’ motivation for the killings:
- If enough people do it for their drug cartel, then it is a drug war
- If enough people do it for their religion, then it is a religious war
- If enough people do it for their political organisation, then there is a political war / civil war / war / coup / rebellion etc
- If enough people do it on behalf of their race, then you have a race war
If a person does it just because they are nuts, then you have a lone wolf.

As for why newspapers and media portray things a certain way - that really does have to do with paradigms & emotiveness of the story. Ie sensationalism. News plays on: racism, fears, prejudices (which don't have to relate to race), anger etc. News use to do it subtely. I'm not sure about the US, but in Australia it is much more blatant than 3 decades ago.

It's only important if you don't want people to think you're an idiot.

That's not being progressive, you didn't change the quotation nearly enough for that. You changed it just enough to fit in with your sentence. What you did is worn out and hackneyed, in order to be progressive you need to be bold, take risks, rewrite the whole thing to make it relevant today.

You could change this quotation



Churchill.

Oops, too late, someone's already done it.

NYPD Cop Secretly Records Supervisor Pressuring Him to Racially Profile Black Men

He was expecting a routine performance evaluation.
By Bethania Palma Markus / Raw Story
July 14, 2016
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/recording-nypd-cop-encouraged-racially-profile

Gawker has posted an audio recording provided to them by an NYPD officer that seems to be an exchange in which the officer is being pressured to profile black men.

The recording was made in August 2012 during a performance evaluation of New York transit officer Michael Birch. He was expecting a routine evaluation, but instead he told Gawker, “the conversation just turned completely weird to me. Because he’s basically telling me it’s OK to racially profile.”

In the recording, his supervising captain can be heard criticizing him for only stopping two black men out of 54 people.

“Two male blacks,” the man’s voice can be heard saying. “So you’re telling me you only saw two male blacks jump the turnstile?”
ADVERTISING

Birch is currently suing the department, claiming he has been retaliated against for being a whistleblower on an illegal quota system. While his original case was dismissed, he’s filed an appeal with a higher court, Gawker reports. The New York Daily News reported on the tape but didn’t publish it at the time. The Daily News says the supervisor in the tape is NYPD Capt. Constantin Tsachas.

Birch is not the only officer to accuse the department of racism or of having a quota system. A black highway officer told the Daily News that “racism is routine.” In 2014, Reuters reported that black NYPD officers feel threatened by their colleagues when they are off-duty and not in uniform.

An excerpt from the recording, posted by Gawker, seems to show the captain interrogating Birch as to why he didn’t target black men. The supervisor makes him admit that “mostly male blacks and Hispanics” between 15 and 19 years of age commit most of the crime in the city — though that would be a warped point of view if the group is in fact being targeted more than others by law enforcement.

Via Gawker:

Commanding Officer: Who commits the crimes in the city?

Birch: Who commits the crimes? Well, it’s mostly teenagers, anywhere between the ages of 15 and 19, mostly male blacks and Hispanics.

OK. Who are you stopping?

Everybody. I stop everybody.

Fifty-four TABs up to 8/20. Twenty-five of those are female. Half.

Like I said, I stop everybody. I’m not targeting anybody.

You just told me who the bad guys are.

Yeah, I know that. But there’s also other people who are committing violations as well. I’m not saying that there’s not violations being made.

The male blacks, that you told me commit the crimes—

Plenty of people that I write summonses to are male blacks and male Hispanics.

You stopped two male blacks.

Not for the whole year. You’re telling me for the whole year I only stopped two male blacks on summonses?

8/20. From January 1st to August 20th. Fifty-four TABs: two male blacks, seven Hispanics, seven other, ten white, three Asian. So where are you targeting the perps that you just told me?

Like I said, if I don’t see a perp jumping over the turnstile, what am I supposed to do to him?

These people are not going to pop.

How do I know that? A female Hispanic that I stopped in Sheepshead Bay did pop, actually, for a warrant, and I arrested her. Female Hispanic. The Hispanics that we’re supposed to be going after. That are committing the crimes. The people that I—

Did you think that she was going to pop?

Did I think she was going to pop? I didn’t put no thought into it. If you come up for a collar, I’m taking you in.

Here’s what I see. You just described to me who’s committing the crimes. You’re fully aware of it. But you’re not targeting those people.

I am. I’m targeting everybody.

Two male blacks.

Whoever is out there. If I—

So you only saw two male blacks jump the turnstile?

If you’re saying that’s what’s in front of you, then yes, that’s all I saw, is two male blacks for the whole year jumping the turnstile. If you’re saying that’s what’s in front of you, I’m not disputing that. If that’s what I got there.

That is what you have. That is not disputed here.

I’m saying, we’re also talking Hispanics as well. I stopped a lot of Hispanics, too.

Seven male Hispanics. But more than half are female.

And like I said, everybody’s committing violations in front of me.

Popping, according to Gawker, is when a warrant pops up and leads to an arrest, and TAB is police jargon for a court summons resulting from a transit violation.

This story has been updated to reflect the correct definition of the term “popping.”

Listen to the recording, as posted by Gawker, here:

My most sincere apologies to those whom I've so misled all this time

The past is the past, you can't do anything about it. You can stop writing confusing and inaccurate posts on the grammar threads. That's better than a thousand namby pamby passive aggressive false apologies.

Again, to all, it's not necessary to read my postings, I'll feel no offense. As for inaccuracy I can only apologize because unaware of it until later so advised

Golly Izzy

On the contrary, you have been profusely advised on such..

Could be, Tim, thanks. Wonder however if you might provide a link to a posting you had found especially inaccurate

There are too many and, in addition, you'll forget it in a few minutes.

I don't read them. It's not about me, it's about people whose first language is not English. They don't know what an idiot you are.

Again enough with the phoney apologies, you're not fooling anyone.

Do the right thing, get off the grammar threads.

If you read through that conversation carefully between the Police Captain and the Police officer, it appears to me that what he is accusing the officer of, is ignoring crimes by black american males (I don't know if that's the politically correct term or not).

In the transcription, it appears they use the word 'stop' for arrest (if you see the lists of persons he 'stopped' and how that word is used)

The captain appears to be crap at explaining himself, and so uses sentences that, when taken out of context, are highly racial. He certainly needs some lessons in articulation.

And yet, when you look at the context / meaning of the entire conversation - the Captain is saying, paraphrased: "Based on statistics, you appear to be actively avoiding doing yours job when it comes to black american males. Statistically, our main crime demographic is Black American Males 15-19 years of age, and out of 54 arrests, you have arrested just 2 Black American Males"

He is accusing the officer of turning away when he sees black american males committing crimes. He is accusing the officer of double standards.

It's good to fight for equality, and the elimination of prejudice and double standards - the world will be a much better place when we can achieve that. And we need to be certain that we aren't just seeing what we want to see before we make the accusation of racism.

It appears the Captain is also accusing the Officer of Misogyny - whether one would consider it subtle or not, I don't know:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1250/Gender-Crime-Differences-between-male-female-offending-patterns.html

Please excuse the link to a non statistics website - that one was the easiest to find, and it appears accurate.

And as yet a further thought: wouldn't the collation of such statistics - the ability to break down officer arrest rates by: race, sex, age etc - be driven by the need for a systematic way to avoid racism?

By implementing such a system, bosses can now see if police officers are targetting black americans (as compared to crime representation statistics), and take action against racist officers...or misogynistic officers, etc.

And if like in Australia, such statistics are available through freedom of information, then:
- defence counsel's could obtain them, and use them in court cases for 'this officer is obviously racist - look at his arrest statistics breakdown"
- Newspapers / TV could obtain them and use them to point out racism
- Activist groups could obtain them and use them to point out racism

In other words, if they didn't want to avoid racism etc, such a system wouldn't exist. And the existence of such a system exerts pressure on racists / misogynists / officers who hold double standards to stop being such.

.....................

I find it troubling that such a recording is used as evidence of racism, when it appears to me that it is evidence of:
- an officer who holds double standards being called to account; and
- the existence of a system that allows bosses to hold to account officers who hold double standards
The main problem with the whole transcript being the Captain has a terrible way of articulating his message.

Actually he's the future. Progressivism is the past.

President Trump is ushering in America's new leadership for the 21st century. It's going to be at least 20 years before the Democrats will return to the White House. And when the Democrats eventually do return to power, it will be by becoming Trump-lite (the same way Clinton and Obama got elected by becoming Reagan-lite).