Racial ugliness, nationwide

[Gilles de Rais]

Statistics say different...

[elalumno]

Is *any* profiling bad?

Serious question for all involved...is *ANY* profiling bad? Or does the definition of "PROFILING" already imply something bad...IE: the term is already defined.

Profiling is but another tool in law enforcement. Like any tool it can be misused and abused. But it can have value. It's all in the application.

[Bonniedundee]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

It's not a theory. We know this because, as described by others, it's born out of our genes i.e. defining an in and out group is inherent to our condition.

However, and to answer LN and BD, the definition of in/out group remains OPEN and is usually fixed out of tradition, NOT naturally.

So, most people would include their family and friends in their in group. Quite normal. Next, LN mentioned her nationality (ie countrymen over foreigners) and BD approved, although he used his personal variation (his 'community' - I guess he'd happily fuck up an Englishman to help a Cornishman). Now, that's definitely a personal choice or something people were educated into.

LN does not know every american personally and even BD doesn't know every Cornishman personally. Thus, preferring them over 'foreigners' is a matter of choice, far less logical or ingrained behaviour than preferring friends/family.

Try as you may, not all your countrymen or community people are your close friends...

However they are closer to you than the rest of the world. With large countries I can agree that the feeling shouldn't be too intense but a resident of Liverpool is still a lot closer to me than one of Washington.

And when you get to your region like Cornwall you are far closer to them and the area than someone on the other side of the world, we inhabit the same small area. But obviously one should save his greatest feelings for his locale where he knows most people, in a decent healthy society at least,

The idea that once you get past your friends, family, co-workers and local community we should then treat everyone the same from those who live in the next town to those who live 7000 miles away is silly. We share a lot more of the same culture, territory and experience of the former. But I do agree that beyond quite a limited scope the feelings should not be too intense and I have no idea how an American for instance could treat their nation and its people so intensely as they often do as if A Californian could be as much a countrymen of a Georgian as they are to another Californian.

To me I treat Cornishmen as my countrymen, although not to the same degree as Northern Cornwall and particularly the locale where I live(d), the British isles as sort of semi-countrymen and North-western Europe warmly. It drops off quickly after that, Bosnians might as well be Chinese or Argentinians to me.

If I was an American I daresay I'd treat my state as my countrymen in the same way as I treat Cornwall now(ie not as intensely as my locale and county), the neighbouring states perhaps as semi-countrymen and the rest of the US warmly and Mexico or Canada not much different to Thailand or Kurdistan.

Personally I think this is a far more cosmopolitan way to look at things. You can't have the same jingoistic nationalism for North Cornwall which you know intimately and many of the people, as you could for Britain.

[gurutoo]

Originally Posted by elalumno

You have, and continue to post things which judge people,

Pot meet kettle.

You have and continue to post as if you are somehow better than. You're not.
If anyone were to ever have a positive or enlightening influence on a racist on this board, it certainly would never be the likes of you.

[007]

Originally Posted by Lone Laugher

Insecure, weak-minded people ( I did not say stupid or ignorant ) have a very strong desire to prove to themselves that they are not at the bottom of the heap. They learn at an early age that a good way to feel good about oneself is to put others down............and since people of different races look different, often speak and act differntly and usually live in different commiunities.......they make a great target.

No matter how insignificant a young white kid is....no matter how inadequate....he can sleep at night without feeling completely worthless.......as long as he knows he is better than "them".

My father was competent in many ways....a good father....a good provider...a loyal husband. He had good friends and interesting ( to him )hobbies. But.....he carried with him racial prejudices until he took his last breath. He had friends who were black" and he "got along fine with the black guys at work" and he loved that George Jefferson. But every now and then he'd offer up a comment or a look of disdain that exposed his insecurity...his need to feel superior. This stuff was all hush-hush.........making it even more of a disgrace in my opinion. It was not drummed into us kids........but it was right there and my two brothers....however intelligent and otherwise good men.....picked it right up.

Somehow...............and I cannot really tell you how.......I came into adulthood with a completely different outlook. I broke a link in the chain.......and my three kids will not carry the burden of this insecurity with them.....nor will their children.

So....will it fizzle out? I suspect it will..............but there are many, many chains left to be broken. In our lifetime? No.

Just in reply to the first couple of lines(too drunk to read the rest)I completely agree,people need to proove their superiority over another,if all they got is colour,then sorry,,,,they lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I was raised in Yorkshire to immigrant parents(Irish)told by the school and teachers and generally the powers that be that i was not worthy of anything as a result of my social economic background,i aced my O levels but was still rejected fron 6th form.I was told i wouldnt fit in.I joined the army and learned to listen only to myself,but also to critisise only myself.I was injured ,disabled and retired and now i am as happy as a pig in the proverbial working in a crappy ,filthy ,dangerous job,Why you ask?Cos now i can afford to get Drunk and not worry about who is or is not better than who.In my experiance all PEOPLE culture put aside are the same and for the most part behave the same toward others and eachother.I dont know if it comes accross as clearly as i see it,but here endeth the lesson,all are equal!!!!!

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Bonniedundee

However they are closer to you than the rest of the world. With large countries I can agree that the feeling shouldn't be too intense but a resident of Liverpool is still a lot closer to me than one of Washington.

Why? Can you make any rational argument for this? Maybe that guy in Liverpool is a bastard, a thief and a globalist while that other guy in Washington is a strict state-right, natalist, good man you'd have far more in common with...

And when you get to your region like Cornwall you are far closer to them and the area than someone on the other side of the world, we inhabit the same small area.

So, again, is there any rationale for that feeling? The in/out group strategy exist because it increases your chances of survival. For it to work at anything above the tribal level, it has to be a construct. I help other French more than the rest of the world simply because i am paying taxes in France (well, i would if i was. i've been helping English far more than French in the recent years). And vice versa. French help me because we are organised as nation-states. But this is an artificial/historical construct, not a biological one.

But I do agree that beyond quite a limited scope the feelings should not be too intense and I have no idea how an American for instance could treat their nation and its people so intensely as they often do as if A Californian could be as much a countrymen of a Georgian as they are to another Californian.

Actually, perfect proof and demonstration, thanks. That's because it's a construct. Thus, with enough indoctrination, you can make it whatever you want. You can divide along class lines ("workers of all countries, unite") or along skin colours or religion or nationalities or whatever strike your fancy. Then, it's just a question of spreading that meme. Once it's done, people will start reacting to it as if it is real. And, thus, it will be real.

You can't have the same jingoistic nationalism for North Cornwall which you know intimately and many of the people, as you could for Britain.

? This sentence does make sense, given what you just said. The more strongly you feel about something, the easier it is to be jingoistic and stupid about it, no?

[Bonniedundee]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Why? Can you make any rational argument for this? Maybe that guy in Liverpool is a bastard, a thief and a globalist while that other guy in Washington is a strict state-right, natalist, good man you'd have far more in common with...

Well we are talking about the average Liverpudlian and Washingtonian not about specifics. But you are looking far too much for rational choice amongst what is feeling and instinct. The child does not rationally choose to love his parent usually.

So, again, is there any rationale for that feeling? The in/out group strategy exist because it increases your chances of survival. For it to work at anything above the tribal level, it has to be a construct. I help other French more than the rest of the world simply because i am paying taxes in France (well, i would if i was. i've been helping English far more than French in the recent years). And vice versa. French help me because we are organised as nation-states. But this is an artificial/historical construct, not a biological one.

No it is because you have a shared identity, experience and culutre with the French in a way you don't as much with the English. We are talking about society so of course it is artificial, what it is not is completely ideational or devoid of all function and material support.

Actually, perfect proof and demonstration, thanks. That's because it's a construct. Thus, with enough indoctrination, you can make it whatever you want. You can divide along class lines ("workers of all countries, unite") or along skin colours or religion or nationalities or whatever strike your fancy. Then, it's just a question of spreading that meme. Once it's done, people will start reacting to it as if it is real. And, thus, it will be real.

Not really there is some functional, experiencial and material reality among most of this nationalism. The shared culture, experience and institutions help to shape this. I don't disagree these become quite small after quite a limited region, I'm just saying that everything becomes immediately the same after that. Basically I'm saying it is more real for a man of Essex say to feel his strongest feelings for his locale and Essex and then have warm feelings for England and Britain rather than they completely plunge off at the borders of the county so he feels for Suffolk what he does for India. To be honest nationalism isn't really the word.

In some sense you are correct about the other things but they have even less of a reality than a large state.

I think except for the position of warm feelings we are largely agreeing here, amazingly.

? This sentence does make sense, given what you just said. The more strongly you feel about something, the easier it is to be jingoistic and stupid about it, no?

No, I'd say not in general if it has a certain level of function, experiencial and material reality to you. My family will be very important to me but I won't be jingoistic towards it.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by Bonniedundee

Basically I'm saying it is more real for a man of Essex say to feel his strongest feelings for his locale and Essex and then have warm feelings for England and Britain rather than they completely plunge off at the borders of the county so he feels for Suffolk what he does for India.

And I say that man is a fucking idiot.

[Bonniedundee]

Originally Posted by contracycle

And I say that man is a fucking idiot.

I'm saying that post is a trolling post.

No doubt you feel the same way about every human. You don't prefer your friends or family .

[mammalicious]

Let me ask you this: if in 2016, the Democratic party seeks to nominate another black person, since they think that getting 95% of the black vote will make them hard to beat, will that make them 'racist sonsabitches?'

No...there have been other blacks who ran for high office...they were rejected (even by blacks) as they were not the 'right' black person.

That would be your opinion on him and his links, but we are not talking about you, we are talking about those who hate him. Just like we aren't talking about your opinion on Bush based on Iraq, but those who hated him from the minute he was announced at the RNC.

Hmmm....that was the US's first real taste of Rove tactics as well..where the campaign attacked McCain (whisper campaign of a biracial love child) as well as other dirty tricks. One was a personal experience campaign call. I was a repub (turned off by the Clinton BJ witchunt) but I guess I was still on the call lists...and during the final days of the 2000 campaign I received a call of concern that I get out and vote, cause we couldn't afford to have a 'non-believer' (Lieberman) so close to the presidency. I can't recall death threats against Bush, but I do recall anger at how he got into the WH. Compare the reasons people didn't like Bush before he was sworn in to the reasons they don't like Obama. People weren't made to fear Bush due to personal/cultural reasons...but for his ignorance on issues.

Some people weren't taught or brought up to hate, rather just decided they preferred one group over another after becoming adolescents and dealing with different ethnicities in school and the workplace.

So, sticking with like-minded folks can be learned outside the family after 'dealing with' different ethnicities when at an impressionable age is automatically innocent. You don't think that can be dangerous, how do you know the others who may be doing any influencing haven't learned certain views in their homes? Or in the workplace...where one group is certain that the other group gets preferential treatment because of their differences...of course they couldn't have merited the position...they got it as part of a diversity requirement, so they band together. It's never too late to learn to hate.

Serious question for all involved...is *ANY* profiling bad? Or does the definition of "PROFILING" already imply something bad...IE: the term is already defined.

If the police are looking for a black man wearing a certain outfit, or of a certain build, or skin tone, because one has been witnessed comitting a crime is not 'bad profiling'. However...if police are viewing all blacks and stopping them, sure they have either just committed a crime or that they probably will be...then that is.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Bonniedundee

But you are looking far too much for rational choice amongst what is feeling and instinct. The child does not rationally choose to love his parent usually.

No but the love of a child is entirely rational and there are biological reasons behind it. It's actually quite easy to get a child to love you. I've seen it with my own children. They love whoever is taking care of them and playing with them.

No it is because you have a shared identity, experience and culutre with the French in a way you don't as much with the English.

I am not going to get out of my way to help someone simply because we share the same sense of humour and we both like the same cheeses. And i am (was) paying taxes/helping the English, NOT the French!

We are talking about society so of course it is artificial, what it is not is completely ideational or devoid of all function and material support.

Societies are construct, true but its main or more important features are built on our biological needs and features. Everything else is artificial.

Not really there is some functional, experiencial and material reality among most of this nationalism. The shared culture, experience and institutions help to shape this.

So it's a meme, basically.

I don't disagree these become quite small after quite a limited region, I'm just saying that everything becomes immediately the same after that. Basically I'm saying it is more real for a man of Essex say to feel his strongest feelings for his locale and Essex and then have warm feelings for England and Britain rather than they completely plunge off at the borders of the county so he feels for Suffolk what he does for India. To be honest nationalism isn't really the word.

Except that, actually, nationalism is the far more dominant force. Americans like other Americans and English go to war yelling 'King and Country', not 'for Essex, forever'...

No, I'd say not in general if it has a certain level of function, experiencial and material reality to you. My family will be very important to me but I won't be jingoistic towards it.

? Really? So, if some guy attack your mother, you'll careful weight his claims that your mother caused him some damage and owe him some reparations rather than interpose yourself and bluntly take your mother's side, right or wrong? Interesting. What good is your feeling of closeness and importance with your fellow locales if they cannot count on your unconditional support against the 'others', the 'foreigners' and those bastards living down the other street?

[elalumno]

Pot meet kettle.

Pathetic obfuscation. You judge people based on race and ethnicity. I judge what they say.

You have and continue to post as if you are somehow better than. You're not.

I am, without a doubt better than a bigot and a racist.

If anyone were to ever have a positive or enlightening influence on a racist on this board, it certainly would never be the likes of you.

I have no desire to have a positive or enlightening influence on you.

[potter]

Let me ask you this: if in 2016, the Democratic party seeks to nominate another black person, since they think that getting 95% of the black vote will make them hard to beat, will that make them 'racist sonsabitches?'

Why would any party nominate a black man with the intent of "making them hard to beat" assuming they would get the black vote when the black population of the US is only 12.5%? That makes no sense. On top of that why would you assume black people would vote for a bad candidate just because he was black? That seems like a "white" trick to me.....

Obama was NOT elected by the black vote.....he was elected by everyones vote.

[freespirit]

Originally Posted by potter

Obama was NOT elected by the black vote.....he was elected by everyones vote.

[Zan de Man]

Originally Posted by Bonniedundee

And when you get to your region like Cornwall you are far closer to them and the area than someone on the other side of the world, we inhabit the same small area.

If you want to know a granfalloon
prick the skin of a toy balloon

Kurt Vonnegut Jr

[gurutoo]

Originally Posted by elalumno

I have no desire to have a positive or enlightening influence on you.

Which is just as well because you're too much of a one trick yegua to be up to the task.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by potter

Obama was NOT elected by the black vote.....he was elected by everyones vote.

What Freespirit said... EXCEPT that it is not true. Not quite.

Obama lost the white vote. OK, less badly than Kerry so it's probably not racism at work but he lost it... He lost the old vote as well. He did win the black vote massively and also the latino vote by a decisive margin (i hadn't known that the latino went from being 8-9% of the electorate to being 12-15%). He also won the young vote.

Obama won because he did well (or very well) with the minorities, the women and the young... and he didn't lose too badly with the men and the whites. He did lose the old fairly badly (imho) but i don't know how Gore or Kerry did with them so...

[freespirit]

Yes, it is true. Obama got more of the "white vote" than either Kerry or Gore... Regardless, the fact is that it took "everyone" to elect Obama. And we did it.