StrangeSox

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:54 PM) Which is exactly why Zimmerman has the right to call the police, but not to pursue the kid. He clearly wasn't trained on how to deal with the situation once confronted. If he stays in his car, the police probably don't end up killing the kid. Yes, some people might get pissed off that a black kid got stopped and questioned when he wasn't doing anything wrong, but at least the larger tragedy is avoided. I can agree with this with the caveat that, while he has the right, I think he was wrong to call the police. And that's why so many people are upset about this. Zimmerman made one really poor decision after another, wound up killing a 17 year old kid who had just been walking back from the store and he is legally justified.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:49 PM) So are you arguing that the "hoodie" is just another way for racists to be openly racist without having to take accountability for it? If you go for a run in your hoodie, I don't think many people would find you suspicious. If however, you were loitering or lurking around with no apparent purpose for an extended period of time in your hoodie, I think I would be just as suspicious of you as I would a black person in the same circumstances. You are probably correct in that there is some large component of white people that are using the hoodie or "uniform" as a way to continue being openly racist...but to assume that without any other evidence is unfair IMO, especially in the instance of the police. They are trained to identify suspicious people, and someone wearing clothing which partially conceals their identity is definitely suspicious behavior according to their training. Absent some other evidence of profiling or racism, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that they are profiling. I'm not even saying they're dog-whistling their racism here. I'm saying they are explicitly saying that a young black male in a hoodie is in a "uniform." That "uniform" is supposedly the uniform of a criminal thug. This editorial said it, Geraldo said it, plenty of people have said it. Young black men in "uniform" should be viewed suspiciously because they're young black men wearing a hoodie. But when does this sort of talk apply to white people? How many white people out for a run or a walk get the police called on them because they're suspicious? How much talk has focused on, say, the local high school track team's thug uniform? Hoodies are everywhere, worn by people of all races and ages and genders, but it's a "uniform" only for black men. I wouldn't point to police training as racially neutral, either. Our justice system has a pretty terrible track record.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:48 PM) Depending on the location and time of day, yes he might. We have pretty good evidence that this happens much, much, much more to non-whites than it does to whites.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) If he matches the description of people who had been committing crimes in that area (all of these things, not just the fact that he might be black, as you keep focusing on), then it doesn't hurt to call. If there had been crimes committed by white youths in an area, especially if there aren't many whites in that area and that particular white kid isn't a recognizable face, it's reasonable to have suspicions and call the cops. After this post, I'm going through and deleting all of the posts I made in this thread. You being intentionally obtuse is driving me nuts. Congratulations, you win. I'm sorry, but you're still obscuring things here to justify broad racial profiling. The description for two of the crimes was "black man/men." That's it. This neighborhood was pretty mixed and about 25% black IIRC, so it isn't unusual for a black person to be there. He was black and wearing a hoodie while walking down the sidewalk on the phone. That's enough, according to some, to raise suspicion and warrant questioning by the police. If you want to know why a lot of minority communities don't have a lot of trust in the police, it's because of stuff like this. These same calls and investigations and harassment just do not happen to white people the way they do to others.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) One thing people have to remember, which Milk was trying to point out, is that it isn't racism to suspect young black males for wearing hoodies because they are black, but rather, because they happen to be wearing an article of clothing that is often chosen by criminals because of its ability to hide or conceal one's appearance. Now I am sure that if you combine that with the fact that the person wearing the article of clothing is black, for many people that adds to the suspicion (rightfully unfair), but suspicion because of the article of clothing itself does not equate to racism. But a white person wearing a hoodie isn't going to be viewed as suspicious. It's only when you add in race that it becomes a "uniform" worthy of suspicion. I don't even have to think twice about throwing on a hoodie if I'm going to go for a run, that I might be profiled and reported to the police, or, god forbid, chased down by an armed wanna-be cop. That's not the reality for a person of color. That is something they have to think about. There's a reason why there's such a thing as "the talk."

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) I didn't find the article to be racist. I am not sure that I agree with him, but I didn't find it racist. SS, let me ask you this...as to the question of "some large disproportionate percentage of crimes are committed by black males" and therefore "we must profile black males" being racist, what if it was "some large disproportionate amount of crimes are committed by women" and therefore "we must profile women." Would you be as offended by that because of what you perceive to be gender bias or sexism as you are for what you perceive to be racism with the "black males" example? I don't see why I wouldn't be. I've not been shy about criticizing gender bias and sexism in the past. edit: Cohen has had racist columns going back decades edit2: the explicitly racist parts are the stuff like "a uniform we all recognize." Young black male wearing a hoodie=thug/criminal uniform is pretty explicitly racist, or if that's too strong of a charge, a terrible racial stereotype that pervades our society and leads to all sorts of terrible outcomes.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) You left out key additional information that the person's identity was obscured with the sweatshirt and that recent crimes were committed in the area by young black men. Ok, so a black man wearing a hoodie while walking down the street is reasonably suspicious and should have the police called on him.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) I totally feel you lostfan. As a black man I always feel like I'm trying to prove myself to white people. It's not something I have intent to do but it's more inherent. Example: While riding the train, I see some idiot rapping out loud during rush hour. I feel compelled to tell him to STFU. I feel like his actions reflect poorly on me that I have to defend myself from him. It's all too weird of a feeling. I'm sure if a white person saw some other white person acting like an idiot, it probably wouldn't even phase them. Another example is when I tell people my profession, they get big eyed, like it's impossible for a black man to possess an education. It's a shame really. From distancing ourselves from the idiots and still getting treated like *******, I grow weary of the s*** on a daily basis. White people will never understand that s***. I'm not trying to be racist but it's just true. I feel like most of them see things through rose colored glasses. I've heard it described as "twice as good" before. eta: this also relates to the 'credit to his race' and 'model minority' bulls*** too.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) Example. Yeah I know that's goofy ass Ted Nugent but that's the most recent example I could think of off the top of my head and definitely not the first time I've seen that. Also: when I hear prominent conservative types like Nugent, or Hannity, or Gingrich bring up Chicago as a counter-example (actually a non-sequitur) my first thought is "and what have YOU tried to do to help? Where've you been?" The answer to that is absolutely nothing whatsoever. Richard Cohen had an openly racist editorial in the Washington Post today http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ric...ry.html?hpid=z2

McDonalds tells it workers how to live on minimum wage: answer: get a second job so you can work 74 hours a week. Also, don't heat your apartment. Also find this $20/month health insurance policy.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 12:51 PM) The dude looks totally "Hispanic". Definitely not "white". Not that it should matter. But u guys seem obsessed over his supposed "whiteness" I was making a general comment on what 'race' means. It's a social construct, and it's as much about how others perceive you as it is about how you perceive and identify yourself.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) OK, you know... I really dislike both of those guys, but their actions clearly show in this case they are trying to keep people calm. I really can't criticize them in this case, and frankly, you are only doing so out of fear and not fact. I hate defending their actions, but, this is reality. they are literally responsible for any act of violence in this country, apparently.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:58 PM) Wow, nice. But yeah, he doesn't know the law. Following behind someone doesn't give them the right to hit you. And pettie, I do believe it's relevant. Basically saying "he's fair-skinned, so he's white" is at best racially insensitive, and racist at worst. "He's fair-skinned, so he's socially perceived as white" is probably pretty accurate. Just as Obama is mixed-race but would be perceived in our society as black.

More and more conservative states are passing draconian anti-abortion laws. Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio all recently joined the list. eta: does anyone even try to bother with the pretense that the tea party movement isn't primarily about social conservatism anymore?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) What do you mean not really? No one saw anyone in the act, they saw black kids standing nearby. The victim told the cops that and they looked in his bag. The victim assumed the black kid did it without actually knowing. How is that any different than what Zimmerman did/assumed?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) It's a good thing the people in the second example were racist and believed the three black kids standing nearby were the culprits. You, SB and others would have thought nothing of them and not gotten your laptop back. not really

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) Fitting the specific profile of people who have been committing crimes in a specific area is a valid reason to call the police. Calling the police about every black kid you see is not OK. Following him closely enough that he apparently thought he was in danger is also not OK. The specific profile was "black person." In four out of eight break-ins, nobody saw any suspects. In two others, suspects were eventually caught (one was a group of three black kids and a white kid, the other was a black kid who lived next door to the house he broke into). That's about as exact of a profile as was available. edit: This Daily Beast article from last year covers the incidents

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) This sort of profiling goes way deeper than most would even care to think about, to the point that people often profile against themselves, without even recognizing it. i.e. internalized racism (or sexism or whatever else) http://racerelations.about.com/od/understa...lizedracism.htm

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:18 AM) Is it still wrong? How is it supposed to be spelled? Now it's right and that wasn't meant as a shot at the mods/admins but I see how it could have been read that way. I was trying to say that I've asked a few times in the thread, but that those posts quickly get buried under dozens more and I never bothered to go as far as making the effort to actually ask someone to change it via PM/reporting the thread. tl;dr it's right now, I no longer have to be embarrassed for my crappy spelling.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) Unfortunately, there is nothing that can stop a person from doing this. People profile, all the time, all around us, and we usually don't even notice it. I am happy to see more people in this thread acknowledging the reality of systemic racism in this country.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) I just noticed Trayvon's name is spelled in the title and now it bothers me but because I'm a s***ty mod I can't change it. yeah I've asked that it be changed in the thread a couple of times out of embarrassment but it always gets buried.

Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice more from ta-nehisi coates

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 10:01 PM) Seeing as this was a legal case, I would call that relevant. Zimmerman wasn't charged with stalking, though

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 07:50 PM) Again, the way things YOU or I think things aught to be aren't the actual way they aught to be. I don't know what point you think you're making here.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 07:46 PM) You mean you're taking about what YOU think the law should be, not what it is. That and 3$ will get you a cup of coffee at *$. The last 50 posts here, give or take a few are exactly why I've attempted to avoid this conversation. Conjuncture, opinion, speculation galore, but no logic based on the actual laws that actually exist, of which this case was actually tried on. As I said, including to those of you on this tread that outright told people to f*** off, this is outright ignorance at this point, and most of you suck. We're better than Reddit and the like, so stop being exactly like Reddit. What's wrong with a normative discussion about the ways things ought to be?