Saturday, June 6, 2015
Racism and Sexism in Statement Analysis
I analyzed the letter and determined that the author was likely to be:
Educated, at least two years in college, or business school
Known to the Family
History of moving frequently
Not racist against blacks
Interested in media exposure
Analysis also showed that the anonymous threatening letter contained no threat: it was, in deed, another "Fake Hate" scam. You may read the full analysis
This pointed to the letter coming from a family member within the house who wrote on Facebook when it happened some statements which showed sensitivity about finding the letter itself, and declared that the next step after "Hate Crime detectives left " her home was to begin the process of Media.
It was shortly after this post that the analysis was published here, at the Statement Analysis blog.
Also shortly after publication an extremely lengthy list of moving that the family member who posted on Face Book has gone through.
More than a week later, the family has not posted about it again, including what appears to be the abandoning the "next step: Media" process.
What happened to the plans?
Then an advertisement from the family for a dinner was posted and it contained the similar type and spacing of the anonymous threatening letter used.
In reading comments from all around the nation as the story went national, universal condemnation of racism was noted, as was much condemnation of Long Island as "racist" and some condemnation of white people. Few articles where there were many comments contained any comments where one questioned the authenticity of the letter.
There was also an almost universal disinterest in uncovering the author. I read hundreds of these comments and it was rare to find anyone who showed an interest in learning the identity of the author.
When someone did show an interest, the response to this interest was strong:
For example, one man wrote in showing confidence that this was "clearly" a teenager who learned his racism from his racist parents.
Another wrote that it was "clearly" the "racist community" in Lindenhurst.
Quite a few wrote it that they had "similar" experiences on Long Island, at the hands of "racists" who live there.
From the comments alone one might think that the population of Long Island is entirely racist.
The rarest of comments, however, were reserved to those who not only took a guess at who might have written the letter, but gave a reason for their guess. Of this type, my favorite, fewest were found. They are my favorite because they show:
1. Interest in learning the true identity of the author, rather than condemning an entire community, as was the intention of the letter;
2. Stating what they believed with why they believed.
In other times, this would have been referred to as "critical thinking."
Today, however, it is "hate speech."
With our scientific process we not only are able to say, "Deception indicated!" but give the reasons why we made this conclusion. If we are wrong, we can go back to the reasons that brought us to our conclusion and correct our error. I hope it is obvious that this blog is for critical thinkers instead of a group of people who are nothing more than a "voter block" for exploitation.
This is why I urge commentators, even if they state "I think he is deceptive" to tell us, plainly, why they believe it so, even if it is just "intuition." Even "it's just an instinct" shows that the writer recognizes a need for critical thinking, even when absent. I do not mind "it just feels that way to me", even when someone does not know why because many times this "feeling" can be honed by principle as the person who writes, "it just feels..." recognizes, by the word "just", that this is a lower or reduced expectation here at the blog.
My favorite comment went something like this:
"I think the writer is from Russia or Poland because of the dropped articles."
In the Copiague, Lindenhurst area, there is a large population of immigrants from both Poland and Russia. They have opened up businesses (including a nice bakery) and have integrated into the community by learning the English language and other cultural assimilations. Learning the English language for adults is not easy and although I disagree with the commentator's conclusion, I respect that he gave a reason for it: the articles were dropped from the letter, and the commentator has heard this from Polish or Russian immigrants as they struggle to learn the language.
Point well taken.
It showed that most people will have an opinion about who wrote this, but almost none of them were willing to state why they thought it to be so.
It was the comment that replied to this that speaks volumes of our cultural ignorance and lack of critical thinking:
"I think the writer is from Russia or Poland because of the dropped articles" was answered with:
"Great, fight racism with more racism."
To take this position is to ignore reality and stop any method to identify the author by race and subsequently, by gender, too, because that would lead to the condemnation of "sexist."
The commentator who wrote, "Great, fight racism with more racism" is, himself, a racist.
He is a racist because he is using willful and deliberate ignorance to take steps to not protect the black family from potential harm.
If this had been a genuine threat (which the commentators most all agreed it is) to deliberately not discern the perpetrator is to leave the family to the whims or consequences of the threatening author.
To not profile the writer is to not protect.
I challenge the commentator: Does not this family deserve protection? What is it about this family that you do not want us to learn who wrote it? Why not protect them?
Thus, the folly of the hyper-sensitivity in the cult of offense.
Imagine a group of analysts who's work is to uncover the identity of terrorists who threaten via letter, like the Unabomber.
Now imagine the group of analysts who's job is to find out the identity of the Unabomber paralyzed with fear of being charged with hate speech, hate crime, or simply losing their employment due to "racism", should they determine the race of the Unabomber, or "sexist" if they have an opinion on the Unabomber's gender.
Imagine being shouted down, in this fascist manner, so that no work is completed. The potential victims need help, yet are left without it, due to 'political correctness.'
Can you imagine such a thing?
Can you imagine someone being in desperate need of help, yet, help can no longer be given, because the help, itself, is now labeled as "hate"?
The consequences of "thought crimes" are not simply myriad, but, I fear, not carefully thought through on what may await us.
In my personal, subjective, internal dictionary, racism is the hatred due to race, of a people. It is, in my code, both illogical and a moral failure. It is a "respecter of faces", which in ancient language, was the seeing of one's skin color, and despising them for it.
Sexism is similar in my personal, subjective, internal dictionary. It is to despise based upon gender.
In "equal pay for equal work", I am a "feminist" as it reflects equality of pay for equality or value of work.
Whereas should a job requiring the carrying of a 150b person be given to a person who cannot carry a 150b person due to skin color or gender, it is illogical, and it is to "hate" the potential one who needs to be carried or rescued.
When 'political correctness' is put before truth, or safety, or even profit in a business, the results can be the lesson regarding the illogical.
For a person, family, or business under a threat, to be told, "We are sorry. We cannot determine if the threat against you or your family, or business is genuine or not, nor are we permitted to attempt to learn the identity, because that would entail acquiring information based upon race and gender, and it is against the law. We have limited resources of which to afford you some protection, but the rest is up to you", is to hate.
The original comment that prompted this article was, "Great. Fight racism with more racism" has a point, however.
Racism is not defeated by racism, no more than theft is defeated by theft, like Robin Hood, or a government demonizing and punishing the successful.
It is illogical, but it does build a very loyal voter base, as it uses the propaganda technique of "moral high ground", that is, that if you agree with us, you agree because you are morally superior to those who disagree.
Those who disagree are not simply in disagreement.
They are "hate" and "hateful" people.
The voter base is key. Come, agree with us, because you are superior to those who disagree with us, and those who disagree with us are immoral, hateful people.
Once logic is discarded, truth is to be viewed as subjective and changeable.
I concluded that this letter was "Fake Hate." My conclusion was based upon all the ideas and determinations in my analysis; therefore, if I am wrong, I can be corrected because we will find where it was, specifically, that I went wrong.
Profiling in Statement Analysis is very difficult work and in light of the great percentage of success in determining truth versus deception, the expectation for profiling, in particular, anonymous work, can be far too high for sound work.
A healthy skepticism should always accompany anonymous threatening letter analysis.
It is crucial for an opinion to have a basis, so that confirmation or correction may be made, if it is that truth is the ultimate goal.