> > > --- Jerry Mitchell <jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > labeled racist (neat trick for a black cop to be
> > > > racist of blacks).
> > >
> > > Not such a trick at all. Happens constantly.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Racists are a subset of discriminators.
This is the key, would the set "racist" a subset of "discriminators" or not.
> Well... you are using two different definitions of
> discriminate here.
>
> From Random House Webster's College dictionary
> (copyright 1999):
>
> Discriminate:
> 1) to make a distinction in favor of or against a
> person on the basis of the group or class to which
> that person belongs, rather than according to merit.
>
> 2) to note or observe a difference.
>
> 1 and 2 are different usages, you are acting as if
> they are identical... they aren't.
Note that definition 1 is a subset of definition 2. This means that there
can be discrimination without racism. I can discriminate and say I only want
people that are not blind driving my trucks. I am discriminating against a
person on the basis of a group they belong to (the blind). This falls under
definition 1 but I cant imagine anyone having a problem with this.
>
> > This is my point. The black cop using racial
> > profiling COULD think that
> > blacks are genetically superior to whites, yet still
> > think that
> > statistically they commit more crime. He would be
> > discriminating... NOT
> > racist (unless you include discrimination in your
> > definition of racism which
> > is a circular loop of reasoning).
>
> 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.
Why is action based on real numbers racist? The numbers are a reflection of
reality. If my bank account numbers show that I am out of money, I modify my
behavior to account for this. As far as racial profiling, black cops do this
as well as white cops. Racial profiling has a basis in reality and will be
used no matter what the PC spin is coming from city hall.
>
> Is this making sense yet?
>
> Discriminating (def 1.) based on race IS racist.
> Based on sex it is sexist, based on sexual orientation
> it is heterosexist.
This is a circular argument. Discrimination based on race is racist. Racism
is discrimination based on race. This doesn't explain "good discrimination"
(my blind truck driver) from bad and why.
> Discriminating (def 2.) is simply acknowledging
> reality no matter what traits or characteristics you
> are observing.
As long as you don't take any actions? What if I own Marlboro cigarettes,
and I do research that shows that if I use a black female to advertise
Marlboro cigarettes, that my profits will fall and that I will lose money?
What about my responsibility to my stockholders? What would it even
accomplish to do such a thing besides lose money (and for what cause). So,
if I take action based on race, then I'm racist, although if I don't take
action, I cause suffering to many others (stockholders, company employees,
etc... some probably black too).
Also, if I don't use a black female, then I'm racist, but cant the same be
said for a white female? How about a female Muslim. A male Hindu. So if I
use a white male, I discriminate against them all, but the inverse isn't
true?
>
> Racists (and their apologists) tend to conflate
> definitions 1 and 2.
This is an understatement of galactic magnitude. If I thought everyone's
email client could handle it, I would change the font to size 50 point.
>
> I have a hard time believing that there would be
> anyone on THIS list arguing in favor of racial
> profiling.
>
> Loree
Sounds like argument through intimidation, I wouldn't think that this
statement would cause very many people to shy away from this topic. I don't
have a problem with racial profiling, remember, it works both ways. If your
looking for white collar or computer banking crime, there's probably a
greater chance of it being a white guy then black (note: I didn't say this
was definitive, I'm talking averages here).
Jerry Mitchell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT