Is profiling wrong?

[billyerock1991]

Blacks commit nearly 5 times per capita over whites when it comes to murder. How is it fair or right not to focus on black area's??? Blacks commit 50% of all murders and these are 90% black on black. So they don't want law enforcement trying to make their neighborhoods safer?

then I would say you as a white person hasn't anything to worry about accept for 10% of the time... just curious where do you get you stats from???

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

Profiling is being observant. They don't like that. They want us to ignore our instincts and become robots. This is liberal utopia.

The reason some don't want you to profile is because they want us to ignore our differences. Yet when it comes to politics, they practice identity politics like there's no tomorrow. They use these differences as a basis for filing grievances and bringing lawsuits. They use our differences to win elections by causing divisions.

The left spends their entire existence lying to themselves. Perhaps that's why they are so comfortable with lying to us.

 

[billyerock1991]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

It's wrong when we don't agree to the terms in advance.
When we do the profiling, we understand what we were thinking so it's different.
When it's done to us, we can't tell what the other person was thinking so it causes problems.

If all people in a community AGREE to the rules and procedures,
and understand/accept when "X Y Z" is going to be the response to "A B C"
then we can work out agreements.

A lot of these issues can be reduced or eliminated if we have closer
collaborative working relations within each district, and we agree and know
who is who and what the rules are that we agree to follow in advance.

If there are going to be problems mistakes or flaws, we should agree how to handle that.

the problem I see is when people who sees that"XYZ" s going to be the response to "A B C" then says well thats unconstitutional when clearly its not where it fits you every step of the way that the ACA isn't the response ... then what do you say... oh well ... deniers every where you go ...

 

[billyerock1991]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

I never profile, and yes, you're wrong to do so. "Profiling" is the pseudo-polite conservatard code-word for "discrimination," and of course, discrimination--in any form, in any capacity--is wrong.

Just because the people in your examples may appear to you to be a certain way doesn't mean that they actually are. So someone drives an expensive car and wears nice clothes--so what? That does not mean they're rich, it means they have an expensive car and expensive clothes. So what if someone looks like they have Down Syndrome--have you ever considered that maybe they don't have Down Syndome, but are merely Uggo-Americans?

Your kind makes me sick. I'll bet you'd call someone a thief if they pointed a gun at you and demanded money. What if they're using the money to pay for a poor orphan's life-saving surgery? You really need to get some perspective.

Hi [MENTION=49168]LiberalMedia[/MENTION] I appreciate your concern and your high standards which are noble.

All people make associations, and we are all prone to make assumptions and mistakes.
It would be nice to be perfect, and always check ourselves.

But even with people we've known 10 or 20 years, we can make leaps and mistakes.
It happens to the best of us, even married people who think they already know it all!
We have those incidents where we can't understand "how could you NOT know"
"how did you assume THAT when you KNOW that's not what I was doing/thinking"

If we make assumptions and mistakes with even people we "know like the back of our hand"
surely we are going to make mistakes with people we don't know.

Even though you can't stand to see these mistakes in judgment, preventable or not,
we are less likely to make them when we FORGIVE one another in advance.
This "clears the air" of distrust and negative emotions that otherwise block our intuition.

The more open and receptive we are, we communicate better, and are more likely to ask in advance by sensing there is something inconsistent we are missing, rather than assume that other person is the problem and make a leap in judgment.

So I don't want to discourage you from seeking a perfect world with perfect human relations where we don't make mistakes that can be prevented.
Quite the opposite, I want to encourage you that to achieve this goal of perfect harmony and understanding, FORGIVENESS is the key to opening that door to connect with others.

Thanks and again I'm glad to see you here and posting your honest thoughts that are a beneficial contribution to this forum. I look forward to reading more of what you have to share. and I hope the other members of this board help you to be more effective in your outreach where it is needed the most! Thank you.

the problem every body has had so far is they can't determine if they are stereotyping or profiling ... the original poster is stereotyping not profiling

 

[billyerock1991]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

Profiling is being observant. They don't like that. They want us to ignore our instincts and become robots. This is liberal utopia.

The reason some don't want you to profile is because they want us to ignore our differences. Yet when it comes to politics, they practice identity politics like there's no tomorrow. They use these differences as a basis for filing grievances and bringing lawsuits. They use our differences to win elections by causing divisions.

The left spends their entire existence lying to themselves. Perhaps that's why they are so comfortable with lying to us.

and we have another one that doesn't know the difference between profiling and sterotyping


pro·fil·ing
/ˈproʊfaɪlɪŋ/ Show Spelled [proh-fahy-ling] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person, as in gender profiling .
2.
the use of these characteristics to determine whether a person may be engaged in illegal activity, as in racial profiling .


ster·e·o·type
/ˈstɛriəˌtaɪp, ˈstɪər-/ Show Spelled [ster-ee-uh-tahyp, steer-] Show IPA
noun
1.
a process, now often replaced by more advanced methods, for making metal printing plates by taking a mold of composed type or the like in papier-mâché or other material and then taking from this mold a cast in type metal.
2.
a plate made by this process.
3.
a set form; convention.
4.
Sociology . a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group: The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.
verb (used with object), ster·e·o·typed, ster·e·o·typ·ing.
5.
to make a stereotype of.
6.
to characterize or regard as a stereotype: The actor has been stereotyped as a villain.
7.
to give a fixed form to.


which is what you not talking about

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

I never profile, and yes, you're wrong to do so. "Profiling" is the pseudo-polite conservatard code-word for "discrimination," and of course, discrimination--in any form, in any capacity--is wrong.

Just because the people in your examples may appear to you to be a certain way doesn't mean that they actually are. So someone drives an expensive car and wears nice clothes--so what? That does not mean they're rich, it means they have an expensive car and expensive clothes. So what if someone looks like they have Down Syndrome--have you ever considered that maybe they don't have Down Syndome, but are merely Uggo-Americans?

Your kind makes me sick. I'll bet you'd call someone a thief if they pointed a gun at you and demanded money. What if they're using the money to pay for a poor orphan's life-saving surgery? You really need to get some perspective.

Discrimination is not wrong. It is a natural self defense mechanism.

Whites are a victim of discrimination all the time, especially through Affirmative Action.

-Geaux

 

[Rotagilla]

Blacks commit nearly 5 times per capita over whites when it comes to murder. How is it fair or right not to focus on black area's??? Blacks commit 50% of all murders and these are 90% black on black. So they don't want law enforcement trying to make their neighborhoods safer?

then I would say you as a white person hasn't anything to worry about accept for 10% of the time... just curious where do you get you stats from???

FBI ? Table 43


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf


The demographic characteristics of homicide victims and
offenders were different from the characteristics of the general
population
Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide
victims and offenders.

The victimization rate for blacks (27.8
per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per
100,000).

The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost
8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)
(table 1)


FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

 

[Care4all]

Is accusing whites of all being racist, wrong? Think about that? Or how about attacking innocent people in the knock out game. How is that any different then what whites were doing in the 60's and 70's?

Yes, it is wrong for people to accuse all whites as being racists or all blacks as being racists, or ALL of any particular class or group as being racist....because obviously we do not know ALL in any particular group....I see it here on this site all the time and to me, this is simply wrong....it's an easy way out to try to put an end an argument, instead of arguing the argument itself....

 

[BobPlumb]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

Profiling is being observant. They don't like that. They want us to ignore our instincts and become robots. This is liberal utopia.

The reason some don't want you to profile is because they want us to ignore our differences. Yet when it comes to politics, they practice identity politics like there's no tomorrow. They use these differences as a basis for filing grievances and bringing lawsuits. They use our differences to win elections by causing divisions.

The left spends their entire existence lying to themselves. Perhaps that's why they are so comfortable with lying to us.

and we have another one that doesn't know the difference between profiling and sterotyping


pro·fil·ing
/ˈproʊfaɪlɪŋ/ Show Spelled [proh-fahy-ling] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person, as in gender profiling .
2.
the use of these characteristics to determine whether a person may be engaged in illegal activity, as in racial profiling .


ster·e·o·type
/ˈstɛriəˌtaɪp, ˈstɪər-/ Show Spelled [ster-ee-uh-tahyp, steer-] Show IPA
noun
1.
a process, now often replaced by more advanced methods, for making metal printing plates by taking a mold of composed type or the like in papier-mâché or other material and then taking from this mold a cast in type metal.
2.
a plate made by this process.
3.
a set form; convention.
4.
Sociology . a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group: The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.
verb (used with object), ster·e·o·typed, ster·e·o·typ·ing.
5.
to make a stereotype of.
6.
to characterize or regard as a stereotype: The actor has been stereotyped as a villain.
7.
to give a fixed form to.


which is what you not talking about

So are you saying that profiling is okay but stereotyping is not?

Also, from the definitions you posted, it is still not clear what the difference between between stereotyping and profiling is. Say I turn on the TV and there is an old western movie and two characters are about to have a gun fight in the street. One character has a white hat and based on a stereotype I would expect him to be the hero. The other character is wearing a black hat so I assume he is the villain. I've just used stereotypes to profile the characters.

 

[BlackSand]

I never profile, and yes, you're wrong to do so. "Profiling" is the pseudo-polite conservatard code-word for "discrimination," and of course, discrimination--in any form, in any capacity--is wrong.

Just because the people in your examples may appear to you to be a certain way doesn't mean that they actually are. So someone drives an expensive car and wears nice clothes--so what? That does not mean they're rich, it means they have an expensive car and expensive clothes. So what if someone looks like they have Down Syndrome--have you ever considered that maybe they don't have Down Syndome, but are merely Uggo-Americans?

Your kind makes me sick. I'll bet you'd call someone a thief if they pointed a gun at you and demanded money. What if they're using the money to pay for a poor orphan's life-saving surgery? You really need to get some perspective.

It doesn't matter what you want the money for ... You would still be a thief.
Anyone profiling you as a thief for sticking a gun in someone's face and stealing their money would be correct.

Progressive Liberal excuses will never really change the actual facts of the matter.

.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

No profiling isn't wrong and it's used daily by law enforcement as well as most ordinary citizens.

If a person doesn't want to be perceived as a thug, hooker, bum etc.. they shouldn't dress as one.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm guilty of being a profiler. When I see a young man muscular man, I profile him as being physically strong.....perhaps someone who works out. If I see a lady wearing a smock, I profile her as being a nurse. If I see someone who I'd driving a very expensive luxury car who also wears expensive cloths and jewelry, I profile that person as being rich. If I see someone using a wheelchair to get around, I profile that person as being handicap. If I see someone who has the facial features of having Downs Syndrome, I assume the person have Downs Syndrome. If I see a scantily clad woman hanging out at a street corner in a rough part of town, I profile her as being a hooker. If I see a man wearing a suit and carrying a bible in a hospital, I profile him as being a minister.

I could go on and on. Doesn't everyone profile?

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

I never profile, and yes, you're wrong to do so. "Profiling" is the pseudo-polite conservatard code-word for "discrimination," and of course, discrimination--in any form, in any capacity--is wrong.

Just because the people in your examples may appear to you to be a certain way doesn't mean that they actually are. So someone drives an expensive car and wears nice clothes--so what? That does not mean they're rich, it means they have an expensive car and expensive clothes. So what if someone looks like they have Down Syndrome--have you ever considered that maybe they don't have Down Syndome, but are merely Uggo-Americans?

Your kind makes me sick. I'll bet you'd call someone a thief if they pointed a gun at you and demanded money. What if they're using the money to pay for a poor orphan's life-saving surgery? You really need to get some perspective.

"I'll bet you'd call someone a thief if they pointed a gun at you and demanded money. "

Yes I would and I would be correct.

The reason doesn't justify the action.

 

[Zmrzlina]

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

Yes it's wrong because your definition of "gangsta" is anyone who does't wear a style of dress associated with white culture.

 

[Rotagilla]

Since negroes commit over HALF of ALL violent crime in the u.s. it's no wonder that demographic gets watched closer than others.

If 85 year old left handed eskimo women were committing over HALF of ALL violent crime in the u.s., I would expect them to be watched closer than other groups.

Nothing sinister about it.

 

[Mac1958]

I never profile, and yes, you're wrong to do so.

Holy crap.

All the Left DOES is profile.

All the Left SEES is skin color.

Every freakin' time I think I've seen it all...

.

 

[BobPlumb]

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

Yes it's wrong because your definition of "gangsta" is anyone who does't wear a style of dress associated with white culture.

That's my definition of "gangsta"? Did you profile me to come up with that?

And actually, that is not my definition of "gangsta"?

 

[Zmrzlina]

If I see a young man or teenager who is dressed in gang style clothing strutting around like a "gangsta", I assume until evidence proves otherwise that the guy is a young thug. I'm i wrong to do this? Why?

Yes it's wrong because your definition of "gangsta" is anyone who does't wear a style of dress associated with white culture.

That's my definition of "gangsta"? Did you profile me to come up with that?

And actually, that is not my definition of "gangsta"?

Please enlighten me of what you mean by "gang style clothing".

 

[BobPlumb]

Yes it's wrong because your definition of "gangsta" is anyone who does't wear a style of dress associated with white culture.

That's my definition of "gangsta"? Did you profile me to come up with that?

And actually, that is not my definition of "gangsta"?

Please enlighten me of what you mean by "gang style clothing".

Gangs come in many different races including white

[ame=http://youtu.be/NpE8jehTRIM]Gangland SkinHead Assault - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Zmrzlina]

This is great and all, but I fail to see your point.

 

[BobPlumb]

The Bloods is a well know black gang with members around the country.

[ame=http://youtu.be/WHKYiE-zjE8]Bloods ? Hardest Gangs 2013 ? Documentary - YouTube[/ame]