Opinion of Police

[Governor PiT]

 Most are Italian-type white males without an ounce of compassion for humankind.  Black cops are just tokens and tools of the government.
[/quote]

If you said lawyers where Jewish types you would be labeled a racist.

[© Tweed the Younger]

In the case of black people, at least 99% of those in America today are descendents of slaves.  Slaves were not exactly highly rich or educated, and did not exactly have the most functional families.  Given that only 50 years ago, blacks were still heavily discriminated against, it would be ridiculous to expect blacks to already be equal to whites on the playing field.

I was talking about earlier than that.  They didn't originate as slaves, and the blacks currently in Africa were never slaves.  But the continent is still a wreck.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

In the case of black people, at least 99% of those in America today are descendents of slaves.  Slaves were not exactly highly rich or educated, and did not exactly have the most functional families.  Given that only 50 years ago, blacks were still heavily discriminated against, it would be ridiculous to expect blacks to already be equal to whites on the playing field.

I was talking about earlier than that.  They didn't originate as slaves, and the blacks currently in Africa were never slaves.  But the continent is still a wreck.

Africa is a wreck due to it not being on the same level as europe in terms of development when imperialism happened because of it having a patchwork disease environment and a significant lack of good trade routes/rivers. How about you sotp being a nazi prick?

[Gustaf]

All of you who are saying that it depends or that some are good and some are bad in answering whether police officers are horrible people or not...would you say the same if this was about, say, Jews or Blacks? Or any other group that it would be less politically correct to attack?

Saying that it depends whether a group of people are horrible is not being moderate and nuanced or taking the middle road. It's showing prejudice.

Could you rephrase that? For some reason I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around what you're saying for some reason. It's just not making sense to me.

That's because you're dumb... (well, really it doesn't make much sense, because I didn't read all the posts).

But if someone states something, for no particular reason, such as "Jews are pretty greedy" and someone replied "well, some are, some are not" it still implies that a significant part of Jews are greedy, that the topic is of some interest as a subject, etc. If someone says "Republicans are dumb" the appropriate response is not "Some are, some are not". The appropriate response is that the two things have nothing to do with each other.

The point is, I guess, that the original statement implied that there is some causal connection between and a group and a characteristic and saying that it is true to an extent indicates support for the existance of such a causal connection, thus strengthening the claim. If someone said "Blacks are criminals" and you reply "well, some are, some aren't" you haven't argued against racism, you've argued in favour of it.

[dazzleman]

If someone said "Blacks are criminals" and you reply "well, some are, some aren't" you haven't argued against racism, you've argued in favour of it.

I don't really agree Gustaf.

First, there are criminals in every race, so to say that SOME blacks are criminals doesn't mean that ONLY blacks are criminals.

Second, it is pretty well known that here at least, a higher percentage of the black population is criminal, as compared to other races/ethnic groups.  And it is not racist to acknowledge a fact.  It can be racist to exaggerate a fact like that, but not to acknowledge it to the degree that it is true.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

All of you who are saying that it depends or that some are good and some are bad in answering whether police officers are horrible people or not...would you say the same if this was about, say, Jews or Blacks? Or any other group that it would be less politically correct to attack?

Saying that it depends whether a group of people are horrible is not being moderate and nuanced or taking the middle road. It's showing prejudice.

Could you rephrase that? For some reason I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around what you're saying for some reason. It's just not making sense to me.

That's because you're dumb... (well, really it doesn't make much sense, because I didn't read all the posts).

But if someone states something, for no particular reason, such as "Jews are pretty greedy" and someone replied "well, some are, some are not" it still implies that a significant part of Jews are greedy, that the topic is of some interest as a subject, etc. If someone says "Republicans are dumb" the appropriate response is not "Some are, some are not". The appropriate response is that the two things have nothing to do with each other.

The point is, I guess, that the original statement implied that there is some causal connection between and a group and a characteristic and saying that it is true to an extent indicates support for the existance of such a causal connection, thus strengthening the claim. If someone said "Blacks are criminals" and you reply "well, some are, some aren't" you haven't argued against racism, you've argued in favour of it.

Ok, well, I think you're misinterpreting what we're saying then - in large groups there's always variety. To say that some Jews are greedy is an assumption, but it does not necessarily say how significant greed is in the Jewish community. The assumption bases itself on the fact that in most large groups there are greedy people, and there is no reason to assume the Jews are any different. This is vastly different from saying all Jews are greedy. Same goes with 'some blacks are criinals, some aren't'(though 'most aren't' would be more accurate) - it is a FACT that there are blacks who are criminals, so there is no racism in the statement. It would be racist and prejudiced to think that a black person you just met is probably a criminal, but simply stating a fact that some blacks are criminals(just as some whites, asians, hispanics, and every other group has some) is not. We are simply saying that you can't ball up every single person in a group as holding the same trait. (unless that trait defines the group, like all criminals are criminals, all rich people are rich, all smart people are smart[though possibly lacking in common sense], ect.)

Some police are freedom fighters, others are horrible people, and others don't qualify for either title - the statement is saying that you can't judge the entire group based on the actions of only part of it's membership. So exactly how is that a prejudiced statement again?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Huge FFs

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Its a good band.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Huge FFs

Please remove the images of disturbing mutants from your sig.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Huge FFs

Please remove the images of disturbing mutants from your sig.

What?