Seriously guys - Let's not profile people

[PLAYER57832]

A profile is not dependent on one characteristic. Rather, a profile is the composite of several characteristics.

This is true. However, race, ethnicity and religion are not profiling factors.

See, actually Jay answered his own question. He asked what the ethnicity was of people since 9-11. In fact, everyone from the shoe bomber to the latest underwear bomber were not Arabic. Many are not even Islamic.

Profiling is a double-edged sword, as any criminal investigator will tell you. IF you get the profile correct, it can help you. However, if you profile wrong, then people wind up looking in the absolute wrong direction and wind up missing the real culprits. That is why shop keepers who think following blacks, etc are wrong. They are being ineffective. AND, the fact is that it is prejudice that makes them think otherwise. AND, it is why prejudice is wrong.

Its not about "hurting people's feelings", not really. That is just a symptom. The real harm is that it is ineffective to classify people in those ways. Race, etc do NOT connect with terrorism. They just do not. Other factors do, but not race or religion or broad ethnicity (as I already noted in some cases, coming from specific countries could be, but even then.. only with caution).

[PLAYER57832]

No Jay

Left is right and up is down and if you disagree you're racist.

Let's get at the heart of the matter. Why is racism wrong? Is it wrong simply because some people are "over sensitive" and therefore have to be treated differently? You almost seem to be implying that.

OR, is it wrong because it is false, because people think that race, etc matter when they really don't and that makes people act in ways that are harmful to all of us. ALL of us, not just some people who match those descriptions.

If you, as a shop keeper, target blacks because you were raised to believe that "blacks shoplift" (NOTE not saying this is actually true for you, saying it is true for some and put yourself in that place), then what is the impact. One impact, yes, is that it is uncomfortable for folks of color to shop there. That can matter if it drives down business enough to cut profits, but usually businesses will claim that isn't the case. The worst abuses in this happen in areas where there are plenty of other customers.

The REAL impact, though is that while this shopkeeper is carefully watching each and every black.. maybe catching a few (becuase, of course, blacks do sometimes commit crimes), a whole stream of other burglers are just ignored. Because the shopkeeper is only paying real attention to blacks, he/she will likely find just blacks (or almost all blacks) taking things, thus "confirming" their belief. BUT, in reality, the real problem is not the blacks, it is elsewhere.

When this gets expanded to society, it has a lot of various impacts. Impacts from lost business meaning lost tax dollars and shuttered stores that otherwise might stay open to impacts of increased crime among whites because so much attention is paid to the blacks. This attitude perpetuating about blacks means they are less likely to get hired, means many assorted things, including that some young blacks who otherwise might not take to theft do, in desperation (fi you have trouble buying stuff legitimately, then its tempting), in anger/revenge (they treated us badly, they deserve to lose!) or just because they say "well, if its expected... I am going to be blamed, so why not just do it?"


THAT is why prejudice of any kind is wrong, becuase it really and truly does harm us all.

Now, the "overset" to that is that everyone is a bit prejudiced in some ways.

[BigBallinStalin]

Charles Manson was a white American male, so I guess that means we need to consider every white, American male a potential serial killer, and should search/investigate them as such immediately?

This is a great analysis. Jay is just trying to suppress the fact that Charles Manson is a white American male. Player is correct.

Manson was a piss poor example as he didn't kill anyone. So I used a Dahmer example instead. If they have evidence, eye witnesses, hair samples etc. that point to a certain race, they LOOK for a person OF THAT RACE! You don't look for a Mexican when 4 people saw a white guy! Come on, good thing you guys aren't homicide detectives!

So by this logic, let's say there's a murder in my district and on camera a black guy shot and killed someone. Therefore, I should stop every black guy and question them strictly going by profiling.

You're ignoring what player mentioned about a person's behavior, suspicious looking passport history, etc. Profiling itself isn't really a solution; it can be inefficient and unnecessarily wasteful (like spending all that time stopping every black guy to find that one murderer).

Let's say we only profile Arabs. Then we'd overlook guys like the Nigerian underwear bomber because he isn't Arab.

Are you starting to see the inefficiencies in profiling, jay?

This is why we use profiling. You have a black man on camera, so you can eliminate non-blacks. Not bring whites etc. in for questioning!!!! So the TSA body scanners are for everyone EXCEPT Muslim women! Are you kidding me????? YET if a Muslim man is pulled aside to be "pat frisked" he sues because they are discriminating!!!!!!! So, in essence, the body scanners are for everyone BUT the target group!!!!!


Are you seeing the inefficiencies of TSA scanning, pat frisks etc. if it is only being used on PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FIT THE PROFILE of the 911 terrorists??????

Ah, now it changed from "Arab" to "Muslim." Love how this is shifting around.

So let's say they start profiling by religion... couldn't people just switch their religion?

[jay_a2j]

Ah, now it changed from "Arab" to "Muslim." Love how this is shifting around.

So let's say they start profiling by religion... couldn't people just switch their religion?

Can you tell someone's religion by looking at them? Can you tell if someone is a terrorist by looking at them?

The answer to both these questions is no. However, the common denominator in regards to the 911 terrorists was what? They were middle age, middle eastern men. So why are 65 year old white grandmothers, black males, Jewish rabbi's, Catholic Priests and white businessmen being targeted?????? Why??? Because they fit they terrorist profile of course!!!!!

[jay_a2j]

Now, the "overset" to that is that everyone is a bit prejudiced in some ways.

Prejudiced yes, this has nothing to do with race. Racist no, some people do not pass judgment on others simply because of the color of their skin.

(I hate when people use the term "prejudice" in place of "racist"... it really is two different things)

[BigBallinStalin]

Ah, now it changed from "Arab" to "Muslim." Love how this is shifting around.

So let's say they start profiling by religion... couldn't people just switch their religion?

Can you tell someone's religion by looking at them? Can you tell if someone is a terrorist by looking at them?

The answer to both these questions is no. However, the common denominator in regards to the 911 terrorists was what? They were middle age, middle eastern men. So why are 65 year old white grandmothers, black males, Jewish rabbi's, Catholic Priests and white businessmen being targeted?????? Why??? Because they fit they terrorist profile of course!!!!!

They have these things called passports. They're pretty useful, I hear.

You can tell a lot from somebody by just looking at them with the proper training, which is why player keeps going on about how behavioral analysis can be more important than just profiling certain groups. It's a better filtering system.

The problem with your way of profiling is that it overlooks potential exploits and its dangerously inefficient. You only focus on someone's religion, skin color, race, while there are more important factors to be mindful of. Also, by screening everyone of a certain religion, skin color, etc only, then it bogs down the system. By "indiscriminately" screening, it overall increases the chances of getting caught, regardless of whatever disguise one may employ.

Do you understand the words that I've typed?

[GabonX]

You only focus on someone's religion, skin color, race, while there are more important factors to be mindful of.

[PLAYER57832]

Now, the "overset" to that is that everyone is a bit prejudiced in some ways.

Prejudiced yes, this has nothing to do with race. Racist no, some people do not pass judgment on others simply because of the color of their skin.

Fully agree. Did not provide a full list simply to save space (in my first draft, I did) and because I figure we have all been over that territory before, so no need to repeat it.

I hate when people use the term "prejudice" in place of "racist"... it really is two different things)

I did not use them as synonyms, though I admit it is easy to make that assumption.

In this case, however, the thought that we need to target Arabs because the 9-11 folks were all arabic makes as much sense as saying we need to target all European males because Harry Reed was white, or (more pertinent, perhaps) target all white Americans because David Karesh was a white male. This is what prejudice does. It makes you think race, or other factors matter when, in fact they truly do not.

Now, that said, thinking that we need to target Arabs does not necessarily make you a bad person. That is another judgement. It does mean that you have ignored or simply not bothered to look into what security experts, as opposed to the local pundits, think is important.

[PLAYER57832]

You only focus on someone's religion, skin color, race, while there are more important factors to be mindful of.

I would substitute "primarily".

I mentioned this before, but there are a couple common tests that probably illustrate the problems better. The two most common tests are often given in police and other government training programs. In the first, a group is assembled, talking about various things. Then, in the midst something happens. It might be as simple as a person in a business suit coming in and saying "quick, come with me". Then someone asks what happened. There are a few variations, but in each case a "stooge" or "plant" pipes up with a description that has nothing at all to do with what actually happened. They might say, quite firmly that they absolutely saw a black guy in a hooded sweatshirt with a gun.. or, in more recent times, an Arab who shouted Jihadi messages... etc. In most cases, it is not long before the entire class agrees with the "stooge".

In the second example, maybe a tad more pertinent to this, there is a presentation. It could be live or it could be video. Folks are instructed specifically to look for some particular type of person. Maybe to "watch the guy with the glasses" or some such. Anyway, the presentation continues. Then the instructor asks what everyone saw. MOST, far more than just a majority, though I don't know the exact percentages, may point up various minor things, BUT, utterly miss the fact that a man in a gorilla suit calmly walks across the screen.

Both of these tests point to how easy it is for people to be turned from reality to preconceptions, to ignore the obvious because they are paying attention to just the wrong things.

THAT is the problem with those broad categories you keep touting, even in, as you say, combination with the other factors. The real truth is that a terrorist can be any race, any ethnicity. Who we need to worry about more constantly shifts. However, there ARE factors that do corrospond across all terrorists. I group them together as "behaviors", though it can include where one comes from (traveling somewhere is often more suspicious, though than living somewhere, because you don't get to choose where you are born).

[BigBallinStalin]

For the clarity, GabonX and jay, tell us what are the advantages and disadvantages of profiling people based on:

1) religion, ethnicity, and race

2) behavior, travel history, and other non-religious/race/ethnicity factors

[jay_a2j]

For the clarity, GabonX and jay, tell us what are the advantages and disadvantages of profiling people based on:

1) religion, ethnicity, and race

2) behavior, travel history, and other non-religious/race/ethnicity factors

It's not about pulling aside every Muslim that walks into an airport. It's not about stopping and questioning every middle eastern man. It's about following the profile. So randomly searching 89 year old grandmothers or 18 year old black kids, or people wearing yamakas doesn't fit the profile. And when these are targeted while NOT stopping middle eastern men you have to wonder where is the logic?

Advantages and disadvantages? If the 19 hijackers on 911 were middle eastern Muslims, the odds are another attack by the same group won't be nuns and monks, blacks or Asian, elderly nor babies. It would be like going into Germany during WWII and killing all the blacks. Duh, the enemy has been defined. That doesn't mean every middle eastern looking/ Muslim is a terrorist, just as every German was not a Nazi.

[radiojake]

I remember when terrorists were Irish and Eastern European

[silvanricky]

I remember when terrorists were Irish and Eastern European

Source please

[PLAYER57832]

, the odds are another attack by the same group won't be nuns and monks, blacks or ....

Except, they were black, etc.


And... the thing is, there is more than just one group trying to get us, and the group that is out to get us is very adept at finding new ways to get us. They have done it more than once and did not use the same methods. Why is it intelligent to think they would do the same things again this time?

[thegreekdog]

I remember when terrorists were Irish and Eastern European

I wonder if we profiled then.

[jonesthecurl]

I remember when terrorists were Irish and Eastern European

I wonder if we profiled then.

No we O'Filed.

[Juan_Bottom]

Why wouldn't the Israeli method work here with a few alterations? The DOHS hasn't caught anyone. Let's nix them and replace them with a bunch of trained profile guys at the airport.

Oh & I thought this was funny and on topic:

"So I asked the Israeli if he knew what color the terrorist alert was this morning. He laughed and said "do you wake up in the morning and check the color and see how much security will be at the airport when you get there? I said "no." He said "Oh, well the terrorists do though don't they?"

It's kinda hard to read because it's directly transcribed. That's an actual quote from Doug Harrab from the BBC. Our methods aren't really geared for catching anything. They're just there to harrass people.

[jay_a2j]

Our methods aren't really geared for catching anything. They're just there to harrass people.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!


What do we have for him Johnnie?


JB has won his own personal TSA body scanner! Not sure whether you can trust everyone who attends your New Years Eve party? Not to worry! With the new TSA body scanner nobody is entering or leaving your house without being searched!

(some assembly required)

[Juan_Bottom]

Yessss!

[jay_a2j]

It just keeps getting better and better!

[Juan_Bottom]

It's so weird that Jay and I, with such different world views, always seem to find common ground where no one else on these forums can.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm mostly in agreement with him, but it depends on how he words things.

[Juan_Bottom]

Well that's just mean.

[thegreekdog]

I remember when terrorists were Irish and Eastern European

I wonder if we profiled then.

No we O'Filed.

I'm almost certain you have some sort of modified search engine that allows you to find posts for which you can add some witticism. That's the only explanation for your prompt, relevant, and funny one-liners.