Is profiling wrong?

[Zmrzlina]

Let me stop you right there. All you are proving is that gangs make their affiliation known. No one is arguing that it is wrong to profile someone who is openly affiliated with a gang.

 

[BobPlumb]

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

The point is that many gangs dress and act a particular way to set themselves apart from other gangs and the rest of society. If I see someone that looks and acts like a member of one of these various gangs it is wise to suspect that the person might be a member of a gang.

Often a gang member will have tattoos that are specifically identify with a particular gang.

Of course another sign of a gang is that the members tend to "gang" together. That is when they are the most dangerous.

 

[Noomi]

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?

And if you see a Muslim do you assume they are a terrorist?

I assume the best about everyone until I am shown otherwise. You can predict a lot about people from the way they dress, but dressing in so called 'gangster' clothing does not make someone a thug.

 

[BobPlumb]

Let me stop you right there. All you are proving is that gangs make their affiliation known. No one is arguing that it is wrong to profile someone who is openly affiliated with a gang.

Thank you. You get it. These gangs distinguish themselves by how they act, dress, and tattoos and such. Unfortunately some young people copy gangs as a manner of fashion. Thus it is possible to misinterpret the signals and think someone is in a gang when he is not.

 

[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?

And if you see a Muslim do you assume they are a terrorist?

I assume the best about everyone until I am shown otherwise. You can predict a lot about people from the way they dress, but dressing in so called 'gangster' clothing does not make someone a thug.

Its not just the clothing. It is also how the person is behaving. Hence the "strutting around like a gangsta" part of what I wrote.

Sometimes it is not wise to assume the best. If a big and mean looking dog is barking at me I don't just assume I can walk up to the dog and pet it without getting bitten. Not all big dogs that bark at people will bite them, but why take the chance?

Likewise, not everyone that looks like a gang member is a gang member. Some of these people are very kind and considerate. However, in certain venues it is better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Nutz]

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?

And if you see a Muslim do you assume they are a terrorist?

I assume the best about everyone until I am shown otherwise. You can predict a lot about people from the way they dress, but dressing in so called 'gangster' clothing does not make someone a thug.

Its not just the clothing. It is also how the person is behaving. Hence the "strutting around like a gangsta" part of what I wrote.

Sometimes it is not wise to assume the best. If a big and mean looking dog is barking at me I don't just assume I can walk up to the dog and pet it without getting bitten. Not all big dogs that bark at people will bite them, but why take the chance?

Likewise, not everyone that looks like a gang member is a gang member. Some of these people are very kind and considerate. However, in certain venues it is better to be safe than sorry.

It is a shame that you have to explain that. Seems to be common sense to me.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Let me stop you right there. All you are proving is that gangs make their affiliation known. No one is arguing that it is wrong to profile someone who is openly affiliated with a gang.

Thank you. You get it. These gangs distinguish themselves by how they act, dress, and tattoos and such. Unfortunately some young people copy gangs as a manner of fashion. Thus it is possible to misinterpret the signals and think someone is in a gang when he is not.

Nope. Gangs jump wannabes, only someone with a death wish would don gang clothing without being affiliated. What you are describing is just plain old fashioned racial profiling.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Thats not profiling. Thats making an assumption. Nothing inherently wrong with profiling but people are a weak minded fools for assuming.

 

[Asclepias]

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 gotta disagree with the bolded. If someone robs you they are still a thief even if they were using the money to donate to charity.

 

[Ibentoken]

Profiling is not wrong. It's done every day. It's a scientific tool that works. Ask the FBI.

 

[protectionist]

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.

This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen. The OP is perfectly correct. If there is stereotyping occuring, there is a REASON for that stereotyping. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

So if someone pointed a gun at you and demanded money, you wouldn't call that person a thief, based on what they're going to use YOUR money for ? Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) Is there a doctor in the house ? Give me a break!

 

[AntiParty]

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.

Profiling is never wrong until someone takes action based on profiling.

"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? "

An uneducated path to providing funds to someone with a disability is a joke to me. You are trying to justify pointing a gun in someone's face stating, "It was for the disabled". Not exactly educational information for any party.

I know where you are coming from because I educate myself on all parties. The poor sometimes use violence as a way because that is all they know. We profile this as black behavior, but guess what...............

If someone points a gun in your face and demands money, yet uses it towards a child with down syndrome..........THEY ARE STILL A CRIMINAL.

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

can't help you there with the definition ... its up to you to determine the meaning ... I could say A is the meaning then you will believe that b is the true meaning ... its up to you ...

 

[Rotagilla]

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 gotta disagree with the bolded. If someone robs you they are still a thief even if they were using the money to donate to charity.

Unless the robber was a negro and the victim was white..in that case it would be rightful reparations for hundreds of years of (insert typical black excuses for dysfunction here)

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Da fuq?

Is this a serious post?

.

 

[Asclepias]

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 gotta disagree with the bolded. If someone robs you they are still a thief even if they were using the money to donate to charity.

Unless the robber was a negro and the victim was white..in that case it would be rightful reparations for hundreds of years of (insert typical black excuses for dysfunction here)

Still sore from being embarrassed I see.

 

[sameech]

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.

How does what they do with the money have anything whatsoever to do with how they got it? If you hold someone up, you are a thief. There is no way around that. Your post really embarrasses me as someone on the left to have you associated with us. seriously. no joke. not kidding. embarrassment.

 

[BobPlumb]

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.

Da fuq?

Is this a serious post?

.

Based on the posts I've seen so far by LM, I do not think he/she/it is a serious poster. But here I am profiling and making assumptions again!

 

[Rotagilla]

I gotta disagree with the bolded. If someone robs you they are still a thief even if they were using the money to donate to charity.

Unless the robber was a negro and the victim was white..in that case it would be rightful reparations for hundreds of years of (insert typical black excuses for dysfunction here)

Still sore from being embarrassed I see.

Truth isn't embarrassing to me.
I showed you the truth about the plague of disproportionate negro crime/welfare rates in america with proof from the FBI, DOJ, U.S. Census and BJS.

Want to see the truth again?

FBI ? Table 43

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0118.pdf

EBT/SNAP USAGE BY RACE/COUNTY/CITY 2009

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

 

[Zmrzlina]

Profiling is not wrong. It's done every day. It's a scientific tool that works. Ask the FBI.

Whatever you say J. Edgar Hoover.