CP3's broken hand

[Schilly]

dviss in all seriousness so that maybe we can all glean something positive from this whole thread. I don't recall you really explaining to us what racism is. You've really only called our ideas stupid or idiotic, skewed. You've called us Yanks, apparently in a way to be derogatory. Maybe I missed it, but I don't really recall you explaining what racism is to you. You've gone off about France being our ally and fighting wars along side us. I get that. You've pointed out that we don't know what racism is even when Nate cited the definition. You've beat the white privilege drum towards us. Fine that's all fine. But waht is racism to you, explain it to us, you want us to understand, so explain it to us... Because just being mad at us and putting us down isn't educating anyone in the least.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I was literally quoting to you the first definition of racism when you go to Google.

Give it a try. It's not my view of what racism means. It is quite literally an actual definition of the word.

Speaking of Google results for racism, this article is the 4th result. It talks about the updated notion of racism, that it is power-based, and that the dictionary definitions are incomplete because of the very fact that the dictionary publishers are run by the very people who would prefer for racism's definition to not be power-based.

 

[Natebishop3]

That's where you screwed up. Letting a book define racism is a mistake. Look up definitions for white and black. White means honest? Black means evil?

You let books define most of the words in the English language. Why is this word different? You let a book define the rules for basketball, no? You have decided that your definition of racism is the correct definition, and yet you yourself are expressing views that are textbook racism. Now you're trying to defend your stance and wiggle yourself out of it.

 

[dviss1]

Again.... what does this have to do with your behavior?

We're not debating the existence of racism. We're not debating the existence of white privilege for some people. We're talking about you making assumptions about people on this forum about their race and about their lives based on their race.

I'm teaching you.

Because to this day you still don't have a clue of what white privilege is. You like to say that you understand what it is but don't understand that all of you experience it. And then you call me racist for saying that. That just doesn't make any sense nor does it meet the definition that you described earlier. Again, using the dictionary to define racism was wrong from the start.

 

[dviss1]

You let books define most of the words in the English language. Why is this word different? You let a book define the rules for basketball, no? You have decided that your definition of racism is the correct definition, and yet you yourself are expressing views that are textbook racism. Now you're trying to defend your stance and wiggle yourself out of it.

I'm not wiggling out of anything. Go ahead and look up the definition for white and black. Go ahead. Look them up.

 

[dviss1]

Speaking of Google results for racism, this article is the 4th result. It talks about the updated notion of racism, that it is power-based, and that the dictionary definitions are incomplete because of the very fact that the dictionary publishers are run by the very people who would prefer for racism's definition to not be power-based.

Oh my God!! A fan comes out of the crowd and decks Nate Bishop!!

Pandemonium in the Rose Garden!!

 

[blue32]

Ohhhhhhhh the crowd hushes, as both fighters continue to throw blow after blow into one another. No one seems to let up. The rounds keep passing, the round girls are getting tired!

 

[blue32]

Oh my God!! A fan comes out of the crowd and decks Nate Bishop!!

Pandemonium in the Rose Garden!!

hey, a fighter can't be an announcer get back in the ring!

 

[Natebishop3]

Speaking of Google results for racism, this article is the 4th result. It talks about the updated notion of racism, that it is power-based, and that the dictionary definitions are incomplete because of the very fact that the dictionary publishers are run by the very people who would prefer for racism's definition to not be power-based.

But that doesn't support Dviss because he uses racist/racism as a catch-all for any kind of bigoted or generalizing comment about a group of people.

That article is stemmed in the idea that racism is power driven, essentially saying that you can't be racist unless you're part of the majority group, which is a whole other debate.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't. But who cares? If you search over 190K people you're going to find something. The bad thing is that you only found something 11% of the time. Sounds to me like a waste of police resources.

Because some might argue that if the percentages of those found to not be innocent matched the percentage of those stopped, then it could potentially support the thought processes behind the selections. Many people believe in ends-justify-means mindsets. In fact, your post ("11% success rate indicates waste of resources") implies that line of thinking. Stop and frisk was bad because it was wrong, not because it was ineffective or executed poorly.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm not wiggling out of anything. Go ahead and look up the definition for white and black. Go ahead. Look them up.

We aren't talking about the colors of the rainbow and what each color means. We're talking about how you define racism, how the dictionary defines racism, and your comments about white people on this forum.

 

[dviss1]

dviss in all seriousness so that maybe we can all glean something positive from this whole thread. I don't recall you really explaining to us what racism is. You've really only called our ideas stupid or idiotic, skewed. You've called us Yanks, apparently in a way to be derogatory. Maybe I missed it, but I don't really recall you explaining what racism is to you. You've gone off about France being our ally and fighting wars along side us. I get that. You've pointed out that we don't know what racism is even when Nate cited the definition. You've beat the white privilege drum towards us. Fine that's all fine. But waht is racism to you, explain it to us, you want us to understand, so explain it to us... Because just being mad at us and putting us down isn't educating anyone in the least.

Schilly, I did not refer to you as a yank. I should've used green font on that to better illustrate my point.

Racism has a number of levels. I do not think it can be defined by Merriam-Webster. One can be saying something racist or akin to racism simply by grouping people (IMO nationality, and religion fall under this description) and labeling them as somthing. Hell yeah I love fried chicken but Goddamn it I hate watermelon. Sometimes I'm a little loud in the movies but I don't drink fruit flavored soda... Anymore... LOL

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But that doesn't support Dviss because he uses racist/racism as a catch-all for any kind of bigoted or generalizing comment about a group of people.

That article is stemmed in the idea that racism is power driven, essentially saying that you can't be racist unless you're part of the majority group, which is a whole other debate.

But the point is that using dictionary definitions of racism to define racism is ineffective because those affected by racism aren't in positions to proffer those definitions.

 

[dviss1]

Because some might argue that if the percentages of those found to not be innocent matched the percentage of those stopped, then it could potentially support the thought processes behind the selections. Many people believe in ends-justify-means mindsets. In fact, your post ("11% success rate indicates waste of resources") implies that line of thinking. Stop and frisk was bad because it was wrong, not because it was ineffective or executed poorly.

Besides the fact that it is a violation of our fourth amendment rights that's not the only reason why it was wrong. It was wrong because it was ineffective. You are searching so many people every day but you're only finding something 11% of the time. If Damian was shooting 11% from the field people in here we'll be going crazy if you shot over 190K times for the year.

 

[Natebishop3]

Oh my God!! A fan comes out of the crowd and decks Nate Bishop!!

Pandemonium in the Rose Garden!!

The fact that you think his article supports you, tells me that you have no idea what you're claiming at this point.

This was how YOU defined racism

"My argument is and always has been that we should not group a demographic of people together and say that they are all one way. Regardless if it's race, nationality or whatever it's all akin racism and that's what I will call it. There's no reason to argue semantics by saying that Muslims or French aren't a race."

So your definition is much closer to what the dictionary defines racism as, and yet you don't understand that making generalizing statements about white people is breaking your own moral code about your own definition of racism.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Besides the fact that it is a violation of our fourth amendment rights that's not the only reason why I was wrong. It was wrong because it was ineffective. You are searching so many people every day but you're only finding something 11% of the time. If Damian was shooting 11% from the field people in here we'll be going crazy if you shot over 190K times for the year.

Let's not compare effectiveness percentages of completely different things, now. For instance, you can't compare batting average, field goal percentage, and completion percentage because they're completely different efforts with completely different difficulty and expected success levels.

Specifically in regard to policing, neighborhood patrols are likely less effective on a percentage basis than 11%--should they be eliminated too?

 

[dviss1]

Let's not compare effectiveness percentages of completely different things, now. For instance, you can't compare batting average, field goal percentage, and completion percentage because they're completely different efforts with completely different difficulty and expected success levels.

Specifically in regard to policing, neighborhood patrols are likely less effective on a percentage basis than 11%--should they be eliminated too?

Fair enough. I guess my point is if 89% of people are completely innocent (remember they are being stopped and frisked because they look suspicious) what makes the black people more suspicious looking then the 11% of white people that were frisked?

 

[noknobs]

Can we pleeeease get back on topic and talk about sack punching?

Or is that sexist? I don't want to offend anyone.

 

[dviss1]

The fact that you think his article supports you, tells me that you have no idea what you're claiming at this point.

This was how YOU defined racism

"My argument is and always has been that we should not group a demographic of people together and say that they are all one way. Regardless if it's race, nationality or whatever it's all akin racism and that's what I will call it. There's no reason to argue semantics by saying that Muslims or French aren't a race."

So your definition is much closer to what the dictionary defines racism as, and yet you don't understand that making generalizing statements about white people is breaking your own moral code about your own definition of racism.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because when I say that all white people experience white privilege, I'm saying that as a person who, by the definition of white privilege, is stating a fact not a generalization.

And calling me racist for saying that IMHO says much more about you than it does about me.

 

[dviss1]

Repost:

I'm teaching my son to be a sack puncher. This will be his response to ANY physical bullying. He will know that there are no rules in fighting and if a bigger, stronger bully tries to assault him, aim for the nuts. Gouge his eye. Aim for his trachea. Stomp on the top of his foot and break his 5th metatarsal. Son, a human ear only needs 3 lbs of pressure to be removed. Defend yourself. Had I punched a few pairs of nuts in my day, I'd have experienced less bullying.

Sorry, not sorry.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Fair enough. I guess my point is if 89% of people are completely innocent (remember they are being stopped and frisked because they look suspicious) what makes the black people more suspicious looking then the 11% of white people that were frisked?

That's why I asked for the demos of those who weren't innocent. Those who defined the policy might say, "If of the 11% whom we stop that are actually breaking a law, 56% are black, 29% are Latino, and 11% are white, then we should apply those same percentages to our stop-and-frisk selection process."

Again, I'm not saying it's a mindset I'd employ, but I can understand how some would.

 

[Chris Craig]

You know Paul was probably trying to punch Hendo's sack from behind, but he didn't realize Hendo has balls of steel

 

[dviss1]

Chris Paul is a flopping, sack punching lil' bitch.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You know Paul was probably trying to punch hendos sack from behind, but he didn't realize Hendo has balls of steel

I told my wife how Chris Paul broke his hand on Henderson's butt, and her immediate reply was, "Wow, that guy's a real hard-ass!"

I love that woman.

 

[Natebishop3]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because when I say that all white people experience white privilege, I'm saying that as a person who, by the definition of white privilege, is stating a fact not a generalization.

And calling me racist for saying that IMHO says much more about you than it does about me.

It's not just that. You make assumptions about people being white, or not understanding because they're white, all the time. But, bottom line, I'm tired of you being the PC Police. You were the one who derailed this thread. Period. You can make it about me, or try to call me out, but I don't make comments about people's race on here. I don't even consider a person's race when engaging them on this forum. You, on the other hand, do. You shouldn't be running a person's opinion through the filter of race. You shouldn't be thinking, "well this dude is white, so......"

That's my problem with you.

 

[oldmangrouch]

CP3 really did give Hendo the finger.

 

[dviss1]

That's why I asked for the demos of those who weren't innocent. Those who defined the policy might say, "If of the 11% whom we stop that are actually breaking a law, 56% are black, 29% are Latino, and 11% are white, then we should apply those same percentages to our stop-and-frisk selection process."

Again, I'm not saying it's a mindset I'd employ, but I can understand how some would.

Those aren't the numbers though. Let's do the math:

In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times.
169,252 were totally innocent (88 percent).
104,958 were black (56 percent).
55,191 were Latino (29 percent).
20,877 were white (11 percent

Of the 104,958 stopped 11,545 blacks were guilty.

Of the 55,191 stopped 6,071 were guilty.

Of the 20,877 stopped 2,296 were guilty.

Well, we know that they were stopped because they looked suspicious. The question I have is why do black people suddenly looks more than white people do. Only 21k why people stopped and over 100k black people. This is the problem.

 

[Chris Craig]

I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally

 

[dviss1]

It's not just that. You make assumptions about people being white, or not understanding because they're white, all the time. But, bottom line, I'm tired of you being the PC Police. You were the one who derailed this thread. Period. You can make it about me, or try to call me out, but I don't make comments about people's race on here. I don't even consider a person's race when engaging them on this forum. You, on the other hand, do. You shouldn't be running a person's opinion through the filter of race. You shouldn't be thinking, "well this dude is white, so......"

That's my problem with you.

I really could care less about any problems that you have with me. My problem with you is that you don't recognize your white privilege but whatever. I guess we'll continue to have that problem because I'm not changing. And you can continue to keep your head in the sand when it comes to the problems that people of color have to deal with in this country. Go ahead and continue to exercise your privilege and click away from the thread.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Those aren't the numbers though. Let's do the math:

In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times.
169,252 were totally innocent (88 percent).
104,958 were black (56 percent).
55,191 were Latino (29 percent).
20,877 were white (11 percent

Of the 104,958 stopped 11,545 blacks were guilty.

Of the 55,191 stopped 6,071 were guilty.

Of the 20,877 stopped 2,296 were guilty.

Well, we know that they were stopped because they looked suspicious. The question I have is why do black people suddenly looks more than white people do. Only 21k why people stopped and over 100k black people. This is the problem.

But you can't necessarily apply the 11% rate for the entire sample to each segment and know that it matches the actual results. You said yourself that you don't have the demographic breakdown of the 22K that weren't innocent. You're just extrapolating an expected result. I'm asking for the actuals to compare with the expected. If we don't have it, we don't have it, but let's not make assumptions here.