A number of people have said, in the comments and in email, that it's just rational for store owners to follow blacks around. I'm not going to dispute that blacks commit more crime than whites. But if you resent black people assuming that you're a racist just because some other dumb [deleted] once gave them a hard time, then you probably already understand why they get upset about being followed around stores.
« Food interlude | Main | Art imitates life »
Statistical discrimination
16 May 2008 10:51 am
Comments (109)
Any kind of profiling also has a self-fulfilling aspect. Suppose you have two populations, and just for the sake of argument let's say that the same percentage of the two populations have a given trait. (I'm not saying black people commit crimes at the same rate as the general population. This is just for clarity of argument.) You check one of the populations for the trait twice as often. Though the rate at which individuals in either population is going to be close to even, you will find nearly twice as many cases of population A having the trait as population B, because you checked population A twice as often. When compiling statistics, this will work out to a similar rate. But when an individual is doing this kind of selection, it's difficult for him to avoid casually thinking "Population A is twice as likely to have the trait," or more likely, just "Boy, Population A has the trait a lot!" Individual opinions and individual bias is much more susceptible to sticky thinking than statistical analysis.
So say you're a store owner. You follow black people around twice as often as you follow others. You have that many more opportunities to observe a black person stealing. Eventually you might conclude that the rate at which black people are going to steal is higher than it really is, and it reinforces the behavior. (This is true even if black people do steal at a higher rate than others; you're still likely to overestimate the rate at which they steal.)
Also remember that it's easy to fail to see the forest for the trees here. Even if the bleakest statistics about black criminality are accurate, that still means that the large majority of black people are not criminals. And when they are assumed to be criminal by virtue of the higher-than-average crime rate, it's rather unfair. Right? Even if, say, a third of black people were criminals, tarring the other two thirds for that fact seems pretty harsh.
if you resent black people assuming that you're a racist just because some other dumb [deleted] once gave them a hard time, then you probably already understand why they get upset about being followed around stores.
Very well put. What bugs me isn't necessarily people's conclusions, but the resentment they feel towards black people for the accusation of racism they assume they would receive if they made their feelings plain. The backlash against frivolous accusations of racism shouldn't ever become so powerful that we close our eyes to legitimate condemnation of racism.
Blacks committ more crimes than whites? Proportionally to their numbers in the gen pop? Or on aggregate?
I mean, Blacks are only 12% of the population. There's a just a lot more white people in the U.S. to commit crime, although at least when it comes to drugs, whitey does less time!
Went to an 'upscale' hunting store in Vienna a few weeks back. (More like 'aristocratic' with certain shotguns going for 75,000+ euros.)
A saleslady subtly attached herself to me after I said that I was merely browsing, i.e. she conveniently had to arrange clothing within eyesight of wherever I went.
I was ticked then and I'm still ticked about it now - I can easily imagine that if it happened all over the place and most of the time that my deep resentment would build up quickly. I certainly understand anyone else's resentment when it happens to them.
PS - The look on her face when I paid for my Beretta baseball caps & T-shirts and my credit card was rejected: malevolent disdain.
The look on her face when the owner showed her that she'd inserted the card incorrectly: priceless !
Cheers,
Actually, when I'm out shopping at Wal-Mart (hey, I'm not rich and they carry lots of things I need at a very good price---so I'm not trendy, so sue me!) I wish that they'd follow me around a lot of times. Many's the time I've been trying to find something, or get help, and couldn't find a store clerk anywhere.
As far as blacks and their resentments go---I. Could. Not. Care. Less. I've been being hectored about blacks and their woes since I was a Wee Nipper, and am long since sick of the subject. On the scale of suffering, "being followed around by a suspicious clerk" doesn't even register with me.
A number of people have said, in the comments and in email, that it's just rational for store owners to follow blacks around.
Is it? The odd extra glance perhaps, but not tracking them to the exclusion of all else. It is not that reliable a predictor.
Freddie:
I fully agree with you. Furthermore, I think a similar issue impacts race relations generally.
If only 1 in 100 whites were racist, a black person in this white majority society might have a racist experience once a week. If I were black and experiencing racism at least once a week, I would certainly believe racism to be widely prevalent in society. But if I was white and only saw racist attitudes in 1 out of 100 people, I'd assert racism is a thing of the past. The perceptions of the issue would be completely opposite yet both perceptions would be justifiable.
Technomad -
"I've been being hectored about blacks and their woes since I was a Wee Nipper"
So we are suppose to care that you where "hectored" by being told about black american problems, but not about those problems themselves.
Ah... OK
I. Could. Not. Care. Less. I've been being hectored about blacks and their woes since I was a Wee Nipper, and am long since sick of the subject. On the scale of suffering, "being followed around by a suspicious clerk" doesn't even register with me.
Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? I mean we've got a number of things wrong here: the fact that you've been "hectored" has nothing at all to say about the reality of whether or not black people face unique prejudice and oppression in our society. Your sickness at being "hectored", I feel safe to say, shouldn't be as powerful as your commitment to ending racial prejudice, which still exists, and is still noxious and prevalent. Far too many people (and I'm not including you in their number) feel that their "sickness" at being talked to about race is somehow equivalent to actually being the recipient of racism. And finally, first, it's always easy to underestimate the annoyance and chagrin of a racial prejudice that you don't suffer. Second... do you really think that being followed around in a store is the sum total, or the most virulent example, of anti-black racism in this country?
I don't understand why people can't balance two thoughts at the same time: one, that there are frivolous or unfair accusations of racism in our society, and that the fact of racism does not excuse immoral or illegal behavior; and two, that there remains a great deal of racism in American life, that its effects are pernicious and dehumanizing, and it's incumbent on us, as moral people, to oppose it. My fear is that so many decent white people who are not themselves racist have begun to think of racism as a thing of the past, or to assume that their own discomfort with discussions of race (not even accusations of racism against them) is somehow equal to actually being the victim of racial prejudice. I don't have any answers to our racial dilemmas, but I know the attitude "I'm uncomfortable talking about race, so let's not talk about it and it'll just go away" is wrong and counterproductive. (Even though I acknowledge that there are unfortunate aspects of our racial dialogue that make some decent people feel uncomfortable discussing the issue.)
They also track teenagers very aggressively. I know from experience.
The first commenter is onto something. When I worked at the liquor store, the management believed in the 10-80-10 theory. 10% of the population will never steal, 10% will always steal, the other 80% it's just a matter of opportunity. This is why no matter what liquor store you walk into, the small bottles are behind the counter.
Far too many people (and I'm not including you in their number) feel that their "sickness" at being talked to about race is somehow equivalent to actually being the recipient of racism.
Right.
I find this very similar to a common and powerful trope in Dutch political culture over the past 10 years: the sense on the part of many white Dutch people, across the spectrum, that they were prevented from "saying what they think" by the multiculturalist consensus they believe held in Dutch politics in the 80s and 90s. A terrible oppression, this not allowing people to say what they think (by which they meant not that they were actually prevented from saying anything, but that they feared people would call them bigots if they voiced some of their opinions). So, along came Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders, and people started to feel they could really "speak their minds" now. And what did it turn out they wanted to say? They wanted to say "Islam is a backward religion," "Moroccans are goatfuckers," and various other choice sentiments. And isn't it wonderful that now they don't have to feel bad about themselves when they say these things.
Turns out that elderly white male truck drivers are a suspect class.
I finally handed close to $100 of food and clothing I had picked out at a truck-stop store to the shadow and walked out. (I had burned out my hours so I had to stay there for my "break" which meant using their restroom.
I always feel guilty using facilities with out buying something, but they place (and there are others) clearly did not want my business.
Sorry, but Techno is 100% correct.
I have been discriminated against by employers when applying for jobs because I hadn't networked with the good ol' boys. NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
I have been discriminated against by women in purusing sex because of my (inborn, genetic) social awkwardness.NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
I have been discriminated against by banks in applying for mortgages because, yes, I didn't get a credit card at a low enough age [1] but was perfectly qualified.NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
I have been kicked out of organizations, and branded with the label of rapist, while a virgin, because one girl decided she didn't like me.NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
I get discriminate against in what I have to pay, on virtually EVERY large purchase, because I have an inborn distate of haggling. NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
But, you see, MY victimization through discrimination, well ... it just doesn't count, because it's not the *right* kind of bigotry.
Poor little Shaniqua doesn't like getting followed at a store? AWW, YOU POOR THING!!!
Tell you what -- remove all the stuff I just listed from my life, and I will GLADLY endure the exact level of scrutiny that blacks do.
[1] Oh, I'm just making this up, am I? Poor you! I was asking for a mortgage at 1/6 of my gross, fully amortized, while having ZERO debts or other obligations. I was the perfect applicant! However, I wasn't "in the system" because I hadn't held a credit card for 2 years yet. If I had done the EXACT SAME THINGS in my life, except to move the purchases onto credit cards and pay the bill each month, I would have been approved for loans.
A number of people have said, in the comments and in email, that it's just rational for store owners to follow blacks around.
Is there any hard evidence that this in fact is the unofficial policy at any retail chain? In a world in which about a third of blacks believe AIDS is a government plot (Thank you Rev. Wright, glad to see you're making good use of that "slack" Megan gave you.), it's more likely that this is yet another urban legend of the racial divide. It surely can't be an official policy, for the Justice Department and 60 Minutes would be all over it and no corporation wants to be branded like Denny's. So, Megan, if you really want to advance the racial dialogue why don't you try dispelling paranoid fantasies instead of embracing them.
So, brooksfoe, let me see if I've got this right.
The famously tolerant Dutch are actually raging bigots if they express concern that their cities are being de-populated of famously tolerant Dutch and re-populated with famously intolerant Muslims.
I suppose the worst is that Blade editor who was so anti-Dutch-Muslim that he went to the trouble of having himself attacked by Dutch Muslims just to try to paint them as anti-gay.
Sad as it is to watch Western Civ. decline, there is definite amusement to be had watching the "tolerant" left tie themselves in knots and turn on each other in efforts to defend one of the most intolerant ideologies on the planet.
Sort of off-topic, sorry, but your protestation that Dutch concern with the rise of Islam in their country is purely the result of the raging bigotry prevalent among what has been for hundreds of years prob. the most tolerant culture on the planet was too amusing to let slide.
Sad as it is to watch Western Civ. decline, there is definite amusement to be had watching the "tolerant" left tie themselves in knots and turn on each other in efforts to defend one of the most intolerant ideologies on the planet.
This trope is very common, and totally wrong. The tolerance is not for their violent or illegal actions. The tolerance is for their right to express opinions we find abhorrent. No one, or practically no one, advocates letting Muslims attack non-Muslims, gays, or women, or whatever sundry bad behavior they can think up. The advocate radical Muslims having the right to hold an ideology and express an ideology they find abhorrent.
That Western Civilization you mentioned? Freedom of speech is one of its most important, foundational tenets. It also prizes intellectual honesty, which you're lacking.
2006 data tables for arrests by offense, age group, and race are here: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4102006.pdf
Hispanic is not included as a race group. The statistics only show people charged for a crime, not those who committed a crime or those who were caught but charges were not pressed (possibility of a confound there). For Larceny-Theft (shoplifting is included in this), 68.6% of those charged were white, and 28.9% were black. Quick Wikipedia search showed the US population in 2006 was 73.9% white, and 12.2% black. So, while whites accounted for the overwhelming majority of people charged with larceny-theft, they accounted for less than their population's share of it. The reverse is true of blacks.
the Justice Department . . . would be all over it
Not a valid inference. The Justice Department enforces only those discrimination laws where Congress explicitly gave it the authority to do so. There is no such law that applies the conduct under discussion.
DOJ has enforcement authority under Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by "places of public accommodation." But the definition of this term is quite limited: it only covers retail stores if they serve food for consumption on the premises. (Walmart would be covered, for example, but it is exceptional in this regard.) Moreover, this statute is of limited value to plaintiffs because it does not provide for monetary damages as a remedy.
42 USC sec. 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making of contracts. Money damages are available for violations, so this is the statute that gets litigated. However, as interpreted by the courts, simply following black patrons around does not violate this law; you have to actually refuse to sell somebody something.
The Justice Department has no litigating authority under 1981.
They wanted to say "Islam is a backward religion," "Moroccans are goatfuckers," and various other choice sentiments. And isn't it wonderful that now they don't have to feel bad about themselves when they say these things.
And then there was that Van Gogh guy . . . no, not the painter who lost his ear, the filmmaker who lost his head for criticizing the "religion of peace, but not irony." Served him right, bigoted jerk.
Whoops, I'd misread the tables. Those data were for total arrests, not just for charges being pressed.
Whoops, I'd misread the tables. Those data were for total arrests, not just for charges being pressed.
Person Tell you what -- remove all the stuff I just listed from my life, and I will GLADLY endure the exact level of scrutiny that blacks do.
This seems to assume that blacks don't have to endure any of the stuff you mentioned.
If I had done the EXACT SAME THINGS in my life, except to move the purchases onto credit cards and pay the bill each month, I would have been approved for loans.
So get a credit card. Some things you can change, some things you can't.
Freddie, I'm not sure I follow. Let me see if I can walk myself through it.
Dutch Muslims (some at least) promote the idea that homosexuality should be answered with beatings and death. They also promote the idea that any criticism of Islam should be likewise answered with beatings and death.
The Dutch express the opinion that the rise of this intolerant Islam in their country might be problematic. Good leftists like brooksfoe characterize this criticism as the Dutch calling Muslims "goatfuckers". But, really, he's just defending the right of Muslims to have free speech.
And I am somehow being intellectually dishonest for wondering why when two groups get into a disagreement, one of which has long been the most tolerant culture on Earth, the other of which condones the murder of various groups up to and including anyone who dares criticize them, the leftist immediately starts name calling the first, tolerant group in an effort to defend the second, intolerant group.
Nope, didn't help. I still don't see how labeling criticism of the most intolerant mass ideology on Earth "bigotry" makes sense from a tolerant leftist perspective.
Perhaps I'm just being intellectually dishonest without realizing it again, though. Maybe brooksfoe wasn't actually tacitly condoning the intolerance of Dutch Muslims by rushing to attack their attackers.
And all those gay folks fearing for their lives in Amsterdam should be rebuked for being insufficiently supportive of Muslims free-speech rights.
Alright, looks like we got a slow one today.
Ryan_W.: First of all, I did have a credit card; I just hadn't been holding it for 2 years at that point, because I was dumb enough to follow the "teh credit cards are teh evil" advice. They always seem to forget the part about, "Make sure to actually hold one at an early age but not use it so you can show up in the financial system, even though that reveals nothing new about your repayment probability." Nevertheless, the plain and simple fact was that they were denying a perfectly good, in fact, IDEAL, applicant credit, for a reason that hat nothing to do with his creditworthiness, and NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
As for the rest, my point is that we ALL have to go through hardships, including discrimination. Why is that *specfic* hardship, and that specific *assignment* of hardship, more important than others? There are precisely ZERO laws, and zero proposals for laws, to help combat the discrimination I get from women (and before you're dumb enough to suggest it, yes I am working on my social vibe). Zero to stop lenders from denying me those mortgages, even though we considered it such a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY when such "redlining" kept minorities out of homeownership.
There are zero proposals to shift teaching time from math, to teaching how to network with the good ol' boys.
There are zero laws to equalize the price merchants charge for big-ticket items between hagglers vs. non-hagglers.
Ryan_W., and everyone else here, PLEASE get it through your heads: LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION DO NOT HAVE ANY BASIS IN COMBATING AN OBJECTIVE INJUSTICE They, like other laws, are simply an expression of who held the political power at the time. There are MANY other kinds of discrimination that are popular enough to persist, and until the law addresses these as well, I will simply roll my eyes about anyone who has to suffer the *indignity* (!) of being watched in a store.
I feel like one big problem is that racism is basically illegal. And just like with prohibition, when you make something illegal that people genuinely want to do, it doesn't stop - it just moves underground.
The fact that racism is illegal means that blacks and whites end up spending way more time together than they would otherwise like. That is, if everyone was honest - white store owners told blacks to leave and blacks consequently shopped at predominantly black stores - blacks and whites would spend a lot less time together. Sure that's "segregation" and we've been taught that segregation is wrong. But I'm pretty well segregated from e.g. the Dutch and I don't seem to feel much loss (I have nothing against the Dutch, I just don't seem to deal with them much ;) ).
My point is that as long as the segregation is voluntary, we shouldn't get worked up over it. It would be great if everyone loved everyone else, but lots of people just don't, and making them pretend they do isn't going to erase the problem. Plus, people seem pretty capable of adjusting to this kind of thing without a lot of pain - e.g. I find other sources of things that the Dutch provide, just as blacks would probably find places owned by blacks (or more generally, non-racists) that provide quality merchandise without following them around. Of course we miss out on our dream of blacks and whites uniting in one giant embrace, but that's not really happening now, and I think most people (and probably especially blacks!) would rather have a little more separation and a lot less intimidation.
Geez, McArdle...do you think the police are more likely to stop you while driving if you're a teenage male with long hair in a beater or a neatly-dressed teenage female in the family minivan? If you cross the border, is the INS going to question you more closely if you're Arab or European? If you're a single dad with two kids in tow or a single mom with ditto? If you take a shortcut across a schoolyard while walking, are the teachers going to follow you with hard careful eyes if you're a slim young woman or a fat middle-aged man?
If you personally have never experienced being suspected of being Up To No Good just because of your sex, color, shape, age, or manner of dress -- well, congratulations, you're either in a very select demographic category or you're unusually unobservant. For the rest of us: life is just chock-o'-block full of invisible boundaries and expectations based on our sex, race, age, and social class, and whenever we wander across them other people treat us with suspicion and doubt.
And so what? This is how people have functioned since Abraham, and will forevermore. I'm baffled by how you can think these forms of racism so subtle you've got to ponder deeply to even realize they exist can be The Number One Problem of the American Republic, or even on the list of the top ten. You're going to select a President based on this issue? What's he going to do? Make beautiful speeches on the tube, and then millions will slap their foreheads and say Oy! I've been so wrong about this for the last 45 years of my life! The scales have a-fallen from mah eyes and starting tomorrow I will be a new man! Hosannah!
Hmm. How about let's get back to investing huge chunks of our political capital in curing this odd feature of human nature (that we judge extensively by stereotype) after we've fixed Social Security and the public schools, maybe done something about the culture of poverty, AIDS and breast cancer, a weird global economy in fossil fuels, air pollution, strife in the Middle East, and eliminating the malign influence on our lives of death, taxes, and bad luck. We can probably make sure all the children are above average, too: that will certainly be easier than curing H. sapiens of thinking via stereotypes.
Brooksfoe wasn't condoning their intolerance. He was merely pointing out that people claiming that being "oppressed" by social pressure not to be bigoted against Muslims is equally bad as the anti-Muslim bigotry itself is, well, baloney.
Because Europe is more leftist than America, people tend to think that Europeans are significantly more open and tolerant to other cultures than Americans. That's problematic at best. Dutch tolerance to ethnic and religious minorities is less broad than it is towards sexual and other behavioral tolerance. And many places in Europe, like France and German, are homes to virulent bias against ethnic and religious minorities.
the filmmaker who lost his head for criticizing the "religion of peace, but not irony."
Bob: van Gogh referred to Moroccans in conversation as "goat-fuckers" as a matter of course. He literally replaced the word Moroccan with "goat-fuckers" in his vocabulary; he probably used the word 20 times a day.
No one deserves to be knifed to death. The problem of Muslim terrorism is a real problem. The problem of very high crime rates among Moroccan youth in the Netherlands is also a real problem.
Anyone who thinks that the freedom to call people of another ethnicity or religio "goat-fuckers" is somehow going to help solve these problems is a raging moron. We don't permit people to run around calling each other niggers, dumb micks, greasy wops, filthy japs and dirty kikes in American public life, and if we did it would not lead to an improvement in ethnic relations.
So this is the angry thread we were missing yesterday.
You're going to select a President based on this issue? What's he going to do? Make beautiful speeches on the tube, and then millions will slap their foreheads and say... - Carl Pham
Yeah, it was really stupid of Obama to raise this whole issue of race by sending those videotapes of Rev. Wright to the news networks. Why couldn't he just have avoided the issue? Nobody was talking about racial issues in this presidential campaign until he brought it all up by going and being black.
person- Nevertheless, the plain and simple fact was that they were denying a perfectly good, in fact, IDEAL, applicant credit, for a reason that hat nothing to do with his creditworthiness, and NO ONE GIVES A DAMN.
I'm curious what the statistics of default are for a person in your situation. I honestly don't know if your statistics were really ideal or not. Maybe what you're saying is true and you represented a potentially unexploited market, in which case they were being stupid and this should be an easy problem to solve. I'm open to that argument. Or maybe not.
(and before you're dumb enough to suggest it, yes I am working on my social vibe
Yeah, I can tell.
Seriously, a lot of our rules for tolerance seem to be suspended when it comes to dating and I'm really not too surprised at that. Racial preferences in dating are still socially acceptable.
As for the rest, my point is that we ALL have to go through hardships, including discrimination. Why is that *specfic* hardship, and that specific *assignment* of hardship, more important than others?
First, because it is seen as a vestige of much more horrendous, crippling discrimination practiced in the past, I assume. If people had ever been lynched for the problems you encountered, I suspect that your minor harms might be taken more seriously as the first step down a slippery slope. Of course, I agree with you regarding 'Redlining.' Economic discrimination should be perfectly fine if it's done only on the basis of solid economics. And economic discrimination in a truly free market just creates a niche someone else can exploit.
Sometimes people seem to make up greivances just to be upset or shift blame. "Redlining" is one of those, I think.
There are zero proposals to shift teaching time from math, to teaching how to network with the good ol' boys.
I wonder how well that could be taught. I suspect a class would help network about as much as my home ec class made me a spectacular chef.
It's an interesting proposal, though. I don't really see it as an injustice.
Ryan_W., and everyone else here, PLEASE get it through your heads: LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION DO NOT HAVE ANY BASIS IN COMBATING AN OBJECTIVE INJUSTICE
Glad to hear you feel strongly about it. You're welcome to provide support for your point.
I will simply roll my eyes about anyone who has to suffer the *indignity* (!) of being watched in a store.
I think part of the underlying issue here is not just the act itself, but whether race, apart from other factors, is still used as a signifier to imply something about a person's character.
it was really stupid of Obama to raise this whole issue of race by sending those videotapes of Rev. Wright to the news networks.
For the umpteenth time, it's not about race, it's about anti-American kookiness. That's why videos instead of still photos were required. The fact that you think dark skin excuses such kookiness is your own hangup; most of the rest of us don't actually care. All other things being equal, if Wright were white, my reaction, at least, would be the same.
Anyone who thinks that the freedom to call people of another ethnicity or religio "goat-fuckers" is somehow going to help solve these problems is a raging moron.
Classic strawman argument -- this is the viewpoint of precisely no one.
We don't permit people to run around calling each other niggers, dumb micks, greasy wops, filthy japs and dirty kikes in American public life, and if we did it would not lead to an improvement in ethnic relations.
Despite the liberals best efforts at imposing speech codes, the 1st amendment is still in force. (No thanks to you, apparently.) The purpose of free speech/inquiry is to generate a marketplace of ideas out of which, hopefully, the "truth" will emerge. I would hate to abandon this paradigm just to indulge your kumbaya sensibilities.
Martin Gale - US law still recognizes such a thing as "Fighting words"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States
Such a recognition is no impediment to the pursuit of truth.
Martin Gale - US law still recognizes such a thing as "Fighting words"
Thanks for the heads up, Ryan. Now, can Brooksfoe be prosecuted for his post or does he have to shout the "fighting words" in a theater or bar or something? Can he use the "fighting words" in his speech, provided they aren't directed at anyone in particular? Suppose he mistakenly calls some Greek guy a "greasy wop", does he get a "no harm, no foul" exemption? Do ordinary insults qualify for censorship? If not, in what basket do we put "goat-fucker": ethnic slur or ordinary insult? The world awaits the publication of your speech code; it looks to be at least a 10 volume set.
brooksfoe - I hadn't known that about Van Gogh. I agree that it is wrong and counterproductive to engage in such racial taunts. Your word of "permit" in how we don't condone that kind of thing here is interesting: obviously using such language is legal in the U.S., as I would argue it should be, but is rare and marginalized because it is so widely regarded as offensively beyond the pale, as I also feel it should be.
That said, the man, racist jerk that he may have been, was murdered for making a provocative film offensive to Muslims. Maybe even gratuitously offensive. But being murdered in response? That's the real outrage. The opprobrium, however, seems to be primarily directed against those who would "needlessly" provoke Islam, rather than against those in Islam who respond to any perceived slight with violence and mayhem. This is tremendously deleterious to free speech, even over and above the obvious security concerns that such murders raise among those who would question Islam.
The reaction from the Left seems inconsistent as well. With works offensive to Christianity, the Left seems front and center defending the artist's right to provoke. With Islam, the Left seems to reluctantly agree that what was done was technically freedom of speech but wildly irresponsible speech that must be condemned and the speaker was, by the way, a racist that no one in polite society would ever take seriously.
The highlight of this percieved double-standard for me came in an article on CNN.com about their decision not to run the Muhammad cartoons during that whole rigamarole. The article laid out their policy of not gratuitously offending any group and explained that Muslims are far from the only religous group to express offense at certain images. By way of example, they had an accompanying photo of a portrait of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung which the caption helpfully explained is offensive to many Christian groups.
Awful lot of honkies in here...
Ryan_W.:I'm curious what the statistics of default are for a person in your situation. I honestly don't know if your statistics were really ideal or not.
Well, considering that the default rate is extremely low for someone who is identical to me except for having moved some expenses to a credit card, I'd say mine is pretty low too, don't you? I mean, assuming an answer you gave that was later proven wrong would be painful, what would you believe?
Maybe what you're saying is true and you represented a potentially unexploited market, in which case they were being stupid and this should be an easy problem to solve. I'm open to that argument. Or maybe not.
I'm such a small market -- I'm a deviation from their statistics. Most people just get credit cards. Poor me. I didn't know it mattered. The high school finance course I took said: "Don't take debt except for a house." It didn't say, "get a credit card if you ever want to apply for a house."
Before I go on, I want to point out that you're not the first person to try to rationalize what happened to me. I can forward to you my exchange with an econ professor who tried to do the same, and you can see for yourself the howlers he had to invoke to justify what happened to me (e.g. me: "I'll send you my credit report to prove my claim"; response: "You just want me to take you at your word".) You think you'd do better?
FWIW, my credit union gave me a very low interest rate. So I can actually get a loan. But just as "there are non-racist employers!" would be an invalid response to the claim of racism in employment, "But some banks don't discriminate against you" is an invalid argument here.
Seriously, a lot of our rules for tolerance seem to be suspended when it comes to dating and I'm really not too surprised at that. Racial preferences in dating are still socially acceptable.
That's because the injustice of making rules about who you can associate is harder to rationalize away with such an obviously personal issue.
First, because it is seen as a vestige of much more horrendous, crippling discrimination practiced in the past, I assume. If people had ever been lynched for the problems you encountered, I suspect that your minor harms might be taken more seriously as the first step down a slippery slope.
People were lynched a *long time ago*. The discrimination I face (at least one of them) is effectively sterilizing me *now*.
Do you want to concede the point, or are we going to go through a debate about whether lynching or eugenics was worse?
Of course, I agree with you regarding 'Redlining.' Economic discrimination should be perfectly fine if it's done only on the basis of solid economics. And economic discrimination in a truly free market just creates a niche someone else can exploit.
*sigh* Not if the discriminees are too small in number. Now, if you reject all such interventions on libertarian grounds, that's great. My point just about the consistency of existing justifications. In the 60s, it simply would not have sufficed to say, "Hey, we can't afford to retool to figure out the true default probability. They're such a small group, it wouldn't be economically justified! So obviously we are not being racially discriminatory in avoiding blacks."
me:There are zero proposals to shift teaching time from math, to teaching how to network with the good ol' boys.
you: I wonder how well that could be taught. I suspect a class would help network about as much as my home ec class made me a spectacular chef.
It's an interesting proposal, though. I don't really see it as an injustice.
Placing students in the same room as mathematics textbooks would create the potential to learn math, but obviously the fact that an opportunity is there just wouldn't cut it. NONE of my classes taught me that friends are at least as important as learning the standard technical material, and therefore getting a few behavior write-ups is probably a worthwhile cost of making long-time friends in class. Learning the relative importance of "who you know" vs. "what you know" is VITAL, and not one single racism-griper gives a damn about the opportunities this has cost students -- cause hey, it's just the white nerds, right?
You don't see it as an injustice mainly because you don't want to look at the evidence. That's your fault, not mine.
LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION DO NOT HAVE ANY BASIS IN COMBATING AN OBJECTIVE INJUSTICE
Glad to hear you feel strongly about it. You're welcome to provide support for your point.
I did, several times over. If the lawmakers and their constituents were TRULY interested in legislating away unfair discrimination, they would target a lot more types of instances they have been, and "unequal access to sex with women" would be at the top of the list.
I think part of the underlying issue here is not just the act itself, but whether race, apart from other factors, is still used as a signifier to imply something about a person's character.
What about the times when "inability to make eye contact for sustained periods" is used as a signifier for a male suitor's character? I could give examples in perpetuity, but there's no point unless you take off your blinders.
Bob, the main difference is that the painting you refer to was not intended to be offensive. It's an icon of Mary created by a Nigerian artist that uses elephant dung as one of the painting materials. The artist explained that he wanted to use materials with a physical sense of connection to the kind of lives people live in Africa, where art is often created out of materials which we would define as refuse. West African religions like vodun and obeah often involve fetish objects that are created with body fluids, burnt materials, bloody feathers and so forth. The fact that American Catholics couldn't see the words "elephant dung" without thinking "he's saying the Virgin Mary is s**t" was their misinterpretation, especially that of Rudy Giuliani who cheerleaded the whole thing for political gain, just as the ridiculous mullahs in Pakistan cheerleaded riots over the Danish cartoons for political gain. But, again, the Danish cartoons were a deliberate attempt to thumb the West's nose at the Muslim prohibition on depicting the Prophet.
This trope is very common, and totally wrong. The tolerance is not for their violent or illegal actions. The tolerance is for their right to express opinions we find abhorrent. No one, or practically no one, advocates letting Muslims attack non-Muslims, gays, or women, or whatever sundry bad behavior they can think up. The advocate radical Muslims having the right to hold an ideology and express an ideology they find abhorrent.
That Western Civilization you mentioned? Freedom of speech is one of its most important, foundational tenets. It also prizes intellectual honesty, which you're lacking.
So, Freddie, what do you have to say about Canada's case against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant? Not to mention the larger push across western civilization for anti-hate speech laws?
The fact that racism is illegal means that blacks and whites end up spending way more time together than they would otherwise like. That is, if everyone was honest - white store owners told blacks to leave and blacks consequently shopped at predominantly black stores - blacks and whites would spend a lot less time together. Sure that's "segregation" and we've been taught that segregation is wrong. But I'm pretty well segregated from e.g. the Dutch and I don't seem to feel much loss (I have nothing against the Dutch, I just don't seem to deal with them much ;) ).
Very funny Josh. You do realize that the Dutch are separated from you by an ocean, while Americans are right here, right now, & should be able to live (& shop) together in peace. It's been pretty well determined that "separate but equal" isn't equal, to note but one problem w/ your thesis.
Shouldn't be feeding the trolls, I know.
A useful text in this regard, one of the most beautiful ones I know, is Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, which goes something like: "For I have learned, and the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me, that there is no thing unclean unto itself; but only men that make it unclean." I wish I had a better head for memorizing lines because I'm never quite sure I've got that one right. I think he's talking about Christianity's lifting of dietary restrictions (not a popular cause on this blog!), but the principle holds much more broadly to my mind.
Martin Gale - If not, in what basket do we put "goat-fucker": ethnic slur or ordinary insult?
It's not my speech code. It's US law. My guess is that he would have to use the term against someone in specific and in person, but if you're really curious, hire a lawyer.
Martin Gale -
Grrr. I quoted the wrong part of your post
The world awaits the publication of your speech code; it looks to be at least a 10 volume set.
But, again, the Danish cartoons were a deliberate attempt to thumb the West's nose at the Muslim prohibition on depicting the Prophet.
No, they were an attempt to re-assert a cherished Western ideal in the face of brutality and lawlessness. Such as beatings of those who offended Muslim prohibitions, not legal ones, and the murder of Van Gogh.
There are any number of examples of artwork that are offensive to Christians, and intended to be so, that you would scream bloody murder if they suppressed by the media. That's the point, the suitability of the elephant dung virgin mary.
brooksfoe -- Interesting. I can see your point about that work of art but it still struck me as humorous to illustrate an article about how you don't run offensive images with a putatively offensive image.
That said, I'm not sure your interpretation of the work as not intentionally offensive except to easily offended, non-artistic Catholics -- and particularly grandstanding politicians -- is entirely correct. Here's the description from Wikipedia:
The painting depicted a black African Mary surrounded by images from blaxploitation movies and close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, and elephant dung. These were formed into shapes reminiscent of the cherubim and seraphim commonly depicted in images of the Immaculate conception and the Assumption of Mary.
I don't know how accurate that is but it doesn't sound nearly as innocent as your description.
At any rate, you clearly know much more about art than I do. (Not a high bar, btw.) I'm curious as to what the non-offensive interpreation of the Piss Christ is, if you happen to know it?
the Danish cartoons were a deliberate attempt to thumb the West's nose at the Muslim prohibition on depicting the Prophet.
And as such, were in bad taste. But the reaction they provoked was in even worse taste.
Bad taste or not, they should still have been published by CNN; they were most highly newsworthy at the time.
No, Brooksfoe, the main difference is that when you create artwork that is offensive to Christians, the response is protests and letter-writing and politician grandstanding. Worst-case scenario: the government decides to yank your funding. Horrors!
When you create artwork that is offensive to Muslims, the offended start murdering people.
I really do not see how you can compare the two groups.
It's not my speech code. It's US law. My guess is that he would have to use the term against someone in specific and in person, but if you're really curious, hire a lawyer.
Fighting words are always viewpoint-neutral. The point is that we allow the officials of muncipalities and state governments to do something about a fool inciting violence or creating an imminent breach-of-the-peace by provoking others to harm him.
This is outlined in Chaplinksy V. New Hampshire, which defines "Fighting words" as
"likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace."
It is further refined in Street V. New York that
"It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers."
So you are completely misapplying it to what Martin Gale said. If Van Gogh was shouting "Goat-Fucker!" to directly provoke Moroccans by an immediate and verbal confrontation, that's the fighting words exception. It applies to instigation, not the offensiveness.
It has absolutely nothing to do with generally offending a group of people through a form of media and than later being ambushed and murdered outside of your car(Because of his offense to Islam, not to nationality -- Read the letter his murderer pinned to his dead body brooksfoe).
I was surprised the first time I saw "Piss Christ" after hearing all the hype about it to find that it's basically just a beautiful image. I've never heard Serrano interviewed about it but to me it looks like a Rembrandt, with all that yellow-white light coming down and the reddish-brown background. I like to think it's about "this is my body" and the paradox of connecting the divine to something completely physical, and how it's even possible for anything beautiful or spiritual to emerge out of the crappy stuff we're made of.
I'm sure at one level there is an intent to provoke there. But at another level art is about dichotomies, and what that photo does is say "this is a cheap plastic icon in a glass of piss, and yet I challenge you to look at it and not be moved."
"I'm sure at one level there is an intent to provoke there. But at another level art is about dichotomies, and what that photo does is say "this is a cheap plastic icon in a glass of piss, and yet I challenge you to look at it and not be moved."
...and the Jyllands-Posten cartoons weren't about a dichotomy? Huh? Did you read the justification for them printed in the newspaper?
I love how you slip into this digression about beauty and artistic juxtaposition in order to elide your dupliticity. Art is art, there is no difference. Writing paeans to art that's offensive to Christianity to implicitly contrast it to the vulgar cartoons is entirely beside the point. There's a double standard, and you're doing your part to enforce it.
Well, considering that the default rate is extremely low for someone who is identical to me except for having moved some expenses to a credit card, I'd say mine is pretty low too, don't you?
I've done a little bit of work in the mortgage industry. Fraud is a very serious, very common problem. Though unless this happened fairly recently I'd be surprised anyone turned you down. They were giving out loans like candy a few years ago. They've gone absolutely paranoid recently though.
I mean, assuming an answer you gave that was later proven wrong would be painful, what would you believe?
I would probably err on the side of caution, since the mortgage industry has made some incredibly painful decisions recently.
FWIW, my credit union gave me a very low interest rate. So I can actually get a loan. But just as "there are non-racist employers!" would be an invalid response to the claim of racism in employment, "But some banks don't discriminate against you" is an invalid argument here.
Argument for what? I would think that showing some successful institutions were willing to give a good rate (as you're saying) is some argument in your favor that the others might have been acting irrationally. But at worst, this seems more a matter of stupidity on the part of the bank than anything else. And yes, if you're a small enough minority the costs might be too high to accomodate you. That sucks, but it's hard to fix.
Seriously, a lot of our rules for tolerance seem to be suspended when it comes to dating and I'm really not too surprised at that. Racial preferences in dating are still socially acceptable.
That's because the injustice of making rules about who you can associate is harder to rationalize away with such an obviously personal issue. and we differentiate between public and private.
Do you want to concede the point, or are we going to go through a debate about whether lynching or eugenics was worse?
Huh? It's apples and oranges. One was private citizens usurping a public function to bad effect. The other was a public institution usurping a private function to bad effect.
Placing students in the same room as mathematics textbooks would create the potential to learn math, but obviously the fact that an opportunity is there just wouldn't cut it. NONE of my classes taught me that friends are at least as important as learning the standard technical material, and therefore getting a few behavior write-ups is probably a worthwhile cost of making long-time friends in class. Learning the relative importance of "who you know" vs. "what you know" is VITAL, and not one single racism-griper gives a damn about the opportunities this has cost students -- cause hey, it's just the white nerds, right?
Schools are better at teaching technical material than social stuff. My speech teacher in H.S. didn't even understand the theories he was teaching. The sender-receiver model of communication is an outdated com model based on technical tests at Bell Labs. But he didn't get that. One of the problem with schools is that, outside of technical material, it's very difficult to track success or failure. That creates a lot of problems.
I wish schools were better, but they have a lot of limitations we need to keep in mind.
NONE of my classes taught me that friends are at least as important as learning the standard technical material, and therefore getting a few behavior write-ups is probably a worthwhile cost of making long-time friends in class.
Well, is that in society's best interest for you to learn or yours?
Learning the relative importance of "who you know" vs. "what you know" is VITAL, and not one single racism-griper gives a damn about the opportunities this has cost students -- cause hey, it's just the white nerds, right?
Well, I'll be happy to defend any argument that I've made. But I didn't make that argument.
"unequal access to sex with women" would be at the top of the list.
First, there is a difference between public and private spheres. But ignoring that, protected classes are generally those things which shouldn't be considered as signifiers. You can prove objectively that you're a good credit risk. How can you prove you're a good boyfriend risk? Since your language implies viewing sex as some kind of commodity detached from the other person involved, perhaps you aren't. Perhaps nervousness implies a deeper lack of awareness of the female psyche and of what women want and need.
Perhaps nervousness is a good signifier?
I could give examples in perpetuity, but there's no point unless you take off your blinders.
I'm listening. That doesn't mean I have to agree.
Person - the last post messed up the italics. The following section should be italicized as follows;
That's because the injustice of making rules about who you can associate is harder to rationalize away with such an obviously personal issue.
and we differentiate between public and private.
Grr... and I posted your name to the post two above this. That's what I get for posting at work.
brooksfoe, rock on! your comments hit the nail on the head.
I can't remember where I read this about the "Piss Christ" but I remember that part of the point was that unless the viewer was told the viewer would never know the golden, milky-light-filled substance surrounding the cross was urine.
I was surprised the first time I saw "Piss Christ" after hearing all the hype about it to find that it's basically just a beautiful image. I've never heard Serrano interviewed about it but to me it looks like a Rembrandt, with all that yellow-white light coming down and the reddish-brown background. I like to think it's about "this is my body" and the paradox of connecting the divine to something completely physical, and how it's even possible for anything beautiful or spiritual to emerge out of the crappy stuff we're made of. I'm sure at one level there is an intent to provoke there. But at another level art is about dichotomies, and what that photo does is say "this is a cheap plastic icon in a glass of piss, and yet I challenge you to look at it and not be moved."
Mmm-hmm. Since you've revealed yourself to be a fan of philosophical biblical passages, maybe you've read chapter one of Romans at some point, somewhere in the range of verses 18-32?
You can guild a turd and make it sparkle yellow for a while, but or you can suspend whatever you like in a vat of urine get a similar effect, but underneath it will never contain anything but offal and waste. The whole reason for its existence is to prevent the poisoning of the body that excreted it with substances that have no productive metabolic use, and which become foul and even more poisonous if not quickly disposed of in a sanitary fashion.
In short, you can find beauty and wonder in many things, but if the thing in question could have been created by any random selection of unsupervised middle-school boys during a restroom break, then I not-so-humbly suggest that the "artist" wasn't trying too hard and the "art appreciator" is trying waaayyy too hard.
If the lawmakers and their constituents were TRULY interested in legislating away unfair discrimination, they would target a lot more types of instances they have been, and "unequal access to sex with women" would be at the top of the list.
Let me get this straight: you can't get laid, so politicians should legalize rape?
Can't understand why women would avoid you. Nope, not at all.
Ryan W., I AM a lawyer. Calling someone a n****r (or goat-fucker) is not a criminal act. Doesn't matter how much offense is taken, it's still not a crime.
We had a recent event in town here, and the minority community was indignant that the person was not arrested for using the N-word. They continue to think that the use of the N-word is a crime, even after the chief of police explained that it is not illegal. Needless to say, the minority community thinks that the non-arrest was simply evidence of racism.
Rex - Thanks for replying. What if the speech is considered a credible threat against someone or disturbing the peace? Still no? I'm not simply referring to saying a word in your basement here, or using it on the radio.
Rex - if you have the time, could you do a brief unpacking of Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire as it applies here? Thanks.
Part of my weariness at black complaints comes from a strong feeling that these days, a lot of black problems are self-inflicted.
Want your child to succeed? Then push him/her to study and do well in school, speak standard American English, and behave in a way that doesn't make members of the mainstream culture feel like he/she just got dropped on the head. Oh, and when naming your child, giving a name that isn't grotesque and difficult to spell or pronounce might help.
Unfortunately, "peer pressure" in the ghetto works hard against all of the above---and guess where that peer pressure comes from? I'll give you a big, fat clue---it isn't David Duke or the Ku Klux Klan!
Like it or not, part of making it in America involves acting more-or-less like mainstream Americans. If you're "proud to be" something else, great, I'm happy for you, but leave the song-and-dance at home, or get used to being treated with suspicion and not hired. I'm a longtime SF fan and convention veteran, but I'd no more show up for (forex) a job interview in my con gear than I would go naked. If I did wear that stuff while asking for a job, or anywhere outside of a con---I'd probably get a lot of unwanted attention.
but if the thing in question could have been created by any random selection of unsupervised middle-school boys during a restroom break
Yeah, but Mouse, it couldn't have. First, the idea is too interesting; no schoolkid would have done it this way. Second, there's a technical skill involved. Go out, get yourself a cheap plastic crucifix and pee in a glass, and see what kind of image you can get. You won't be able to do it.
And remember, this was 1987, before digital photography. There was a lot more craft involved back then in just getting that kind of glow and light effects; you couldn't just do it in Photoshop.
Basically, if you think making good art is so easy, go ahead and do it and see what the response is.
brooksfoe:
It's truly whiplash-inducing to watch you explain how offensive van Gogh was to Muslims, and he was a bad person for it (though you have never tried to defend his murder) but breathlessly defend the beauty and subtlety of submerging a religious icon in urine.
I assume you have no problem with me wiping my ass with a Koran and tossing it over the fence into the BTIF.
If you can't see the double standard here for explaining why one religious group is understandably offended and the other is being a bunch of uptight jerks, all I can ask is "what color is the sky on your planet?"
Ryan W.,
It's important to note that Chaplinsky was decided in 1942. The law has changed a lot since then. And if the Supreme Court really followed Chaplinsky, Justice Brennan would't have been able to craft his opinion that burning the United States flag is protected free speech--if I ever see someone doing that this retired Marine will beat the living s**t out of him. So why isn't that act considered "fighting words"?
Here is the key part of the Wikipedia article:
Although the Court continues to cite Chaplinsky's position on “fighting words” approvingly, subsequent cases have largely eroded its initial, broad formulation; libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection.
Chaplinsky remains the last case in which the Court explicitly upheld a conviction only for “fighting words” directed at public officials.
I don't have the time or inclination to track down all the cases that have modified and eroded what Chaplinsky originally stood for. The best way to go would be to hypothesize a situation and then look for case law specifically on point.
Oh, by the way, Chaplinsky wasn't even one of the cases on First Amendment law we studied in law school in the early 1980's, because the law had deviated so much from its holding by then.
Thanks for the response. Makes sense. But as for why flag burning isn't considered "fighting words" that seems pretty obvious. You're simply expressing something offensive, hatred for a government or nation, but you're not threatening a particular person. Calling a specific person an epithet to their face is easily seen as a short step from threatening to do them harm.
I assume you have no problem with me wiping my ass with a Koran and tossing it over the fence into the BTIF.
1. I actually don't have much of a problem with the artists who did the Danish cartoons either. I have a problem with the guy at a newspaper in a Christian-secular country who comes up with the idea "Hey, let's put out requests for a whole series of cartoons that violate Muslim religious laws, just to show them they can't tell us what to do." My country is better than yours, nyah-nyah. What is the value or purpose of such an exercise? People have a perfect right to buy a torah and smear it with bacon grease, but why would you do something like that? Unless, of course...
2. ...you were a Jewish artist. Andres Serrano and Chris Ofili are from Christian backgrounds. An American artist who desecrates an American flag as part of a piece is doing something that may be interesting or idiotic, but he's within his sphere. A French artist who desecrates an American flag as part of a piece is 99% likely to be doing something idiotic. I don't know what a "BTIF" is, but I have no problem with you wiping your ass with a Koran, or a Bible, in general. If you do it in public as part of a piece of communication, it's fine if you're Muslim. This is the "no, it's really not okay for white guys to call black guys 'nigger' or Christians to call Jews 'yid'" principle.
3. Andres Serrano's work was not a performance piece in which he pees on a crucifix. Andres Serrano's work was a photograph. The photograph has a technical backstory of being a plastic crucifix submerged in urine, which carries signifying weight because it contrasts sharply with the photograph's high formal quality. Peeing on a crucifix, as such, is not interesting. "Piss Christ", the photograph, was interesting.
I don't think that's whiplash you've got. This is just normal driving. You're getting an ache because you're holding your neck too stiff.
brooksfoe:
My country is better than yours, nyah-nyah. What is the value or purpose of such an exercise? People have a perfect right to buy a torah and smear it with bacon grease, but why would you do something like that?
They may want to flaunt their hatred, create controversy, make a political statement, etc. I'm not saying that people who do this aren't incredible jerks, I'm saying that you're evincing a (to me) breathtaking double standard for the desecration of one religion's icons to be hatred, and the other to be an "interesting" artistic statement.
Andres Serrano's work was not a performance piece in which he pees on a crucifix. Andres Serrano's work was a photograph. The photograph has a technical backstory of being a plastic crucifix submerged in urine, which carries signifying weight because it contrasts sharply with the photograph's high formal quality. Peeing on a crucifix, as such, is not interesting. "Piss Christ", the photograph, was interesting.
The fact that "Piss Christ" was done in a private studio and not as performance art is an uninteresting detail to me. I repeat my earlier statement: "...submerging a religious icon in urine." If Serrano wanted to create a juxtaposition between the quality of technical execution and baseness of subject matter, he could have done any number of things--photographed a gilded turd, taken a picture of a puppy taking a dump, submerged a picture of his mother in urine. However, he made a deliberate choice of an icon sacred to billions of people. I think you'd have to be willfully obtuse to not see a component of "just to show them they can't tell us what to do" in there.
Andres Serrano and Chris Ofili are from Christian backgrounds. An American artist who desecrates an American flag as part of a piece is doing something that may be interesting or idiotic, but he's within his sphere. A French artist who desecrates an American flag as part of a piece is 99% likely to be doing something idiotic.
I think this paragraph shows where are views are so wildly divergent--at the axiomatic level different. I don't think that the background of the artist/speaker/whatever has much to do with the offensiveness of the content. I don't think that an American desecrating a flag is "within his sphere" at any point in the process.
We're probably going to have to agree to disagree. To me, this is like "burning a flag is speech" (much less protected speech) or the discussion on Volokh.com a while back about whether you have a First Amendment right to falsely claim you received the Medal of Honor. The viewpoint that could come up with things like those is beyond my ability to understand. Both examples are obvious on their face to me, only one step removed from first principles.
(As an aside, I'm not that worked up about the whole "Piss Christ" thing. Serrano is going to die at some point. I figure that if God has that big a problem with it, He'll handle it Himself.
Also, the BTIF is "Bagram Theater Internement Facility, the proper name for the main U.S. prision in Afghanistan. It was a very opaque and very, very, poorly-thought-out reference to the Koran desecration scandal of a few years back. I have a real problem with switching audiences in my writing.)
I think this paragraph shows where are views are so wildly divergent--at the axiomatic level different. I don't think that the background of the artist/speaker/whatever has much to do with the offensiveness of the content.
Yeah, that's a pretty axiomatic difference. For me, if someone told me Woodrow Wilson once said of black people that "the brains of the race have been knocked out by two hundred and fifty years of assiduous education in submission, carelessness, and stealing," I'd consider that a pretty disgustingly racist anti-black statement.
Except that Wilson di
Actually, having known a few people in management positions in retail, both store and "upper", and having quizzed them on the subject (such things fascinate me), I have been told the following:
Shoplifting is less "racial" and more accurately correlates to poverty on some levels.
Middle class "thrill" seekers are a definitive problem.
Pro shoplifters always adapt the "look" to blend in, and the best are almost always reflect the middle and upper class "look" and signaling of the area they are targeting.
Subsequently targeting minorities does not work and actually represents one of the reasons it is such a significant, and difficult problem from a retail perspective.
You will never effectively tackle the problem if you "profile" based on community prejudices.
Posted by Lawrence | May 16, 2008 11:13 AM