Be on the lookout for /redacted descriptor/ male suspect

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:55 am

Can anyone make a good argument why it is helpful or wise to confuse the use of 'profiling' with factually identifying a suspect?

Here you can read about how this is being promoted.

I would hope that students at a university would be smart enough to realize their mistake but I'm afraid the race industry has damaged their ability to do so.

If the concept of my point is too much for you to wrap your mind around then please just call me a racist and retreat from reality in an orderly fashion because if that's all you get from this excercize you don't have the ability to contribute anyway.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:46 am

"The repeated black, black, black suspect,” Taylor said. “And what that does it really discomforts the mental and physical comfort for students on campus because they feel like suspicions begin to increase.”

Well gee whiz, maybe if the black people committing the crimes were not in the majority, then maybe there would be no repeated black, black, black suspect being heard. OTOH I guess the white males psyche is much less frail when they hear a white suspect committed the crime

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:06 pm

Couldn't get the link to connect, but if that's the idea being pushed, it's pretty darn stupid.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:28 pm

The letter, sent on Dec. 6, 2013, was issued by members of the African American and African Studies, Black Faculty and Staff Association, Black Graduate and Professional Student Association, Black Men’s Forum, Black Student Union and Huntley House for African American Males.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:19 pm

wow, more old white-guy whining......does it never cease?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:25 pm

Who's whining besides you?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:26 pm

And last I checked TC is not some "old white guy". Way to stick your foot in your mouth.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:41 pm

I think Slick just likes to play devil's advocate.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:46 pm

woodchip wrote:Who's whining besides you?

not me....but, you and Will are fever pitch over this as if it really means squat to you. More whining. Oh, and TC didn't say anything except that extreme avoidance of description is wrong, which it is......

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:43 pm

Funny I thought Will and I merely made calm opinions about it. You on the other hand went madly vitriolic. You really need to get a grip.

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:19 am

Oh good, another racism themed thread started by Will. Go figure.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:23 am

Oh good, another thread vision feels the need to berate Will instead of commenting on the topic. Door ----->

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:11 am

The usual suspects come out to acuse me of racism when there is absolutely no hint of racism in my comments.

The substance of my assertion ignored. The implications of what I pointed to dodged. They run away like cockroaches when you turn the light on to their nesting place.
Cowards.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:18 am

Will Robinson wrote:The usual suspects come out to acuse me of racism when there is absolutely no hint of racism in my comments.

ok, let's just call the comments ignorant and leave it at that.....

The substance of my assertion ignored. The implications of what I pointed to dodged. They run away like cockroaches when you turn the light on to their nesting place.
Cowards.

there are no real 'substance' or 'implications' in real life, frankly......just more whining by you.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:31 am

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:55 pm

No “real substance” how bout those “backlash” comments by the bloggers on that site.

The kind of thinking displayed by those “groups” is exactly the kind of thing that breeds racism, and discontent…etc.

And that kind of crap needs to be called out.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:49 pm

Got to the link. It's still a hair-brained idea. Skin color is an important identifying trait, especially when describing a suspect who committed a crime.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:20 am

man, this is just getting silly.

"they can't use the word black, it hurts our tiny widdle feewings!"

"even if the suspect is black?"

"yes!"

"okay, how do you want to approach this?"

"um.. well let's try non white"

A non-white male, approximately 30-35 years old bla bla bla

"hey! non-white offends us!"

"okay, how about non-coloured.."

"no, that offends us too!"

"um.. lack-of-pigment challenged?"

and on the never-ending merry go round we go again just to make sure one group or another doesn't get offended. I mean what is this, an after-school getalong gang special now?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:05 am

Spidey wrote:No “real substance” how bout those “backlash” comments by the bloggers on that site.

The kind of thinking displayed by those “groups” is exactly the kind of thing that breeds racism, and discontent…etc.

And that kind of crap needs to be called out.

I guess that speaks to my words and why I put it that way......we, in the US give FAR too much attention to 'bloggers', as if they represent anything larger than their own narrow view of the world. Hell, I do it too, at times, but still, to give it weight as if it reflects some serious reality is a mistake.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:27 am

Well there is an even more serious affect than that…being the idea that criminals should be misidentified as a solution, rather than those many groups dealing with the crime problem itself.

The Mayor here has the right idea, he called out the trouble makers themselves, and gave them hell, saying they hurt the community themselves with their behavior, not some stupid PC platitude.

I do believe that one of the main criticisms you have of the Republican party is that they don’t police their own.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:41 am

Spidey wrote:Well there is an even more serious affect than that…being the idea that criminals should be misidentified as a solution, rather than those many groups dealing with the crime problem itself.

and this has actually happened....anywhere?

The Mayor here has the right idea, he called out the trouble makers themselves, and gave them hell, saying they hurt the community themselves with their behavior, not some stupid PC platitude.

that's fine.

I do believe that one of the main criticisms you have of the Republican party is that they don’t police their own.

that, plus the fact that their policies show them to be heartless bastards intent on raping the middle class and working poor, you are correct.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:25 am

Slick, the question I asked was quite clearly loaded with substance. Aren't you the one who prides himself in nuance?

Why is it a good idea to portray a factual visual identifier of an individual suspects race as "profiling"!?!?

That specific question and the discussion it can open up is full of substance.

Like why would all black people feel persecuted if it is publicized that a suspect matches their race? Perhaps because of the way they are manipulated as a bloc? Who would benefit from such machinations? How would it affect others? Etc. et-frikken-cetra.

There is a great deal of wrong at work for those students to come together thinking they are doing good by formulating such a ridiculous request! Something that does matter a great deal to us all!

But you responded like the Wizard of Oz when he was spotted behind the curtain. You attempted to derail the conversation by playing the race card...
Nothing to see here...move along! Just angry white bigots complaining about nothing! The great and powerful slick has spoken!'

You are an arrogant and despicable partisan hack afraid of honest debate.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:36 am

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:38 am

Will Robinson wrote:You are an arrogant and despicable partisan hack afraid of honest debate.

BUT......BUT.... that would require honesty

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:14 am

callmeslick wrote:

I do believe that one of the main criticisms you have of the Republican party is that they don’t police their own.
that, plus the fact that their policies show them to be heartless bastards intent on raping the middle class and working poor, you are correct.

It would seem the heartless Dems have no problem with the "Kill them with kindness" philosophy either. We've had 5 years of a Dem. administration and Dem controlled Senate and the middle class is slowly sinking in the mire of the Dems excessive regulations and business's being forced to make employee's part timers due to Obamacare. The only heartless bastards are people like you who fail to see this country runs on business and not social welfare programs.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:57 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, the question I asked was quite clearly loaded with substance. Aren't you the one who prides himself in nuance?

you just found it substantial....sorry, I disagree. Nuance has NOTHING to do with it.

Why is it a good idea to portray a factual visual identifier of an individual suspects race as "profiling"!?!?

it isn't portrayed as such except by real outliers...

There is a great deal of wrong at work for those students to come together thinking they are doing good by formulating such a ridiculous request! Something that does matter a great deal to us all!

they're students...they didn't think it through. Big deal.

You are an arrogant and despicable partisan hack afraid of honest debate.

and you're an angry white guy, feeling somehow disenfranchised, or living in a nation that doesn't get you. So be it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:09 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Why is it a good idea to portray a factual visual identifier of an individual suspects race as "profiling"!?!?
it isn't portrayed as such except by real outliers...

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:There is a great deal of wrong at work for those students to come together thinking they are doing good by formulating such a ridiculous request! Something that does matter a great deal to us all!
they're students...they didn't think it through. Big deal.

Those students didn't just manifest some little piece of illogic on their own out of whole cloth!
There is no "outlier" factor behind this. This is symptomatic of a larger disease.

This is the result of mainstream everyday manipulation/exploitation of blacks to keep them hypersensitive to any attribution of bigotry, no matter how suspect that claim may be. They are needed, by design, to draw illogical conclusions such as the one they reached here!
They aren't an anomaly, one of only a few producers of this ridiculous line of bad reasoning. they aren't even responsible for this line of illogical foolishness! They are merely displaying the product of a political industry that implants and fosters such thinking and it is being taught from cradle to grave, going on for decades...for generations now! It is ingrained into pop culture, divisive political strategies and even into scholastic curriculum nationwide.

Teaching and perpetuating this kind of thinking isn't healing, and it isn't just rubbing salt in the wound. This is a result of pouring poison into it! Way to go slick! Doing your part in that!!

Your pathetic attempt at deflection fell well short of the target....again.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:28 pm

Notice the pattern Will?

1. Anyone that disagrees with the president is labeled a "hater" by slick
2. Anyone that is critical of a black in anyway is labeled an "angry white guy" by slick

Its all about the labels with him. He tries to stifle honest debate by trying to intimidate people with labels and put them on the defensive. But labels are useless against truth and facts. Two things he rarely if ever produces.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:31 pm

Demeaning the poster instead of debating the topic is straight out of Alinski's "Rules For Radicals"

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:02 pm

Interesting read.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:07 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Can anyone make a good argument why it is helpful or wise to confuse the use of 'profiling' with factually identifying a suspect?

It's too bad that article doesn't go deep enough. It would be really nice to see the recommendations submitted by those 6 organizations. After an extensive search I could not come up with them.

First, let's take a look at the University of Minnesota. The current breakdown by race is: 71% White, 9% Asian, 9% non-resident alien, 4% African American, 3% Hispanic, and 3% mixed. This breakdown is much more white than the national average, but this is not too important. Also, U-of-M seems to have it's share of idiot kids, like these two girls who put out a rather repugnant black-face video. Kids be kids.

Second, let's take a look at U of M policy and racial profiling. According to their policy, Racial/Bias Profiling is defined as "Any action initiated by law enforcement that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin of an individual rather than the behavior of that individual" (and more...). Unfortunately, their own stated policy only pays lip service to race sensitivity and leaves a lot of room for profiling to be excused, or at least, occurring without repercussions. The reason were are seeing a problem is that, from the article will posted above, "Police wrongfully identified a student as the suspect" (in case any of you missed that point). So as it turns out, racial profiling did in fact take place and did in fact create a problem. This is why the 6 organizations have banded together to recommend changes, which seem to have been ignored. In this case, the University was in violation of their own policy.

Third, let us consider the use of race versus other criteria. When speaking of visual representations, size, shape, and color are the most important (and regarding descriptions of persons, gender is fairly safe but not foolproof). What size was the subject? Tall/short/thin/wide. What was known about the color of the subject? Hair was brown/blonde/red. Eyes were brown/blue/green. Skin was light/medium/dark. Notice this last descriptor. The shade of skin can and should be used because it gives the most information without introducing race. Describing persons as having light, medium, or dark skin avoids using black or white as descriptors since these have stronger racial meanings attached to them (plus, no one is really black or white, only different shades of brown!). Still, some people will find even this problematic, but for now it is the best way to be descriptive without invoking race. Important: color is not race.

Is there a way to use race as a descriptor? Yes, but it is generally inefficient. Depending on which anthropologists or archaeologists you talk to there are 3 or 4 main races: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Australoid. Can we say a person has dark skin and appears to be Negroid? Yes, but I'm not convinced that racial information is much more helpful than the descriptors of size, shape, and color.

So why is using race bad? Because people suck at determining race. Honestly, they do. Americans are cultural idiots. My last girlfriend was Arabic and people thought she was Jewish. Remember 911 and all the idiots who attacked Indian Sikhs because they were mad at terrorists? Note: there has never been a Sikh suicide bomber. It is one of the most peaceful religions ever. Was George Zimmerman white or Hispanic and why the hell should it matter? Our President is mixed race. Many more people in our shrinking world are mixed race. As time goes by, using race to identify people will become increasingly problematic and useless. It is time to think about better descriptors.

tl;dr: Race is a poor descriptor since people are really bad at identifying and describing all but the most extreme examples of race.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:28 pm

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

See vision, the only real problem I have with this issue is those 6 groups have no problem describing "race".

Black this
Black that

But, not black the other thing.

If you catch my drift.

And cops around here bring in the "wrong" suspect all of the time...that's just how it goes, has very little to do with a race descriptor.

Also...

The problem after 911 was that the morons couldn’t identify people’s "religion"…not race, I see it all of the time at my local 711…where some of the workers are Muslim and some are Hindu, mainly from India, but some are from Pakistan, and elsewhere. (Sri Lanka and such)

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:08 pm

Spidey wrote:See vision, the only real problem I have with this issue is those 6 groups have no problem describing "race".

Black this
Black that

But, not black the other thing.

If you catch my drift.

Right, do you catch the drift as to why those 6 organizations need to exist in the first place? They are fighting a very prevalent problem. We should be working with them every chance we can even if we have to go to absurd measures. Every time a situation like this arises it should be a reminder that more work needs to be done. We do not have racial equality in this country.

Spidey wrote:And cops around here bring in the "wrong" suspect all of the time...that's just how it goes, has very little to do with a race descriptor.

That's not a reason to ignore how people are described. You are describing a separate problem and it needs to be addressed in it's own way.

Spidey wrote:The problem after 911 was that the morons couldn’t identify people’s "religion"…not race...

You realize this just confirms my statement about cultural ignorance and why race should not be used as a descriptor? You think it is a coincidence that Arabs are mostly Islamic, Euro-Americans are Christian, and South Asians are Hindu or Buddhist? Race and religion go hand in hand (especially if you are Jewish because they are indistinguishable). We need descriptors that transcend culture. (Well, we could teach our kids about other religions but we can't even teach evolution in this country of religious idiots.)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:57 pm

Vision you are dropping down a number of semantic rabbit holes.
Not to say there is nothing to what you are saying, it is interesting stuff but I'm saying none of that applies to the point...

A 'black person' will infer you are calling out "race" if you refer to dark skin color. Especially if you are also implying that the dark skinned person you are referring to is engaged in a behavior that he is uncomfortable being associated with.

So all this sideshow you are bringing up doesn't really apply to the point, which is, if you know a suspect is what the average policeman or citizen would call a "black person" you should be able to use that descriptor if you are trying to alert fellow officers or citizens to the suspects appearance. Just as if you know the people you are trying to alert speak English you don't send out the alert in Latin....

Case closed.

If you end up arresting the wrong person or it ends up being a Caucasian with too many hours in a tanning bed is not relevant to whether or not it is wise to include that descriptor in the alert!

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.
I don't blame anyone for using 'white' as a descriptor when the suspect is white. Then again I haven't been taught to irrationally take offense at any use of the description. And no, just because black people suffered through slavery and Jim Crow, etc, is no reason for the world to abandon sound logic and create an exemption for them in these kind of situations. They aren't suggesting just profiling be eliminated they are trying to remove common sense in the name of their hypersensitivity!

You can live under the hardships of whatever bigotry exists and still accept your skin color is shared by millions of others, some of them will inevitably be criminals pursued by law enforcement and that color will be used to narrow the possible suspect pool in an investigation. That is the way of the logical world and not necessarily the way of racists. That is an important distinction that people are attempting to hide.

There is no good that can come from trying to deny that reality or perpetuate the exploitation of people by fostering such a hypersensitivity.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:32 am

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! Just so you know, this is the same mentality that gives rise to caste systems. Want to be like India? Keep it up.

The answer, whether you like it or not, is to work with minorities and develop systems that address racial problems. If a racially oppressed minority has issues with the way policies are made and executed then we have to change them. It's how we create a fair and just society. As I said above, using race as a descriptor is not as informative when compared to other visual identifiers. This is not just about offending people. In addition to socioeconomic problems, negative racial identity causes deterioration of mental and physical health too. We need to work together and find ways to describe individuals that is both accurate and inclusive -- not just tell one group to "suck it up."

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:06 am

Sometimes telling someone to “suck it up” is just what they need. I’m sensitive to the plight of black people, but in this case, no real problem exists. This is a made up problem.

Let me see…just how long will it take before they start complaining about the use of “dark skinned” as it now becomes associated with black people.

"Dark Skinned" "Dark Skinned" "Dark Skinned"...they say "Dark Skinned" but we know who they are talking about...they mean us.

It doesn’t matter what you change the description to, it will always have to mean a “black” person.

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.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:44 am

Spidey wrote:Let me see…just how long will it take before they start complaining about the use of “dark skinned” as it now becomes associated with black people.

And when that happens we will be reminded that work still needs to be done and all parties must come together to work on the issue and strive for better treatment of all.

Spidey wrote:...in this case, no real problem exists. This is a made up problem.

Says whitey. Oh wait, I forgot you are enrolled in the U of M....

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?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:02 am

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?

That a certain political party wants Blacks in voter bondage to them?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:03 am

repeat it more, Woody.....but, that still isn't going to make the statement any truer. It's a lie, you know it's a lie, so just keep repeating it. Out of the modern 'conservative' playbook, page 1.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:18 am

callmeslick wrote:repeat it more, Woody.....but, that still isn't going to make the statement any truer. It's a lie, you know it's a lie, so just keep repeating it. Out of the modern 'conservative' playbook, page 1.

Denying it won't make it any less true. See, two of us are now playing the game. BTW there is no "Modern Conservative Playbook" But there is a book called "Rules for Radicals" which I suspect you know forwards and backwards.