That's a strange question, actually....if only because stereotyping -- the assignment of category-specific assumptions to a given/unknown individual or group of individuals who shares that category -- is most typically done subconsciously, automatically, and without any deliberate cognitive intervention. Stereotyping is a reflexive reaction to a situation which by its nature is triggering. We might as well ask when 'being startled' is acceptable. It is neither acceptable or unacceptable, it simply is. We stereotype by color, age, sex, size, walk, dress, sound, smell, etc. Everyone does and we do it constantly. A 'first impression' is formed within the first 7 seconds of a meeting based entirely on category stereotypes.
But when we broaden the question to consider what is really being asked here: when is it appropriate to take some action which -- nominally -- would seem to be racially keyed..... we are faced with different considerations, if only because this is not a reflexive/unconscious reaction we are evaluating, it is a deliberate decision. The answer, predictably, is: IT DEPENDS.
Per the example: I leave a downtown Club at 1:00 AM, and see a group of young Black males coming down the street towards me. What do I do? Here, the context is high-risk. If I behave as though this is 1:00 in the afternoon at a suburban mall....and I assume this group of young Black males is no different from a group of young White males, or young girls, or middle-aged Women...., and I'm wrong, then the consequences of such a race/sex/age-blind decision might be significantly costly. So I don't make a race/sex/age-blind decision and instead behave as though that group presents a potentially significant threat... and I go back inside the Club, or cross the street, or get in my car and lock the door. This is, as Glenn & John both note, only common sense.
Equally, if I am a cop, and I make a random stop because the driver exhibited some questionable behavior....if that driver is a young, Black male, then I am more alert than usual because sheer probability tells me (my experience tells me) that they present a greater risk. Again, the consequences of treating the driver as though he was a blue-haired little old lady are significantly costly if I'm wrong.
On the other hand, if I walk into a room and there's a Black man present, and he says, "Here, let me play you some of my favorite music"...and I respond by saying, "Don't bother, I hate hip-hop and rap!"... then THAT is an entirely inappropriate, wrong-headed reaction which could easily be labeled as racist.
In all 3 cases I make a decision which is racially keyed. Those same decisions are also age & sex keyed in that it is the combination of age, sex, and race together which drive the reaction. In the first two cases, the context is high-risk, and it is clearly in my own self-preservation-interest to make decisions which minimize that risk. In the last case the context is zero-risk, so the decision to make a race-age-sex-keyed decision is inappropriate & wrong. In all 3 cases my decisions could appear to be racist-leaning.
So what are left with?
When is it right and when is it wrong to discriminate on the basis of demographic category?
The answer is context specific.
If the context is one which presents a significant, personal risk....then we should act, always, in our own self-preserving interest. We'd be foolish to do otherwise (if only because no one wants to be the next 'Darwin Award Winner').
If the context is not explicitly risky.... then act, always, to grant the Other the benefit of the low-risk doubt. Maybe, in fact, the man who was going to play some music did end-up playing some unlistenable piece of hip-hop. The cost of having to endure it for 3 minutes is nothing....so polite, and smiling toleration and an open mind is still the correct reaction.
What is being considered here is not exclusively a race issue, though. If a beautiful, young female dresses in a skintight, provocatively alluring outfit and flirts outrageously while out on some Saturday evening, she should not be surprised to find herself approached (sometimes crudely) by men looking for a 'connection'. Certainly she can say, with extreme hauteur, 'I should be able to dress anyway I want, and say anything I wish, without fear of being propositioned by some idiot'...BUT....to the point made above, the TOTAL CONTEXT significantly increases the probability that she will, in fact, be propositioned...because the TOTAL CONTEXT increases the probability (for the man in question) that she, too, is interested in that same possibility of connection.
In this case, as the man weighs the risk/reward of a sexual approach, he most typically decides that the possibility of 'reward' outweighs the risk of being offensive. Equally for the young woman, if the risk of an offensive come-on outweighs the reward of 'dressing provocatively & flirting outrageously', then she should adjust her behavior accordingly.
In the end, I guess, we are left with what is reasonable. And sometimes what is reasonable is to make so-called racist or sexist or sizeist or ageist decisions because the context makes it so. Sometimes, as they say, a cigar is just a cigar.
When I see Black men behaving aggressively or in a rapper menacing way, I give a wide berth. That is not about skin color; it is behavioral.
Since Malcolm X, Black leaders are doubling and tripling down on distinctively Black behavior as a source of pride. Rather than slip the binds and be part of the mainstream social fabric of the nation, the legacy of slavery has chosen (particularly since the Civil Rights Era) to accentuate an anti-social behavior and tolerate criminality and family desertion.
Is some of this socio-economic? Yes. And when I see sketchy White men yelling and looking physically intimidating, I will get the hell out of their way.
Stereotyping is risk management. If Black leaders don’t like it, work on their brand.
As an old white guy from a exceedingly violent black neighborhood, Compton and Watts, late 1950's through early 2000's, stereotyping will keep you alive. From knowing where and when not to go, to when you should ease the safety off.
I worked as a taxi driver in Downtown Los Angeles many years ago. During that time, it was a common grievance among several Black entertainers that taxis often bypassed them. This concern was indeed grounded in reality. Many drivers, myself included, wouldn't stop for young Black men. This caution was not limited to any driver of any race; even Black taxi drivers were similarly cautious.
The reasoning behind this caution was statistically driven: 85% of reported cab robberies at the time involved young Black and Latino men. However, this statistic does not reflect the majority of young Black men who were simply going about their daily lives, seeking a ride to get home or to their workplace.
Reflecting on this issue, it's clear that the solution isn't just for drivers to disregard their safety concerns. A more effective approach would be to address the root socio-economic factors that contribute to higher crime rates among young Black men.
Stereotypes are part of our survival mechanism. They inform our fight or flight impulse, among other things. Stereotypes are true of the group in question regardless of the identity of the group. They are not useful in assessing an individual. We should understand how stereotypes works and when they don't, but never apologize for them.
It is 1990 and I am returning from the US Open. It is after midnight and I am on an uptown subway platform with a friend. Grand Central. I notice 4 20-something black men up the stairs by a staffed ticket booth. They catch my eye because they are doing what I called the "duck and cover". When a train comes in to the station, they run halfway down the stairs, they then duck to see if it is their train. Not being their train, they run back up to the relative safety of the staffed ticket booth. Cover.
It is only natural, regardless of race, to take in your surroundings and incorporate it into how you carry yourself.
The Chicago MSM continue to point out statistics that in their mind point out the conclusion that the Chicago Police are targeting blacks for illegal actions, the most recent is for traffic stops. This is prominent today to a traffic stop gone bad with the young, black male driver killed.
“The American Civil Liberties Union last year filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department claiming officers make a disproportionate number of traffic stops in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods.”
An seemingly intelligent response would be “Cops go to where the crime is....and crime is disproportionate”
Unfortunately defending the cops in any way is sacrilegious to the MSM.
The above citation comes from an independent blog created and run by anonymous Chicago police officers.
When is racial stereotyping acceptable?
That's a strange question, actually....if only because stereotyping -- the assignment of category-specific assumptions to a given/unknown individual or group of individuals who shares that category -- is most typically done subconsciously, automatically, and without any deliberate cognitive intervention. Stereotyping is a reflexive reaction to a situation which by its nature is triggering. We might as well ask when 'being startled' is acceptable. It is neither acceptable or unacceptable, it simply is. We stereotype by color, age, sex, size, walk, dress, sound, smell, etc. Everyone does and we do it constantly. A 'first impression' is formed within the first 7 seconds of a meeting based entirely on category stereotypes.
But when we broaden the question to consider what is really being asked here: when is it appropriate to take some action which -- nominally -- would seem to be racially keyed..... we are faced with different considerations, if only because this is not a reflexive/unconscious reaction we are evaluating, it is a deliberate decision. The answer, predictably, is: IT DEPENDS.
Per the example: I leave a downtown Club at 1:00 AM, and see a group of young Black males coming down the street towards me. What do I do? Here, the context is high-risk. If I behave as though this is 1:00 in the afternoon at a suburban mall....and I assume this group of young Black males is no different from a group of young White males, or young girls, or middle-aged Women...., and I'm wrong, then the consequences of such a race/sex/age-blind decision might be significantly costly. So I don't make a race/sex/age-blind decision and instead behave as though that group presents a potentially significant threat... and I go back inside the Club, or cross the street, or get in my car and lock the door. This is, as Glenn & John both note, only common sense.
Equally, if I am a cop, and I make a random stop because the driver exhibited some questionable behavior....if that driver is a young, Black male, then I am more alert than usual because sheer probability tells me (my experience tells me) that they present a greater risk. Again, the consequences of treating the driver as though he was a blue-haired little old lady are significantly costly if I'm wrong.
On the other hand, if I walk into a room and there's a Black man present, and he says, "Here, let me play you some of my favorite music"...and I respond by saying, "Don't bother, I hate hip-hop and rap!"... then THAT is an entirely inappropriate, wrong-headed reaction which could easily be labeled as racist.
In all 3 cases I make a decision which is racially keyed. Those same decisions are also age & sex keyed in that it is the combination of age, sex, and race together which drive the reaction. In the first two cases, the context is high-risk, and it is clearly in my own self-preservation-interest to make decisions which minimize that risk. In the last case the context is zero-risk, so the decision to make a race-age-sex-keyed decision is inappropriate & wrong. In all 3 cases my decisions could appear to be racist-leaning.
So what are left with?
When is it right and when is it wrong to discriminate on the basis of demographic category?
The answer is context specific.
If the context is one which presents a significant, personal risk....then we should act, always, in our own self-preserving interest. We'd be foolish to do otherwise (if only because no one wants to be the next 'Darwin Award Winner').
If the context is not explicitly risky.... then act, always, to grant the Other the benefit of the low-risk doubt. Maybe, in fact, the man who was going to play some music did end-up playing some unlistenable piece of hip-hop. The cost of having to endure it for 3 minutes is nothing....so polite, and smiling toleration and an open mind is still the correct reaction.
What is being considered here is not exclusively a race issue, though. If a beautiful, young female dresses in a skintight, provocatively alluring outfit and flirts outrageously while out on some Saturday evening, she should not be surprised to find herself approached (sometimes crudely) by men looking for a 'connection'. Certainly she can say, with extreme hauteur, 'I should be able to dress anyway I want, and say anything I wish, without fear of being propositioned by some idiot'...BUT....to the point made above, the TOTAL CONTEXT significantly increases the probability that she will, in fact, be propositioned...because the TOTAL CONTEXT increases the probability (for the man in question) that she, too, is interested in that same possibility of connection.
In this case, as the man weighs the risk/reward of a sexual approach, he most typically decides that the possibility of 'reward' outweighs the risk of being offensive. Equally for the young woman, if the risk of an offensive come-on outweighs the reward of 'dressing provocatively & flirting outrageously', then she should adjust her behavior accordingly.
In the end, I guess, we are left with what is reasonable. And sometimes what is reasonable is to make so-called racist or sexist or sizeist or ageist decisions because the context makes it so. Sometimes, as they say, a cigar is just a cigar.
When I see Black men behaving aggressively or in a rapper menacing way, I give a wide berth. That is not about skin color; it is behavioral.
Since Malcolm X, Black leaders are doubling and tripling down on distinctively Black behavior as a source of pride. Rather than slip the binds and be part of the mainstream social fabric of the nation, the legacy of slavery has chosen (particularly since the Civil Rights Era) to accentuate an anti-social behavior and tolerate criminality and family desertion.
Is some of this socio-economic? Yes. And when I see sketchy White men yelling and looking physically intimidating, I will get the hell out of their way.
Stereotyping is risk management. If Black leaders don’t like it, work on their brand.
As an old white guy from a exceedingly violent black neighborhood, Compton and Watts, late 1950's through early 2000's, stereotyping will keep you alive. From knowing where and when not to go, to when you should ease the safety off.
I worked as a taxi driver in Downtown Los Angeles many years ago. During that time, it was a common grievance among several Black entertainers that taxis often bypassed them. This concern was indeed grounded in reality. Many drivers, myself included, wouldn't stop for young Black men. This caution was not limited to any driver of any race; even Black taxi drivers were similarly cautious.
The reasoning behind this caution was statistically driven: 85% of reported cab robberies at the time involved young Black and Latino men. However, this statistic does not reflect the majority of young Black men who were simply going about their daily lives, seeking a ride to get home or to their workplace.
Reflecting on this issue, it's clear that the solution isn't just for drivers to disregard their safety concerns. A more effective approach would be to address the root socio-economic factors that contribute to higher crime rates among young Black men.
Stereotypes are part of our survival mechanism. They inform our fight or flight impulse, among other things. Stereotypes are true of the group in question regardless of the identity of the group. They are not useful in assessing an individual. We should understand how stereotypes works and when they don't, but never apologize for them.
It is 1990 and I am returning from the US Open. It is after midnight and I am on an uptown subway platform with a friend. Grand Central. I notice 4 20-something black men up the stairs by a staffed ticket booth. They catch my eye because they are doing what I called the "duck and cover". When a train comes in to the station, they run halfway down the stairs, they then duck to see if it is their train. Not being their train, they run back up to the relative safety of the staffed ticket booth. Cover.
It is only natural, regardless of race, to take in your surroundings and incorporate it into how you carry yourself.
The Chicago MSM continue to point out statistics that in their mind point out the conclusion that the Chicago Police are targeting blacks for illegal actions, the most recent is for traffic stops. This is prominent today to a traffic stop gone bad with the young, black male driver killed.
“The American Civil Liberties Union last year filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department claiming officers make a disproportionate number of traffic stops in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods.”
An seemingly intelligent response would be “Cops go to where the crime is....and crime is disproportionate”
Unfortunately defending the cops in any way is sacrilegious to the MSM.
The above citation comes from an independent blog created and run by anonymous Chicago police officers.
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/?m=1
The “Controllers” of the site do not normally take racist views although anonymous Comments can be.
Due to the mistrust of the MSM reporting and Police Department statistics a number of independent organizations have prospered.
“Hey Jackass” on Substack for statistics.
CWB for crime reporting and judicial follow through. https://cwbchicago.com