I've encountered a dilemma. Help me reconcile

You don't profile. You go to a place where a lot of crime occurs and handle the people there.if they happen to be of a certain race, oh well. For extra fun, go where the most single mothers are and invest heavily in the schools and communities. Stop crime before it has a chance to develop.

I don't believe it has to be specifically "laws", but rather rules, guidelines, and policies that create an system where a certain group is unwittingly treated differently than another group. In other words: Institutional racism can be a byproduct from any system.

Except the part where people are being treated poorly because of their race.

Why is that bad?

If you're black, and someone is more likely to suspect you're a criminal, then it can hold you back from things like employment, because someone will judge you by the name on your application, and not your character.

If you're black and someone is more likely to suspect you're a criminal, then it could mean that police act more aggressively with you, for fear that you would harm them. You might not get arrested if you're not committing crimes, but you'll still get roughed up. And if you protest poor treatment, everyone is less likely to be sympathetic to your plea.

>You don't profile.
Easier said than done.

Because treating people poorly in general is bad. The double standard just makes it a degree more egregious.

Wow wow wow, profiling is treating someone badly?
Your making leaps here friend

Its not institutional racism it's biology

Profiling is the only example of institutional racism that could even be argued to exist in modern America, and even then we're talking about individual cops' decision making rather than actual policy. Profiling on that kind of individual level is hardwired into human behavior and no amount of reform is going to change that.

The real issue is that the relationship between police departments and the public has been corrupted. Police are often too violent in their interaction with the public, and that's something that can be changed with reforms in training and procedure.

Racism is OK.
Black lives don't matter.

>Profiling based on race DOES exist
>Therefore institutional racism exists
>this is not a bad thing, it allows LE to do their job efficiently
>Racism is not bad, it's logical
there you go, dilemma resolved.

Then what about all those, ya now... institutions that human have created?

>and even then we're talking about individual cops' decision making rather than actual policy.
If that's the case, then what is even the point of gathering crime statistics? I mean, clearly the police, as an organization, decides where crime is coming from, and where to target the efforts. They don't decide that on an individual basis.

I was talking about police officers, not employers. Most employers in 2016 don't care if you're black.

Police officers do care however, because they have to deal with the reality which is that black people are much more likely to commit crimes.

>You might not get arrested if you're not committing crimes, but you'll still get roughed up

No you won't. This is a lie. You will only get "roughed up" if you don't comply with what they ask you to do.

>And if you protest poor treatment, everyone is less likely to be sympathetic to your plea.

What do you mean by "poor treatment"? Did they detain or arrest you illegally or did they just kind of have an adversarial attitude? Law enforcement are not obliged to be nice to you, they are doing a very important and very necessary job. Just be a cuck. When you are dealing with cops just be a docile nonthreatening cuck and let them do their jobs, whether you agree with them stopping you or pulling you over, or whatever. Get over yourself.

Do you have an alternative?
Also, men are also profiled. Is that sexist? If it is, does that even matter?

Profiling exists on a personal level whereas institutional racism exists - as the name says - an institutional level.

There is institutional racism, just not in a sense that SJW mean it. There's no conspiracy to put the black man down, it's just that Whites are naive enough to think the legal system they designed for their own suits non-Whites when it clearly doesn't because it expects too much agency and restraint from them.

So racial profiling is justified and our institutions are racist simply because they're inadapted, not because the people who designed them are malevolent.

>Really not that difficult
I propose we make "It's not that hard" the new "current year."

Woah, could this be the hidden reason profiling exists???
Profiling isn't racist, it's basing your course of action on FACTS
yeah I took the bait idgaf

...

You forgot affirmative action

...

I'm going to take a leap and guess that you're a white upper/middle class liberal.

Put your money where your mouth is and go to the black part of town (if you have one) and walk around with an expensive cellphone and the best watch after sundown. Oh and leave your car doors unlocked.

Lets see how fast the veneer of social justice wears off.

>I was talking about police officers, not employers.
Institutional racism doesn't only apply to police.
>Most employers in 2016 don't care if you're black.
Employers do profile however. They've done tests where they've sent equally qualifying resumes to various employers. Only differences being that one resume had a typical black name, and the other had a typical white name. More often than not, the white applicant was called in for an interview.

>You will only get "roughed up" if you don't comply with what they ask you to do.
No, this is the lie you tell yourself. AKA denial.

>What do you mean by "poor treatment"?
The aforementioned "roughing up". People typically assume that if the police treat your poorly, that you must have incited them to act. When you're black, you get even less sympathy, because you fit the profile of a criminal.

profiling is not racist, because there's no PREjudice, there's POSTjudice

it's after-the-fact judgement, based on facts

Police combat crime, it's their job. Going to where crime is in order to combat it is not profiling, and certainly not racial profiling. That's like saying I'm architecturally profiling the building I work in when I go to my job. It's absurd.

Good point.

>Do you have an alternative?
No. Hence the dilemma. Right now, I'm leaning toward the notion that institutional racism does exist.
>Also, men are also profiled. Is that sexist?
Perhaps.
>If it is, does that even matter?
Yes. Because men may suffer worse consequences for being profiled as criminals.

If profiling isn't racist, then why do the innocent suffer for the crimes of the guilty?

Where in the definition of racism is "the innocent suffer the crimes of the guilty" included?

You can profile with race , retard. And islam is not a race. GTFO

You have guessed wrong.

It is prejudice when you base your judgement on the statistics of a demographic that person happens to fall under, and not on the person's actual character.

People don't just happen to fall under demographics by chance. Much like birds don't just happen to feed on worms by chance.

Genetics dictate who you are, who ever living being is.

The consequences are minimal. People are going to be arrested for no reason regardless. That will happen less often when you profile people.
Institutionalize racism exists, and is not a bad thing.
Institutionalize sexism exists, and while it maybe bad and illogical in many cases (divorce court etc), it's not a bad thing in this case.

>It is prejudice when you base your judgement on the statistics of a demographic that person happens to fall under, and not on the person's actual character.

>Every person should be treated as a special snowflake

In other news, we should totally be fine with people smoking cigarettes because although you smoke, it doesn't mean that you will get lung cancer. It's just a statistic afterall.

Going to where the crime is, is absolutely profiling. It's just not malevolent like profiling is often assumed to be. It's assuming that this particular area is going to have a certain amount of crime, because of whatever statistics/experience the organization has gathered. If you think of an organization as a single mind, then it really is no different than a person making a personal profile. The mind of the organization believes that blacks will cause more crimes, and that is why the people within the organization think that blacks will commit more crime. And that is why there is racial profiling.

Well when the innocent suffer in disproportionate amounts, due to their race, then it becomes racist.
You could argue that it's not disproportionate, since one race commits more crimes than other races. But that supposes that individuals are guilty on behalf of their race.

Protip: the definition of racism is irrational prejudice towards a race.

Racial profiling is neither prejudgement nor irrational.

How are they innocent, exactly? It's their community. They have those genes. Their offspring is likely to be criminal even if they aren't criminal themselves.

Disproportionate to what, exactly? Relative to what?

Individuals are guilty on behalf of their race, correct.

Statistics don't change who you are. An innocent person is innocent, no matter how many criminals are in the same demographic.

Using your logic, if there's someone with a nuclear bomb in their basement, we shouldn't stop them, since they aren't doing anything wrong so long as they don't push the button. And then they push the button, is already too late.

Idealism vs. Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism wins 9 out of 10 times.

It's bad when people suffer the consequences of the actions of others.
I'm not convinced that it's as minimal as you make it sound. Nor am I convinced that profiling means less people will be arrested for no reason.

"Profiling exists for a reason" or "There's no such thing as institutional racism" isn't an exclusive disjunction. They can both be true at the same time.

Your proposed "dilemma" is also very vague. Assuming you were to mean "All institutional profiling exists with good reason and everything that exists with good reason is good and racism is bad" or "institutional racism is an existent type of institutional profiling," then you would have a proper dilemma.

>the thinking/reaching of a liberal

There's no dilemma. Racial profiling is driven by data, not by race itself.

Blacks don't draw additional attention from police just because they're black, they draw it because blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

The moment they stop committing a disproportionate amount of crime is the moment they stop receiving a disproportionate amount of attention.

Profiling exists because blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
Accepting this fact is not racist.

Recognizing that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is racis tho.

key word is "institution" you dumb fuck. a profiling policy is not an institution.

...

Profiling isn't racism. Your first assumption is incorrect.

That's not spurdo that's gondola.
Get your memes right.

>implying profiling = institutional racism
see hamdi v. rumsfeld

Eh whatever. they all go in my spurdo folder regardless.

>Your facts are racist

Are you dumb? Why is it racist to accept a FACT. Not saying anything about the cause of this situation, mind that please.

>treating poorly

no, they get frisked and have a minute of their life wasted. if they're found innocent, then they're let go. no cops are killing or beating niggers for absolutely no reason. it's such a minor inconvenience you're complaining about.