Loree Thomas wrote:
> As long as he wasn't USING racial profiling, he could
> certainly think that way and not be acting racist...
> however the first time he stops a black person for no
> other reason than he IS black he has then acted racist
> against blacks.
>
> Racial profiling is racist. Making true statistical
> statements based on race isn't racist... actions based
> on those statistics and aimed at individuals is
> racist.
>
> Is this making sense yet?
Fully understood. Now lets paraphrase a favorite saying of liberals: if
a black individual isn't a criminal, then they have nothing to fear from
profiling.
> Discriminating (def 1.) based on race IS racist.
> Based on sex it is sexist, based on sexual orientation
> it is heterosexist.
>
> Discriminating (def 2.) is simply acknowledging
> reality no matter what traits or characteristics you
> are observing.
>
> Racists (and their apologists) tend to conflate
> definitions 1 and 2.
>
> I have a hard time believing that there would be
> anyone on THIS list arguing in favor of racial
> profiling.
What about profiling of other sorts, like geographic profiling, which
results in more blacks being stopped because police set up more
roadblocks around predominantly black neighborhoods?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT