How Profiling Saved My Life: Reflections on Crime and Black Supremacy

Toogood Reports ^ | 14 December 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

Bumpabackatcha!

[newgeezer]

That conclusion was the product of deductive reasoning, thanks to the facts presented in the second paragraph.

[mrustow]

It's also worth noting that firearms offenses in New York City have risen dramatically in the last couple of years, since the NYPD shut down the Street Crimes Unit and the New Jersey State Police stopped making random stops on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Good observation.

[aristeides]

I've never understood what people think is so wrong about stereotypes. (You might say stereotyping is stereotyped.) Stereotypes may sometimes be wrong, in individual cases, but I think the majority of stereotypes are right more often than they are wrong. Otherwise they probably would not have arisen in the first place.

[mrustow]

Thanks for the powerful passage.

[mrustow]

Could be. But, if he was (as you said) admitting it wasn't profiling, why does he title the piece, "How Profiling Saved My Life"?

Quite simple,really. He doesn't say racial profiling, only profiling. Profile: Any group of boys standing on the corner at night is obviously trouble waiting to happen. To come to such a conclusion with only the evidence of being a group of boys on the corner would be profiling. Get it?

Bingo!

[tpaine]

"-- the author argues -- profiling is a solid method."
--mrustow -

---

The Racial Profiling Hoax

When Rudolph Giuliani was New York's mayor (1994-2001), racist black leaders and journalists, aided by their white allies, fabricated the racial profiling hoax. The hoax received its current name in 1999, but is actually close to 40 years old. During the 1960s, Marxists insisted that policemen constituted an "occupying army" in urban black slums. Had anyone challenged the Marxists' illogic, he could have pointed out that if blacks truly were a foreign nation, they would not be entitled to welfare payments, free medical treatment, schools, or any other American public services. (In those days, it was still understood that American public services were reserved for Americans.

[mrustow]

Since I never claimed that the author said that profiling based on race is a solid method, I'm not sure what your point is, in juxtaposing my statement with the passage in question.

[newgeezer]

I've never understood what people think is so wrong about stereotypes. ... Stereotypes may sometimes be wrong, in individual cases, but I think the majority of stereotypes are right more often than they are wrong. Otherwise they probably would not have arisen in the first place.

How very... "white" of you. ;O)

But seriously, when stereotypes become prejudices and deny individuals their rights, stereotypes are wrong.

[mrustow]

I've never understood what people think is so wrong about stereotypes. (You might say stereotyping is stereotyped.) Stereotypes may sometimes be wrong, in individual cases, but I think the majority of stereotypes are right more often than they are wrong. Otherwise they probably would not have arisen in the first place.

They don't think anything is wrong about stereotypes. They just constantly repeat such claims as a rhetorical strategy. If you look at what such people do when they are not complaining about "stereotpyes," you'll see that they do nothing but ... stereotype!

When they say, "You shouldn't stereotype," they mean that you should not use your brain to make valid generalizations based on the behavior of people in their favored groups. If they really meant what they said, there could be no social science, and indeed, no society, since all social science and all social interactions are based on stereotypical behaviors and expectations. Instead of an economist saying that lower interest rates would lead to greater investment, for example, everyone would be stumped as to what to expect from a reduction in interest rates. Concealed carry permits? Mating behavior? Plug in the behavior of your choice.

[Lancey Howard]

bttt

[GeronL]

But seriously, when stereotypes become prejudices and deny individuals their rights,

Especially the right to commit crimes?

[Siamese Princess]

I've never understood what people think is so wrong about stereotypes. (You might say stereotyping is stereotyped.) Stereotypes may sometimes be wrong, in individual cases, but I think the majority of stereotypes are right more often than they are wrong. Otherwise they probably would not have arisen in the first place.

You are making too much sense, Aristeides. The fact is that stereotypes usually are correct, though they may be exaggerated at times. There are such things as group characteristics (though not every individual within the group will possess their characteristics), good and bad.

[mrustow]

Bumpbackatcha!

[annyokie]

Along comes an unmarked car, and Det. Kevan and some other plainclothes guys jump out, and hassle us. Stupid Det. Kevan, the jerk. Father of Jimmy, the bully, who was my age, and Jimmy’s oldest brother, who was an even crazier bully. (The two middle brothers were regular guys. I used to hang out with them, during my occasional visits to high school, before dropping out. They had nothing to do with Jimmy.) If Det. Kevan lived down South, you’d call him a redneck. Mean, stupid, and obnoxious.

Here's where the author said the LEO knew the kids.

[mrustow]

No, that's where the author said he knew who the detective was. The fact he knew the guy's kids, and the guy's reputation, doesn't mean the guy knew the writer.

[annyokie]

If you say so. I read it as the dad of one of the author's friends knew who they were.

[mrustow]

... I was 13 and Michael was 12.

Along comes an unmarked car, and Det. Kevan and some other plainclothes guys jump out, and hassle us. Stupid Det. Kevan, the jerk. Father of Jimmy, the bully, who was my age, and Jimmy’s oldest brother, who was an even crazier bully. (The two middle brothers were regular guys. I used to hang out with them, during my occasional visits to high school, before dropping out. They had nothing to do with Jimmy.)

He was 13 at the time. It sounded to me like he got to know the brothers later, in high school. But you could always e-mail the author, and ask him.

[annyokie]

Okay. Just my reading of the passage.

Since the author admits he was a thug or a wannabee at that time, I assumed he was know to the cop, who, I am assuming monitored his own kids. Resulting in the shake down, perhaps?

My interperative reading.

[annyokie]

PS I just emailed the author for clarification.