From: Bill Vanek <>
Subject: Re: You want racism? I'll give you racism
Full headers:
From: Bill Vanek <>
Subject: Re: You want racism? Ill give you racism
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 12:37:39 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <p7k7r9$q1f$> <> <p7l3nv$uf1$> <> <p7mhmh$2ul$> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="5c6eb9b5cd8d2f13cb1565eda163e111";
logging-data="20875"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nbYm//UwVKR3ShYMGy/gSsDPKXxFmnNg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A4uu3gbIJRqeQMFuy+VATRS8LbI=
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 10:27:52 -0800 (PST), BillB<> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
>> "BillB"  wrote in message 
>> >If you walked down the same busy street every day, and every time any black 
>> >person passed you, he punched you in the head, pretty soon you're going to 
>> >have a strong aversion to black >people. I don't think that's racism. Do 
>> >you?
>> Well, that's a good question, isn't it?  Your rationale would seem to 
>> support racial profiling, something that you've condemned here in the past. 
>> You're getting tied up in knots here, Bill.
>I'm not getting tied up in knots. You are just lacking in the logic skills to follow along.
Obviously, I would be for racial profiling if 100% of people  of a certain race committed a certain
act. That's not "profiling". Racial profiling is where you single out a certain race because 2% of
the people of that race commit a certain act rather than 1% of the general population. See the
difference? In the first case you aren't singling out any innocent people, whereas in the second
case 98% of the people you single out are innocent.
>Now stop trying to divert by pretending I would ever say anything inconsistent or illogical. it has
never happened, and it never will.
>> I would probably have a strong aversion to people who punched me in the head 
>> and try to figure out why they are doing it.  It probably has nothing to do 
>> with skin pigmentation and a lot to do with cultural or other factors.  It's 
>> easy to fall into that trap of just ascribing evil to every black person, 
>> which is what racists do, Bill.  And you seem to suggest that there is 
>> nothing wrong with that.  It's so odd.
>You aren't answering the question directly. I'll answer it for you. Yes, after a while you would
notice that every black person (or red-headed person, or persons wearing blue scarves...the
identifier does not matter to the hypothetical)

Would MS-13 tattoos be just another identifier that doesn't matter?

> punches you, and you would develop a strong dislike of those people. No, that would not be racism.
It would be common sense.

I think you're coming around now. Obviously, your 100% is just for
purposes of discussion, but you would admit that there is some number
lower than that that would still justify concern, right?

So how about this statistic: the incidence of black on white violent
crime is about 10x that of white on black crime. It sounds like you
would agree that one is justified in being concerned about blacks. Am
I right?