DescentBB

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And the reason people would even consider omitting that descriptor isn't based on efficiently locating a suspect. It is to accommodate the sensitivities of people who resemble the description. Or to perpetuate the race baiting industry...
To them I say life is tough.

Spoken like a true whitey. How dare someone be sensitive when they are unfairly treated! ...

What is unfair about using a suspects color in a description?!? We use all colors EQUALLY!

Your whole argument is built on this flawed premise that it is somehow unfair. That is ridiculous to the extreme!

In your subsequent response to Spidey you go on to suggest that if we use a more euphemistic description of skin color and they then complain about that the response is to modify our approach again!!
Ridiculous!
Where does it stop? When they complain that even reporting crimes committed by black people is an offense?!?

Before you sneer at that remember that we have a Dem Congresswoman who suggested 'We shouldn't charge young black men with a crime for selling crack cocaine because that is the only job the white man has left them to hold!'

Your flawed premise is compounding the problem. You are afraid to draw the line on something quite simple because it would require some tough love.

There is nothing unfair about calling a small pointed shovel a spade, even if some people use 'spade' as a racial slur. We don't need to drop the word spade from the lexicon to protect black people's feelings. And if you did drop it and they then decided that even the use of the letters s p a d e are offensive it wouldn't be an indication that we need to do more work trying to protect them from their hypersensitivity! It would be a sign that you are completely silly!

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yes…sometimes telling someone to get over it is the best thing, and let them address the reason the problem exists in the first place.

And that is?

The reason they keep hearing "Black...Black...Black..." in the first place.


The fact is vision, you are confusing two different issues here, the ones that are actual problems…like the black face video and the using black as a descriptor, which is not.

Will Robinson wrote:Where does it stop?

It stops when we reach a decent measure of equality. The words we use to describe the world around us affect our perceptions. Black and white are dynamically opposed to one and other like yin & yang, good & evil, etc... Our language has coupled two races and cultures with these words and they will be forever in opposition to each other because of it. Let me repeat that: the language Americans commonly use hides value judgments, including racism, inside of it. This is bad form. Once you start to understand people as different shades of brown and use language that reflects that, the differences in race and culture slowly start to fade away. When everyone is brown you are including similarities as well as differences. Besides, describing people by their true color is more accurate and informative -- black and white aren't even colors! Change your mind, change your language, change the world. And this isn't some Orwellian double-plus-ungood crap. This is about modifying the way you speak to reflect better ideas which benefit the world.

Or you can just keep blaming the liberals and Negroes for everything instead of helping make a better society.

You know…I tried to make the point that using black and white to define race was only good at polarizing people, and I basically got my ass handed to me each time.

Yes you are correct, but the problem is at this point you have the cart in front of the horse, and need to address the polarity problem first.

People haven’t even had time to wrap their thinking around the concept you describe, and it really has no bearing on the situation at hand.

The “created” problem here is as explained…the negative mental affects the young people are having when so many criminals are from their race. (and yes I deliberately rearranged the words, because that is what it really means)

So address the crime problem, and then you are doing something.

vision wrote:... Black and white are dynamically opposed to one and other like yin & yang, good & evil, etc... Our language has coupled two races and cultures with these words and they will be forever in opposition to each other because of it.

First off why do you call them "two cultures" and then worry speaking the obvious about an inherent, natural occurring designator like color is divisive?!?

Telling us we are of two separate cultures is certainly more divisive than calling black people a name that they told us was the proper name to use if we don't want to be offensive!!
Black, they chose it...with PRIDE.
They call us white and we aren't offended, it made sense, they told us to call them the equally applicable name, black, instead of anything else. It made sense then and it still does.
I think that implies black people disagree with your premise for protecting them from themselves!

Second, you are suggesting making policy based on your assertion white and black people are not intelligent enough to be able distinguish the complexities of their humanity from alternative meanings of the words white or black.

Are you high?!?

How offensive can you be?!?

vision wrote:... Or you can just keep blaming the liberals and Negroes for everything instead of helping make a better society.

There you go....construct a straw man and swing away.

Spidey wrote:You know…I tried to make the point that using black and white to define race was only good at polarizing people, and I basically got my ass handed to me each time.

Yes you are correct, but the problem is at this point you have the cart in front of the horse, and need to address the polarity problem first.

People haven’t even had time to wrap their thinking around the concept you describe, and it really has no bearing on the situation at hand.

The “created” problem here is as explained…the negative mental affects the young people are having when so many criminals are from their race. (and yes I deliberately rearranged the words, because that is what it really means)

So address the crime problem, and then you are doing something.

the part in red is the core error in your thinking. If you break it down by economic class, not by race, you will find little, if any, difference in crime rates within those breakdowns by race. The problem isn't solving a 'crime problem' , it is solving a chronic economic barrier that is preventing people of color from escaping the lower economic classes at the rate that should be expected.

Wrong, the problem isn’t "my" thinking, I was trying to describe “their” thinking.

Wrong, it isn’t a problem with my thinking, the problem lies with trying to change the wording of police reports to hide/deny reality.

If you read the article, you will see that it’s the constant…black…black…black…that they are complaining about.

And so if dealing with the crime issue is an economic one…well then so be it, I wouldn’t disagree one bit on that…but it’s not really relevant to the point.

The only real point here is…trying to avoid/hide/distort reality…

The entire point of the article was to avoid black kids from constantly hearing that the police are looking for a black person…that’s the only issue here…

The solution is to deal with the core problem…not placate people.

Will Robinson wrote:First off why do you call them "two cultures" and then worry speaking the obvious about an inherent, natural occurring designator like color is divisive?!?

Yes, two cultures. But fortunately, over the last 120 years white folks have been increasingly co-opting black culture and making it their own. As this trend continues the cultural differences between white and black will hopefully recede significantly, making racial differences less of an issue. The future is looking brighter for race in America even if guys like you aren't helping (thank god we don't need your help).

Will Robinson wrote:Second, you are suggesting making policy based on your assertion white and black people are not intelligent enough to be able distinguish the complexities of their humanity from alternative meanings of the words white or black.

There you go having a conversation with yourself again. Absolutely nowhere did I say people were not intelligent enough to distinguish the complexities of language. However, very few are in the habit of scrutinizing daily language and insightful enough to use it as a vehicle for positivity.

Spidey wrote:The solution is to deal with the core problem…not placate people.

In this case, the solution is both. You can still fight crime and be sensitive to race. Negative racial identity of one of the contributing factors of crime. Surely you know about Jane Elliot's "brown eyes / blue eyes experiment?" Here is a look back at 1970. You were there. Remember?

Guess I’m screwed seeing how it says “Eyes: Brown” on my PA ID card.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Second, you are suggesting making policy based on your assertion white and black people are not intelligent enough to be able distinguish the complexities of their humanity from alternative meanings of the words white or black.

There you go having a conversation with yourself again. Absolutely nowhere did I say people were not intelligent enough to distinguish the complexities of language. However, very few are in the habit of scrutinizing daily language and insightful enough to use it as a vehicle for positivity.

Really?!? You seem to be disputing what I said and contradicting your denial all at the same time!

Are we supposed to believe you meant they would use magic or fortune tellers to tell them what to think of the words?!?

You may want to deny it but you have judged their intellectual abilities with your assertion. You did in the part I quoted and commented on:

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Where does it stop?

It stops when we reach a decent measure of equality. The words we use to describe the world around us affect our perceptions. Black and white are dynamically opposed to one and other like yin & yang, good & evil, etc... Our language has coupled two races and cultures with these words and they will be forever in opposition to each other because of it. Let me repeat that: the language Americans commonly use hides value judgments, including racism, inside of it. This is bad form. Once you start to understand people:

Do you deny it because you hope to cut off my point so you don't have to face its implications? Or perhaps you truly don't realize that when you say people will react to spoken words you are talking about them processing sounds translated into language by the brain where they assign meaning to them... which requires use of their intellect!

You clearly implied using black and white to identify people of differing degrees of brown has a bad effect.
If not their intelligence what part of their being did you think they were using to translate those words into something detrimental to the situation?

You are getting as bad as slick. You want to disagree so you toss out proclamations as fact and then deny you said it when the substance of your words is examined!

Here, really simple.
Black people chose to be called black instead of the bigotry tinged term negro or colored.
They felt like whites were called white and they would be called black. There was a great deal of victory in Black Power and their changing the words that society would use to address them. Maybe you are to young to remember it but they fought for that and it was a spirit of freedom and autonomy they took from demanding the change and succeeding in making it happen.

Now you come along and imply we are harming racial relations because words like black and white are to loaded for black people to deal with!?!
How condescending can you be?

PS: your use of the phrase "two cultures" is just an example of you racists using code for 'separate but equal'.
Now you see how that works from the other side....

Will Robinson wrote:Black people chose to be called black instead of the bigotry tinged term negro or colored.

Right, no racial tinge in the word black. You will also find those who don't like black and prefer African American. And both should be accommodated until we can all just be Americans.

The point of my argument, which I wouldn't really expect you to understand, has to do with psychology and philosophy of language. Knowing about the relationship between ideas and language we can influence one or the other to bring about more desirable results. I guess if you are not knowledgeable in these areas you might confuse what I'm saying with something else. But regardless, we can make a very clear point by saying that if the U-of-M decides to eliminate race when reporting crime it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever. And if the practice is successful then it can be used as a model. If it is not successful then we can use it as a learning experience and investigate why, then try a different approach.

Whether you believe it or not, people and culture can and do change. It's worth doing everything possible to help people improve their condition.

Successful in what…creating the illusion there are less black bad guy?

I know you will answer with “creating a better world and stuff” but if creating this new better world means altering reality…you can keep it.

Spidey wrote:/me wonders if tc will ream vision for saying color is not a race...

Actually, skin color doesn't always necessarily denote race, although the darker the skin, the more likely someone is of sub-Saharan African heritage. There are other features that help denote race, like hair type and facial structures, but with racial mixing, even that is not always guaranteed. We are just a combination of our genes depending on where those genes originated from. So now that I've thought about it, I'm now of the opinion that skin color and not race, should be used as a descriptor of any suspect for identification purposes. Here's an ancient example of how migration causes changes in genetic traits. Is this man a dark-skinned African, or a dark-skinned Northern European?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... n-22261407

OMFG…when “I” said black is not a race…you went ballistic, and offered up links to prove how wrong I was.

Gave me a long assed lecture…

You even cited the US government and employment forms….

Sheesh…

Spidey wrote:Successful in what…creating the illusion there are less black bad guy?

I know you will answer with “creating a better world and stuff” but if creating this new better world means altering reality…you can keep it.

Ah, my bad. I thought this stuff was a little more common knowledge since the research has been around since the mid-20th Century. All of this falls under Speech Pragmatics and Linguistic Anthropology. There is a direct, two-way connection between speech and perception, between language and culture. It is known that making modifications to speech and language can influence behavior and perception of the world. This technique is widely used in therapy to help people overcome depression, anger, PTSD, and more. Making an effort to positively change your speech will also change your mental outlook and physical health. The converse is also true that negative speech can breed mental illness and disease. I don't want to get too into this on a game forum so I'll move on.

There are severe racial problems in the United States and many different avenues to solve it. One of them is language. When you change the way you speak about the world, the world changes, literally. Continually telling a person they are a failure will by itself cause most to fail, even if there is an easy path to success. Imagine being constantly reminded of one of your failures, like from a spouse or co-worker who keeps bringing up old mistakes. It gets tiring quick. Can we still enforce the law without constant reminders of race? Youbecha.

As I said above, when talking about racial identity it might be better to describe people as shades of brown rather than black and white. By doing this you have, linguistically, emphasized similarities and differences instead of only differences. It is a step in the right direction (until we have better ways to describe things). That subtle difference might make enough of an impact to change perception, and thus behavior -- if only a little. And even a slight improvement is better than no change at all. Besides, it takes very little effort. You can still describe the world accurately and be sensitive to race.

Here is one more thing to think about. Let's say you have a close friend or family member who suffered some traumatic event. Would you think it a good idea to avoid talking about it to save the feelings of that person? I hope so. It doesn't change the fact the event happened, but it helps increase well being by not bringing it up.

I'm reminded of the studies that have shown that women perform substantially poorer on math tests if they're asked to list their gender beforehand. Even without any direct reference to the "women aren't as good at math" stereotype, that seemingly-innocuous question triggered the association in the women's minds and influenced their results. Topics involving race work the exact same way. Talking to people involved in cognitive science is really fascinating, and frankly even scary: it's amazing just how much of our brain's daily function operates on a subconscious level that we simply can't control.

Top Gun wrote:it's amazing just how much of our brain's daily function operates on a subconscious level that we simply can't control.

It's ★■◆● like this that bugs me about science or science fanboys. "Simply can't control" is such a bastardization of this research you previously mentioned. You go beyond the science to come up with convenient/lazy generalizations like this, when the truth is a lot more complex. It's my experience that there is very little about ourselves that we truly can't control at some stage or some level. Enough said, but if you're inclined to argue just consider that science doesn't usually move as fast as people's opinions do, and opinion is all well and good but the two shouldn't be combined so carelessly.

EDIT: I apologize for being so abrasive about it. Just struck a nerve and I went for it because I didn't want to take the time to be diplomatic. It's really not intended to be as personal as it came out. I kind of lumped you together with a lot of other people, which isn't entirely fair but it is what it is.

I think there's more than enough research that suggest we have the ability to control our wiring by the thoughts we choose to take.

On pre-conceived bias: I know it's real. For the most part, people tend to fear and suspect young African American males more than they do other people. Is it fair to the individuals? No. Can the bias be drawn along different lines? Certainly. How about this: People tend to suspect people who are dressed in baggy, ratty clothes than people who are dressed in suits or uniforms. Or, people tend to suspect loud, routey groups than they do quiet, polite individuals. At this point there's both an aspect of "people suspect me because of my race" and there's an aspect of "people suspect me because of the way that I present myself." The solution isn't exactly an easy one, either... for better or for worse, some of the brashness, dress, attitudes is a cultural thing, and other people (or other cultures) have learned to be suspicious of that culture.... to some level for good reason. Abandoning that culture is one way to combat the way people view you as an individual, but is it a fair thing to ask? I don't know.


On the class lines: I believe that success comes through work and education - and I believe that both of those start in the home - which in turn means that I believe that success starts with providing a good, solid family structure to our children. My perception on the inner city culture is that none of the three of these things are highly valued. I'm all for helping people who have circumstances who make it hard for them to pursue these three things, but I want my help to be focused on helping people better educate their children and better instill a strong work ethic in their children. If you just want a handout so you can go back to watching TV or playing video games I won't take it too well. I suppose at the end of the day that means that I'm asking for a change in culture, and it's probably asking for people to physically move.

Not gonna matter…people will still equate whatever new term is used with black people.

Spidey wrote:Not gonna matter…people will still equate whatever new term is used with black people.

Yes, but....

If you see a black person in a military uniform walking down the street are you suspicious? If you see a black person in a suit walking down the street are you suspicious?

Part of the solution is "don't dress like a thug if you don't want to be associated with thugs." - and that's true right here right now, and basically across the country.

snoopy, what you refer to is stereotyping as well. And, it is still wrong. I can't count the number of bikers I've known over the years that 'dress like thugs' to anyone so simplistic as to make judgements based upon clothing. Yet, they aren't thugs, never were. Stereotyping, like any broad generalization, is very dangerous.

I think you make excellent points, Snoopy. Looking at myself, I think I tend to be suspicious of "young African American males", but if I were to break that down I'm not suspicious of all of them. No I wouldn't be suspicious of a uniform, or a suit, probably, but for me I think the real line is their countenance. If a person is smiling, or at least not scowling, if you can see some life in their eyes, I tend to not be suspicious of them, unless the circumstances merit suspicion. I don't know, maybe it's just that most young black folks are trying to be hard/"bad", because I think it is popular (it's also cowardly, incidentally), and that's reflected in their countenance.

callmeslick wrote:snoopy, what you refer to is stereotyping as well. And, it is still wrong. I can't count the number of bikers I've known over the years that 'dress like thugs' to anyone so simplistic as to make judgements based upon clothing. Yet, they aren't thugs, never were. Stereotyping, like any broad generalization, is very dangerous.

I'd say that "stereotyping" is part of way that we survive and communicate - and the choices we make with respect to our dress, countenance, and personal hygiene speak to others just as much as the noises that come out of our mouths when we talk. If you're going to present yourself in a certain way, you better be ready to face the fact that people will draw conclusions based on that presentation. If you don't believe that, try walking into your neighborhood bank with a ski mask and trench coat on and you will find out how much people stereotype... and I honestly don't see anything wrong with stereotyping based on presentation when evaluating situations with strangers. (as opposed to based on racial traits that are beyond our control.) The rules are fairly well understood - present yourself to fit a stereotype, and you will be assumed to belong to it. Arguing that shouldn't be that way is like arguing that we shouldn't listen to people when they talk to us.

I guess I see reality differently, snoopy. Down here in the Brandywine valley where I grew up, you couldn't tell who was well-off or not by appearance. That used to throw my wife, who grew up in Philadelphia, when we first knew one another. The guy in the seedy sport coat with patches holding the sleeves together could very well be worth $100 million bucks. The folks that fit your sterotyped dress code were often wannabes or worse, hustlers working the affluent crowd. I guess I grew up not judging folks by looks.

I do agree with your observation(which I'll qualify slightly) as to the fact that stereotyping is how many people process reality.

Snoopy, I grew up with black people, and have had close associations with them all of my life, so no I would not be suspicious of a black man in a military uniform.

There are plenty of black men in the military around here, in fact I might be more suspicious of someone in a suit, because they might be trying to sell me something, and I sure as hell would want the military guy around if there was any trouble.

To survive in an area like mine, you have to be able to tell the good from the bad…no matter what color they are.

See the big flaw in this entire language theory is this…

An example to better explain…

If you call your kid a bastard every day, that kid will likely suffer some bad effects, but if you tell him you love him instead…you get the drift.

But if you simply call him your illegitimate kid instead thinking that using different words will give different results, you will be sadly mistaken.

That means….

It’s not the words but the meaning behind them, and changing “black” to “dark brown” won’t change the meaning behind the description, because in order for the description to function correctly, it will have to have enough information in it to properly describe the suspect. Hence it will have to describe the person’s race, no matter how you want to rearrange the words…the meaning behind the description will have to be the same.

Now if you want cops to start announcing things like…

Be on the lookout for a dark complexion male (continued description) that might have committed a crime, or maybe he’s really just a nice guy, but we still need to question him”…….

Then you might get somewhere.

Spidey wrote:Hence it will have to describe the person’s race, no matter how you want to rearrange the words…the meaning behind the description will have to be the same.

Hence, we come full circle. I will reiterate what I said before: what race was George Zimmerman and why does it matter? Race is a very poor descriptor, especially in a country like the USA where there are many, many races and many mixed people. Want to continue describing people by race? Then only criminals with highly distinct racial features will be caught. It is time to re-evaluate the way we talk about people and find better solutions. I will say it again: we can still fight crime without referring to specific races of people. There is so much more, better information that can describe a person that race is really not necessary.

Also, the suggestions I have about changing words is not simple semantics. That falls under Speech Semantics, not Pragmatism and Linguistic Anthropology. When you describe people differently you are internalizing a new way of looking at the world. Thinking of everyone as shades of brown takes black people (all people actually) out of the mental box you put them in and gives them more depth.

Two dark brown males spotted by police, both fit the description….

Dark brown
6 Feet tall
Slim
Aprox age 50
Driving the same make car
Wearing similar clothes
In same area
Etc…..

One is from India
One is a Negro

Which one should they bring in?

Both...not very efficient...or fair.

And before you answer…it is very easy to tell the difference.

ooopppppsss you use brown to describe the perp I'm so offended

I think it would be foolish to drop the racial descriptor. If you say someone is "dark", they could be Indian, Middle-Eastern, or Black. If something they're doing is disrespectful, that's one thing, but this type of profiling is expedient. If Vision can improve methods of profiling while leaving out the subject's skin color/nationality of origin, I'd like to see that in action.

vision wrote: Hence, we come full circle. I will reiterate what I said before: what race was George Zimmerman and why does it matter?

It mattered to the race baiters and the news creating journalist who wanted a story. If Zimmerman was black we would of never heard about the incident. If Zimmerman was Latino we would never of heard about the story. If Martin had killed Zimmerman we would never of heard about it. But if Zimmerman was painted white and Martin was painted as a sweet innocent boy then we have a story the press and Obama could sink their pointy fangs into.

flip wrote:I think there's more than enough research that suggest we have the ability to control our wiring by the thoughts we choose to take.

Not if there's something faulty with that wiring. No one is made perfect, so the world is very imperfect.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Black people chose to be called black instead of the bigotry tinged term negro or colored.

Right, no racial tinge in the word black. You will also find those who don't like black and prefer African American. And both should be accommodated until we can all just be Americans.

The point of my argument, which I wouldn't really expect you to understand, has to do with psychology and philosophy of language. Knowing about the relationship between ideas and language we can influence one or the other to bring about more desirable results. I guess if you are not knowledgeable in these areas you might confuse what I'm saying with something else. But regardless, we can make a very clear point by saying that if the U-of-M decides to eliminate race when reporting crime it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever. And if the practice is successful then it can be used as a model. If it is not successful then we can use it as a learning experience and investigate why, then try a different approach.

Whether you believe it or not, people and culture can and do change. It's worth doing everything possible to help people improve their condition.

I think you make an extremely weak case to imply that the visual identifier that would eliminate a huge number of possibles....all the white people moving around the area where a suspect I'd being searched for....is possibly a good idea!

To say we should stop doing it and: "If it is not successful then we can use it as a learning experience and investigate why, then try a different approach." is ludicrous!

You could argue we stop using sighted police and let them interview suspects blindly, 'literally' to avoid any prejudice....oh wait...they may hear an urban inflection or accent...no...we need deaf and blind policemen to protect the sensitivities of these poor misunderstood students!

here's some more folks wrestling with stereotypes
http://news.yahoo.com/39-why-fried-chic ... 29517.html

Well, I tried. You all missed the point. I can't say it any more clearly. I'll give it one more shot: When you look at people as different shades of brown instead of black and white then you are taking the first step toward reducing the effects of racism in our country. One of the effects of racism is that stereotyped people often live up to that stereotype. For information on why, see the Standford Prison Experiment. Obviously, many of you are not ready to move people out of the little racial boxes you put them in and point to things like "efficiency" and "expediency" as if addressing the symptom of the disease if more important than treating it. I guess we will have to wait another generation.

I got an idea, I know exactly how to get everybody together as one, let's all wear the same clothes! /sarcasm

The idealist vs. the pragmatist…

In 100 years we might all become just different shades of brown, but the police will still be using every detail they can to differentiate suspects.

callmeslick wrote:here's some more folks wrestling with stereotypes
http://news.yahoo.com/39-why-fried-chic ... 29517.html

Our school's dining halls served fried chicken and watermelon one year for Black History Month. I winced.

Just winced too.

vision wrote:.... Obviously, many of you are not ready to move people out of the little racial boxes you put them in and point to things like "efficiency" and "expediency" as if addressing the symptom of the disease if more important than treating it. ...

Are you implying that the custom of a police alert identifying a suspect who appears to be a black man as a 'black man' only happens because of racism?!?
Wow!

I think it is time for you to put your social science in a big perspective check!

People chose to identify themselves with a particular term and then that identifier is used to distinguish them from others. Results by their design. Results by their choice.

To adopt the description they chose to be recognized by, one that they held up as a source of pride is NOT inherently racist!
That is not even implied racism!

You are coopting the term 'black', replacing the original users (black people's) definition with what is, in effect, the *opposite* of that users intent in choosing it!
And then you declare your inference of the words use superceeds the reality of the original users intent because your take on the word is so evil that you need to save the black man from naming himself black or he will forever continue to suffer bigotry!

This isn't a case of addressing bigotry, this, for your part, is a case of arrogant psychobabble meddling!