Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Galas wrote:
This is a very spiky problem. Because, I understand the fact that if you "inspect" people based in the probability that you have a higger change of finding criminals with people of X profile (Black skin, man, gipsy, arabic, etc...) , in a way, its more reasonable because mathematically a member of that group its more probable to be a criminal.

But now, in the other way Redleger, this just go against what you said before, of not marginalising people. Just as White Males shoudln't be marginalised as a group, the fact that you put an X in some ethnic, religious, etc... groups because is a fact that a bigger percentage of people in that group can commit X crimmes you are searching for, its still a form or marginalising that group. Because innocent people its paying for the crimes of others, not only in the fact that they have a bigger chance of being inspected without reasons, but because all the social prejudices that things brings to you.

I can totally understand bot sides in this issue. And being honest, I can't figure what could be better in the long run.

For example, ALL of the terrorist attacks of this past years in Europe have been made by people with the nationality of the country where they attacked, not refugees, just radicalized people, normally of second or third generation of inmigrants.

There is no easy answer. But the conversation needs to be had. I applaud you for the way you are trying to have it. I think this particular instance we have gone as far as we could.

 redleger wrote:
What I'm saying is if you watch the vid Muslim and skin color are never mentioned. It's about bang for the buck and making no allusions on waisting certain resources in the interest of fairness. I am not saying it's not easy to poke holes in his plan as is. I am saying I could poke holes in his plan after listening to him speak, and not use any pejoratives. I think in this we are just going to disagree. I'm ok with that, because that's ok.

It doesn't have to be mentioned explicitly to be true. When you talk about "wasting resources in the interest of fairness" what else are you going to make the decision based on? All you have available is superficial characteristics like race, since getting any more useful information requires more time and effort than just putting a person through the standard security checks. So the only way you could possibly send someone through security with a lesser check is to say "well, they don't look like a terrorist" based on racist stereotypes about who is a threat. And when you advocate policies based on racism I'm going to call you a racist, even if you never say the word "race" directly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I am for free speech. Full stop.

No you aren't, as clearly demonstrated by your outrage about calling Sam Harris a racist. If you're genuinely in favor of free speech, full stop, then the accusations of racism are just more free speech and it's absurd to call the exercise of free speech "censorship". The truth here is that, like most of the FREEZE PEACH SJWS RUIN EVERYTHING crowd, you're in favor of creating safe spaces where ideas you agree with aren't criticized too harshly and have no problem with trying to pressure people you disagree with to stop speaking.

In other words, if you don't accept my assertions as truth, and you dare to criticize what I say, you don't believe in free speech.

Regressivism.

To be honest, total freedom of speech its not gonna exist ever. Because some things always carry social rejection even if they don't bring against you legal actions.

For example, try to talk in public about the advantages of phaedopilia. Or that guy, I don't remember his name, that think that babys should still be aborted at the first year of life because by definition they aren't independents and don't have self-conscience.

I'm not sure many platforms are gonna let a Speaker talk about how we should legalice zoophilia with our own pets. Or Incest. Isn't that censure?

And yeah, those are radical examples... just like transexuality was 100 years ago. Or homosexuality. Or marring with a black person 300 years ago.

 jasper76 wrote:
In other words, if you don't accept my assertions as truth, and you dare to criticize what I say, you don't believe in free speech.

Regressivism.

No, that's not what I said, at all. I'm not complaining that people criticize what I say, I'm point out the blatant double standard by the "FREEZE PEACH TUMBLR FEMINAZI SJWS RUIN EVERYTHING" crowd. They claim to be in favor of free speech, insist that everyone should be allowed to speak, we should listen to their beliefs, and it's wrong to deny them a platform/pressure them to stop speaking/etc. But then when people they don't like exercise their right to free speech and say things like "you're a racist" suddenly it's endless whines about "censorship" and "regressive left" and doing exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing. If you suddenly stop believing in the value of free speech when someone says "you're a racist" then you don't genuinely believe in free speech, you just want people to value your opinions more.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest, total freedom of speech its not gonna exist ever. Because some things always carry social rejection even if they don't bring against you legal actions.

For example, try to talk in public about the advantages of phaedopilia. Or that guy, I don't remember his name, that think that babys should still be aborted at the first year of life because by definition they aren't independents and don't have self-conscience.

I'm not sure many platforms are gonna let a Speaker talk about how we should legalice zoophilia with our own pets. Or Incest. Isn't that censure?

And yeah, those are radical examples... just like transexuality was 100 years ago. Or homosexuality. Or marring with a black person 300 years ago.

It just bites my nugget when someone gets criticized for an assertion they make, then cries "you don't believe in free speech", as though criticism isn't itself a form of free speech, and as though the principle of free speech means we need to accept anything and everything a self-proclaimed authority says and shut up if we disagree.

This stuff is regressive because it seeks to take us back to a time where people were just expected to shut up and tow the line. Regressives want to be the new priests of society, and I'm not having it.

I aggre with you between rational people that think about what they said and when use things like political labels they know their meanings.

But the "general" public don't know how to debate. They don't want to debate against the arguments that people say to them, they just want to repeat the one thing they have learned to go against X group. Thats why you can't have a rational debate with people that spout SJW, Racist, Marxist, Bigot, etc... like a machinegun without thinking about it, just because they don't want to talk.

Now, we shoudln't go to the other extreme, and stop saying those words to people that fill the definition. Like... Bud Spencer? The one that receive the punch. The guy that sayed "Hail" to Trump, did the Nazi Salute to him, and talked about the Sterilization and Extermination of the Black People. To me those are red flags of a nazi, but some people just sayed "Omg you are calling him nazi because you are a SJW!"... and no. That guy was actually a nazi.

I don't say that I defend the punch he received (But, to be honest here, I'm never gonna defend the legalization of physical aggresion against people, but I can totally understand the fact that a actual nazi received a punch. The problem its that probably the one that punch him had 0 clue about the reasons why what that guy defend was despicable) just that we are entering a danger state where people that are actual X just shrug when they are defined as that as "You are calling me names!"

But I'm gonna ad, that you can't just say to someone "You are a Racist!" and just stop here. Normally, the proces its to say the arguments why he is a racist, and then defining him.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's also a racist statement, because his proposed security program can't make decisions based on religion (after all, it's very easy to lie about one's religion at a security checkpoint). It's based entirely on looking at someone, noticing that they have darker skin and look like they're from the middle east, and selecting them for extra security screening as a potential Islamic terrorist.

It may be racist.... but that doesn't make it wrong. If the answer to the question "are people with a certain skin colour more likely to attack an airport?" is "yes", then of course you should be searching them more frequently.

I don't know whether the answer to that question is yes or no, but if it's yes then mathematically they should also be searched more. A quick googling of recent plane hijackings does seem like most are not white skinned folk.

It's also sexist to search men more often than women. But guess what? Plane hijackers are more often than not men, so, yes, it's sexist but they should be searched more often otherwise security are wasting resources.

It's also ageist to search people of a certain age. But security risks usually aren't kids or the elderly.

When you see a white female being inspected by security you do tend to ask yourself "when was the last time one of those people bombed an airport, drove a truck in to a crowd or hijacked an aircraft?"

It's unfortunate, but law enforcement and security absolutely should be racist/sexist/ageist/ableist as long as criminals tend to be statistically more likely to be a certain race, a certain sex, a certain age and so on.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
In other words, if you don't accept my assertions as truth, and you dare to criticize what I say, you don't believe in free speech.

Regressivism.

No, that's not what I said, at all. I'm not complaining that people criticize what I say, I'm point out the blatant double standard by the "FREEZE PEACH TUMBLR FEMINAZI SJWS RUIN EVERYTHING" crowd. They claim to be in favor of free speech, insist that everyone should be allowed to speak, we should listen to their beliefs, and it's wrong to deny them a platform/pressure them to stop speaking/etc. But then when people they don't like exercise their right to free speech and say things like "you're a racist" suddenly it's endless whines about "censorship" and "regressive left" and doing exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing. If you suddenly stop believing in the value of free speech when someone says "you're a racist" then you don't genuinely believe in free speech, you just want people to value your opinions more.

Whining, as you say, about censorship is not a betrayal of free speech. If someone calls someone a "racist", and you believe it's a false accusation, it's completely within the realm of free speech to call them out on it. There's nothing wrong with wanting people to value your opinions more than others. You do it all the time.

For example, you want people to value your idea that Sam Harris is a racist. Someone doesn't agree with you. No big deal, talk it out.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's also a racist statement, because his proposed security program can't make decisions based on religion (after all, it's very easy to lie about one's religion at a security checkpoint). It's based entirely on looking at someone, noticing that they have darker skin and look like they're from the middle east, and selecting them for extra security screening as a potential Islamic terrorist.

It may be racist.... but that doesn't make it wrong. If the answer to the question "are people with a certain skin colour more likely to attack an airport?" is "yes", then of course you should be searching them more frequently.

I don't know whether the answer to that question is yes or no, but if it's yes then mathematically they should also be searched more. A quick googling of recent plane hijackings does seem like most are not white skinned folk.

It's also sexist to search men more often than women. But guess what? Plane hijackers are more often than not men, so, yes, it's sexist but they should be searched more often otherwise security are wasting resources.

It's also ageist to search people of a certain age. But security risks usually aren't kids or the elderly.

When you see a white female being inspected by security you do tend to ask yourself "when was the last time one of those people bombed an airport, drove a truck in to a crowd or hijacked an aircraft?"

It's unfortunate, but law enforcement and security absolutely should be racist/sexist/ageist/ableist as long as criminals tend to be statistically more likely to be a certain race, a certain sex, a certain age and so on.

The problem with this its... is the exact same reasoning feminist use to say that all men are potentially rapist. And they are right. Mathematically its true. So... what we should apply? Generalization and marginalisation supported by mathematics in the name of security? Did you aggre with that?

 Galas wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's also a racist statement, because his proposed security program can't make decisions based on religion (after all, it's very easy to lie about one's religion at a security checkpoint). It's based entirely on looking at someone, noticing that they have darker skin and look like they're from the middle east, and selecting them for extra security screening as a potential Islamic terrorist.

It may be racist.... but that doesn't make it wrong. If the answer to the question "are people with a certain skin colour more likely to attack an airport?" is "yes", then of course you should be searching them more frequently.

I don't know whether the answer to that question is yes or no, but if it's yes then mathematically they should also be searched more. A quick googling of recent plane hijackings does seem like most are not white skinned folk.

It's also sexist to search men more often than women. But guess what? Plane hijackers are more often than not men, so, yes, it's sexist but they should be searched more often otherwise security are wasting resources.

It's also ageist to search people of a certain age. But security risks usually aren't kids or the elderly.

When you see a white female being inspected by security you do tend to ask yourself "when was the last time one of those people bombed an airport, drove a truck in to a crowd or hijacked an aircraft?"

It's unfortunate, but law enforcement and security absolutely should be racist/sexist/ageist/ableist as long as criminals tend to be statistically more likely to be a certain race, a certain sex, a certain age and so on.

The problem with this its... is the exact same reasoning feminist use to say that all men are potentially rapist. And they are right. Mathematically its true. So... what we should apply? Generalization and marginalisation supported by mathematics in the name of security? Did you aggre with that?

the answer to your question is yes if you are pushing people through a check point looking for rapists. The answer is no if you are doing anything else. Feminism is a whole new form of ideal that is starting to lose its grasp as well. I just saw the Red Pill, and I will tell you I didn't even know there was a men's rights movement. So once again, going back to the beginning, context is important. Are all men potentially rapists no, are all rapists potentially men, maybe. So context is important. Blanket statements usually do not apply. I don't wanna get into the Islamist debate but I know that targeting someone who fits a profile may not be necessarily wrong in the correct context. Targeting all people of a certain profile because they fit that profile could be considered wrong. Its such a volatile subject to talk abotu with some. Talking about it is important, dismissing it by making accusations accomplishes nothing.

Anecdote as to why I believe in talking gak out with out labeling people who disagree with you. In OT forum here on Dakka I was engaged in a talk on urine testing people for welfare. I thought I had the facts, I had an opinion. I listened. talked it out with the ones who weren't being ass holes and I actually learned something. I have utterly changed my ideals completely around because of it. What I won't do is be bullied into thinking a way, or acquiescing someone's correctness .

Yeah, you are right in the bulling some people. Thats one of the reasons I, personally, don't like to put tags to people. And normally, if I end doing that its because I just don't want to talk more with that person. People that expect others to aggre with them after puting labels to others its being very naiveté.

And about your first pharagraph... maybe its because here its the 5a.m but I can't understand the meaning of the first sentence. (EDIT: Ok, not that you changed racist to rapist I can understand it )

But, can you explain, please, the difference between targetting someone who fits a profile and targeting all people of a certain profile? I can't see it. Not sarcastic or something like that. If you can put an example I'll be grateful!

EDIT: Nevermind, just down here AllSeingSkink explain it very well.

 Galas wrote:
The problem with this its... is the exact same reasoning feminist use to say that all men are potentially rapist. And they are right. Mathematically its true. So... what we should apply? Generalization and marginalisation supported by mathematics in the name of security? Did you aggre with that?

The problem with that is that you said ALL men. Just because men are statistically more likely to do something doesn't mean ALL of them are and it doesn't mean the general public should be discriminatory against men.

I think in the US it's something like 90% of murder offenders are male, so when investigating a murder that doesn't mean you automatically ignore women or automatically suspect all men, but you should absolutely be expecting it to be a man 9 times out of 10.

There's a difference between "people of a certain group are statistically more likely to be XXXXX" and "people of a certain group are all XXXXX and should all be blamed for XXXXX and be accused of XXXXXX and made to feel bad about XXXXX even if they have no involvement in XXXXX".

When talking specifically about law enforcement and security, you have to put your money where it's going to bear fruit. If someone gets mugged and says it was a young adult black male, you don't go make up a lineup for identification made of females, kids, white folks, asian folks, etc etc just to avoid being racist/sexist/ageist.... the same way as if most airliner related crime is men it makes little sense to try and be fair and do as many random searches on elderly women as young adult men.

It doesn't mean older women are absolved of suspicion and it doesn't mean all young men are likely to be criminals, the actual percentage is obviously going to be tiny, but you have to put your resources where the risks are otherwise you're just wasting them.

Of course it's racist/sexist/ageist to do so, but people act like those words ALWAYS have to be a bad thing instead of accepting that maybe at times they have a genuine place.

Yes, you are right AllSeeingSkink.

The thing I say about this its that yes, in teory "people of a certain group are statistically more likely to be XXXXX" its very different to "people of a certain group are all XXXXX and should all be blamed for XXXXX and be accused of XXXXXX and made to feel bad about XXXXX even if they have no involvement in XXXXX" but I think we can aggre that the aplication of the first reality its gonna let to the social realization of the second.

Thats why I find it not a easy choice. Just like violence against people with the religion of Shikism always go up when we have muslim terrorist attacks.

 Galas wrote:
Yes, you are right AllSeeingSkink.

The thing I say about this its that yes, in teory "people of a certain group are statistically more likely to be XXXXX" its very different to "people of a certain group are all XXXXX and should all be blamed for XXXXX and be accused of XXXXXX and made to feel bad about XXXXX even if they have no involvement in XXXXX" but I think we can aggre that the aplication of the first reality its gonna let to the social realization of the second.

Thats why I find it not a easy choice. Just like violence against people with the religion of Shikism always go up when we have muslim terrorist attacks.

Yes it does, and I fething hate it. Muslims don't wear turbines. As a warrior in my society, i actually respect Seiks. They are tough, and have taken it to the enemy with a swift courageous violence that we are even loathe to do, and that awesome. So I let people know all the time, its not the same, the ideals are not the same, its just not even close. More people saying that would help. Now if I saw a dude with a black rag over his head, claiming ancestry to mohamed then I would keep one eye open around him.

 jasper76 wrote:
Whining, as you say, about censorship is not a betrayal of free speech. If someone calls someone a "racist", and you believe it's a false accusation, it's completely within the realm of free speech to call them out on it. There's nothing wrong with wanting people to value your opinions more than others. You do it all the time.

For example, you want people to value your idea that Sam Harris is a racist. Someone doesn't agree with you. No big deal, talk it out.

Again, you keep missing the point. The "FREEZE PEACH" crowd constantly argues things like "calling someone a racist to shut them down is against the principles of freedom of speech", and then immediately turns around and says "STFU regressive left". That's blatant hypocrisy that makes a joke of the idea that they're noble and idealistic defenders of free speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
Now if I saw a dude with a black rag over his head, claiming ancestry to mohamed then I would keep one eye open around him.

Well, at least you're honest enough to admit your racism.

Hmmm... its not really racism. Here in Spain I know muslims with the skin more white than Snowhite.

I assume you can call it Islamophobia, but actually I have religionphobia, so I have no problem with recognize that I just despise all mayor monotheistic religions with equal rightenous fury
Islam is an Ideology, so personally I have no problem with people having prejudices against it, just like I'm gonna have prejudices against someone with a Swhastika in his arm. Now, if someone only has prejudices against Islamic people of black or brown skin, we have a point here.

 Galas wrote:
Hmmm... its not really racism. Here in Spain I know muslims with the skin more white than Snowhite.

I assume you can call it Islamophobia, but actually I have religionphobia, so I have no problem with recognize that I just despise all mayor monotheistic religions with equal rightenous fury
Islam is an Ideology, so personally I have no problem with people having prejudices against it, just like I'm gonna have prejudices against someone with a Swhastika in his arm. Now, if someone only has prejudices against Islamic people of black or brown skin, we have a point here.

You and me both. What I dislike more than religion is religion apologists. For example, if you are against rape culture, killing gays, killing atheists but are for the group that advocates those things, then it is possible you may be a bit misguided.

Edit.
Also islamaphobia is a misnomer.
Phobia meaning is here:
noun
1.a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

There is nothing irrational about wanting to avoid a group of people who's ideals may not be compatible with western civilization and who put people in charge who actively promote the killing of people for many extreme and unnecessary reasons.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
the same way as if most airliner related crime is men it makes little sense to try and be fair and do as many random searches on elderly women as young adult men.

Except it does, because that's what "random" means. It's a random search, you don't let fallible humans decide who should get less attention and tell the bad guys "if you look like this it's easier to get through security". If the more thorough searches are 100% random then there is no loophole to exploit, any attempt to get something through security has a X% chance to fail and reveal the plot.

It doesn't mean older women are absolved of suspicion and it doesn't mean all young men are likely to be criminals, the actual percentage is obviously going to be tiny, but you have to put your resources where the risks are otherwise you're just wasting them.

But that's exactly what Sam Harris is advocating: if an old white woman is selected for a search you override the random selection and wave her through because she shouldn't be a suspect. You have no reason to believe that this particular person is not a threat, they just don't match racist stereotypes about who criminals and terrorists are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
For example, if you are against rape culture, killing gays, killing atheists but are for the group that advocates those things, then it is possible you may be a bit misguided.

And this is exactly the problem. You're talking about a religion with ~1.7 billion members, and many different factions with their own varying beliefs, as a single monolithic group. The people who are advocating violence against gay people, atheists, etc, are a minority, especially in the US. So it's entirely possible to criticize out Islamophobic views and behavior aimed at the majority of Muslims who don't advocate violence without approving of the minority that are violent extremists.

Well, just like Christianism, but I think the religion debate its not to have it here. This is about censorship, etc... but wow. 18 pages. This has gonne for long!

 Galas wrote:
Well, just like Christianism, but I think the religion debate its not to have it here. This is about censorship, etc... but wow. 18 pages. This has gonne for long!

Yea, all long threads tend to go a bit haywire, but lets get this back on track shall we?

 redleger wrote:


the answer to your question is yes if you are pushing people through a check point looking for rapists. The answer is no if you are doing anything else. Feminism is a whole new form of ideal that is starting to lose its grasp as well. I just saw the Red Pill, and I will tell you I didn't even know there was a men's rights movement. So once again, going back to the beginning, context is important. Are all men potentially rapists no, are all rapists potentially men, maybe. So context is important. Blanket statements usually do not apply. I don't wanna get into the Islamist debate but I know that targeting someone who fits a profile may not be necessarily wrong in the correct context. Targeting all people of a certain profile because they fit that profile could be considered wrong. Its such a volatile subject to talk abotu with some. Talking about it is important, dismissing it by making accusations accomplishes nothing.

Anecdote as to why I believe in talking gak out with out labeling people who disagree with you. In OT forum here on Dakka I was engaged in a talk on urine testing people for welfare. I thought I had the facts, I had an opinion. I listened. talked it out with the ones who weren't being ass holes and I actually learned something. I have utterly changed my ideals completely around because of it. What I won't do is be bullied into thinking a way, or acquiescing someone's correctness .

Are all men are potentially rapists? yes. It's not a happy thought, but we all have the potential to do it. It's also true though that all women are potentially rapists.

are all rapists potentially men? no. While we all have the potential to do it, most of us don't. so when the question becomes who has done it, the answer can not be all. Anytime you see the world 'all' in a question about who's done something, the obvious answer is 'no'

this is one of the things the MRA goes on about, when it comes to rape it's almost always presented as male on female. Yet when you start looking into the facts we find:

https://www.quora.com/Which-gender-commits-more-rapes-by-numbers-men-or-women-Need-statistics-and-data

Of the survey respondents who reported being perpetrators, 48 percent were female and 52 percent were male.

that's right, when you see numbers like 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime, it's a coin flip on the sex of the offender.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 redleger wrote:


the answer to your question is yes if you are pushing people through a check point looking for rapists. The answer is no if you are doing anything else. Feminism is a whole new form of ideal that is starting to lose its grasp as well. I just saw the Red Pill, and I will tell you I didn't even know there was a men's rights movement. So once again, going back to the beginning, context is important. Are all men potentially rapists no, are all rapists potentially men, maybe. So context is important. Blanket statements usually do not apply. I don't wanna get into the Islamist debate but I know that targeting someone who fits a profile may not be necessarily wrong in the correct context. Targeting all people of a certain profile because they fit that profile could be considered wrong. Its such a volatile subject to talk abotu with some. Talking about it is important, dismissing it by making accusations accomplishes nothing.

Anecdote as to why I believe in talking gak out with out labeling people who disagree with you. In OT forum here on Dakka I was engaged in a talk on urine testing people for welfare. I thought I had the facts, I had an opinion. I listened. talked it out with the ones who weren't being ass holes and I actually learned something. I have utterly changed my ideals completely around because of it. What I won't do is be bullied into thinking a way, or acquiescing someone's correctness .

Are all men are potentially rapists? yes. It's not a happy thought, but we all have the potential to do it. It's also true though that all women are potentially rapists.

are all rapists potentially men? no. While we all have the potential to do it, most of us don't. so when the question becomes who has done it, the answer can not be all. Anytime you see the world 'all' in a question about who's done something, the obvious answer is 'no'

this is one of the things the MRA goes on about, when it comes to rape it's almost always presented as male on female. Yet when you start looking into the facts we find:

https://www.quora.com/Which-gender-commits-more-rapes-by-numbers-men-or-women-Need-statistics-and-data

Of the survey respondents who reported being perpetrators, 48 percent were female and 52 percent were male.

that's right, when you see numbers like 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime, it's a coin flip on the sex of the offender.

Hmm, maybe I didnt word it right. Maybe I'm way off base, IDK. What I was attempting to say was that although the potiential in all men to be rapists could be argued to exist, my assertion was that all rapists are possibly men , but they could also possibly be women. So in other words either one is possible, there is no absolute.

I have not yet begun to read up on the men rights movement, but I tell you there was some interesting stuff in there. I read up on the director and she fact check and did a lot of due diligence. She even was de-funded because she changed directions on the initial intent of the movie. She started looking into the movement to prove they were all misogynistic women haters, and ended up leaving the project with some different views, and questioning what she thought were absolute truths.

I can see either side of the coin there.

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, at least you're honest enough to admit your racism.

What 'race' is Muslim? Because quite a few of them are Pacific Islanders, black, or Arab. Even some white ones.

sirlynchmob wrote:



that's right, when you see numbers like 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime, it's a coin flip on the sex of the offender.

Actually when I see numbers like that, I cross-reference them with the FBI and DOJ statistics, and realize it's a load of crap based on a call-in survey at a university with no screening or evidence required, complete with murky criteria for 'sexual assault' (it was not 'rape').

I was a bit harsh, didn't read your entire statement. I need to lay off the Boozehammer.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
the same way as if most airliner related crime is men it makes little sense to try and be fair and do as many random searches on elderly women as young adult men.

Except it does, because that's what "random" means. It's a random search, you don't let fallible humans decide who should get less attention and tell the bad guys "if you look like this it's easier to get through security". If the more thorough searches are 100% random then there is no loophole to exploit, any attempt to get something through security has a X% chance to fail and reveal the plot.

Obviously "random" searches aren't "random", they're based on some determination of risk.

If you "randomly" search 100 in 2000 people, you have a 19 out of 20 chance of missing the 1 who is actually a danger.

If you take that 2000 people and eliminate all the 75% who belong to groups that are statistically unlikely to be a danger, you increase your chance of catching the person who is a danger from 1 in 20 to 1 in 5.

If the 75% start presenting themselves as a danger then you'll have the situation of equality where every group is equally dangerous and thus each person has equal suspicion, but until that time you're wasting your time going after the elderly white lady when elderly white ladies aren't known to be a danger to airliners.

It doesn't mean older women are absolved of suspicion and it doesn't mean all young men are likely to be criminals, the actual percentage is obviously going to be tiny, but you have to put your resources where the risks are otherwise you're just wasting them.

But that's exactly what Sam Harris is advocating: if an old white woman is selected for a search you override the random selection and wave her through because she shouldn't be a suspect. You have no reason to believe that this particular person is not a threat, they just don't match racist stereotypes about who criminals and terrorists are.

Sam Harris did use the example of security where you DO look at everybody, but without the pretence of being fair. So yes, you still LOOK at the old white women, but unless the old white woman is doing something more suspicious than the young adult non-white male you don't waste time on them. Sure, if the old white woman is doing something suspicious you can single her out.

When I see the white mother trying to control her kids being pulled up for a security search at an airport I do have to ask myself what in the hell she managed to do to raise security's suspicion of her above someone like myself.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
the same way as if most airliner related crime is men it makes little sense to try and be fair and do as many random searches on elderly women as young adult men.

Except it does, because that's what "random" means. It's a random search, you don't let fallible humans decide who should get less attention and tell the bad guys "if you look like this it's easier to get through security". If the more thorough searches are 100% random then there is no loophole to exploit, any attempt to get something through security has a X% chance to fail and reveal the plot.

It doesn't mean older women are absolved of suspicion and it doesn't mean all young men are likely to be criminals, the actual percentage is obviously going to be tiny, but you have to put your resources where the risks are otherwise you're just wasting them.

But that's exactly what Sam Harris is advocating: if an old white woman is selected for a search you override the random selection and wave her through because she shouldn't be a suspect. You have no reason to believe that this particular person is not a threat, they just don't match racist stereotypes about who criminals and terrorists are.

Obviously "random" searches aren't "random", they're based on some determination of risk.

If you "randomly" search 100 in 2000 people, you have a 19 out of 20 chance of missing the 1 who is actually a danger.

If you take that 2000 people and eliminate all the 75% who belong to groups that are statistically unlikely to be a danger, you increase your chance of catching the person who is a danger from 1 in 20 to 1 in 5.

If the 75% start presenting themselves as a danger then you'll have the situation of equality where every group is equally dangerous and thus each person has equal suspicion, but until that time you're wasting your time going after the elderly white lady when elderly white ladies aren't known to be a danger to airliners.

I don't think any amount of logic or attempt at civilized discourse is going to change his views, as he is not open to listen. Lets just move on from that particular pile of poop. (by poop I am referring to the subject)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Obviously "random" searches aren't "random", they're based on some determination of risk.

If you "randomly" search 100 in 2000 people, you have a 19 out of 20 chance of missing the 1 who is actually a danger.

If you take that 2000 people and eliminate all the 75% who belong to groups that are statistically unlikely to be a danger, you increase your chance of catching the person who is a danger from 1 in 20 to 1 in 5.

If the 75% start presenting themselves as a danger then you'll have the situation of equality where every group is equally dangerous and thus each person has equal suspicion, but until that time you're wasting your time going after the elderly white lady when elderly white ladies aren't known to be a danger to airliners.

Except it doesn't work that way because once you have a policy of non-random searches your potential threat knows what they have to do to get into the "safe" category. For example, in a random search system there's no benefit to trying to pay an elderly white woman to carry your hijacking weapons through security (and delivering them inside the secure area) because she has the same 100/2000 chance of being caught as the actual hijackers. But under your proposed system non-random system the elderly white woman has zero chance of being caught because you've declared that she isn't going to be searched. So now the attack problem changes from the difficult "get the weapons through security without ever being caught, since having a single attacker selected for a random search reveals the plot" to "find someone who is in the 'do not search' group and pay them to take your stuff through security".

And it's not like terrorists don't understand the concept here. There's a reason the 9/11 hijackers went through security wearing middle-class office clothes, looking like ordinary business travelers, and avoided anything that could possibly suggest "Muslim extremist".

Sam Harris did use the example of security where you DO look at everybody, but without the pretence of being fair. So yes, you still LOOK at the old white women, but unless the old white woman is doing something more suspicious than the young adult non-white male you don't waste time on them. Sure, if the old white woman is doing something suspicious you can single her out.

That doesn't make any sense. You can't simultaneously say "don't waste time on them" and "you still look at them". If you're giving the old white woman the full security check, and not just waving her through because she doesn't look like a threat, then you aren't saving any meaningful effort. In fact, you've probably made things harder for yourself, because you have to evaluate each passenger as a threat and make judgement calls instead of just following the standard procedures.

When I see the white mother trying to control her kids being pulled up for a security search at an airport I do have to ask myself what in the hell she managed to do to raise security's suspicion of her above someone like myself.

Again, the whole point of random searches is that they're random. RNG says that a passenger gets searched, so you search them. There's no vulnerability in the system that you can exploit by trying to make yourself not look suspicious. The white mother with kids got picked by RNG, so she gets searched, period. Otherwise you create a situation where terrorists use misbehaving kids as cover to get lower security attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
I don't think any amount of logic or attempt at civilized discourse is going to change his views, as he is not open to listen. Lets just move on from that particular pile of poop. (by poop I am referring to the subject)

Hypocrisy, thy name is redleger. What happened to this idea that insulting someone and dismissing them as not worth of discussion is a horrible thing to do and an attack on free speech? It sure seems like you just did the exact thing that you accuse the "regressive left" of doing, nicely proving my point about the double standard from the FREEZE PEACH crowd.

I'd search 1 in 7 middle eastern ethnicity presenting males and 1 in 20 random by lottery of everyone else.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Obviously "random" searches aren't "random", they're based on some determination of risk.

If you "randomly" search 100 in 2000 people, you have a 19 out of 20 chance of missing the 1 who is actually a danger.

If you take that 2000 people and eliminate all the 75% who belong to groups that are statistically unlikely to be a danger, you increase your chance of catching the person who is a danger from 1 in 20 to 1 in 5.

If the 75% start presenting themselves as a danger then you'll have the situation of equality where every group is equally dangerous and thus each person has equal suspicion, but until that time you're wasting your time going after the elderly white lady when elderly white ladies aren't known to be a danger to airliners.

Except it doesn't work that way because once you have a policy of non-random searches your potential threat knows what they have to do to get into the "safe" category. For example, in a random search system there's no benefit to trying to pay an elderly white woman to carry your hijacking weapons through security (and delivering them inside the secure area) because she has the same 100/2000 chance of being caught as the actual hijackers. But under your proposed system non-random system the elderly white woman has zero chance of being caught because you've declared that she isn't going to be searched. So now the attack problem changes from the difficult "get the weapons through security without ever being caught, since having a single attacker selected for a random search reveals the plot" to "find someone who is in the 'do not search' group and pay them to take your stuff through security".

And it's not like terrorists don't understand the concept here. There's a reason the 9/11 hijackers went through security wearing middle-class office clothes, looking like ordinary business travelers, and avoided anything that could possibly suggest "Muslim extremist".

Sam Harris did use the example of security where you DO look at everybody, but without the pretence of being fair. So yes, you still LOOK at the old white women, but unless the old white woman is doing something more suspicious than the young adult non-white male you don't waste time on them. Sure, if the old white woman is doing something suspicious you can single her out.

That doesn't make any sense. You can't simultaneously say "don't waste time on them" and "you still look at them". If you're giving the old white woman the full security check, and not just waving her through because she doesn't look like a threat, then you aren't saving any meaningful effort. In fact, you've probably made things harder for yourself, because you have to evaluate each passenger as a threat and make judgement calls instead of just following the standard procedures.

When I see the white mother trying to control her kids being pulled up for a security search at an airport I do have to ask myself what in the hell she managed to do to raise security's suspicion of her above someone like myself.

Again, the whole point of random searches is that they're random. RNG says that a passenger gets searched, so you search them. There's no vulnerability in the system that you can exploit by trying to make yourself not look suspicious. The white mother with kids got picked by RNG, so she gets searched, period. Otherwise you create a situation where terrorists use misbehaving kids as cover to get lower security attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
I don't think any amount of logic or attempt at civilized discourse is going to change his views, as he is not open to listen. Lets just move on from that particular pile of poop. (by poop I am referring to the subject)

Hypocrisy, thy name is redleger. What happened to this idea that insulting someone and dismissing them as not worth of discussion is a horrible thing to do and an attack on free speech? It sure seems like you just did the exact thing that you accuse the "regressive left" of doing, nicely proving my point about the double standard from the FREEZE PEACH crowd.

Dismissing someone as not worth talking with is not an assault on free speech. In fact talk away, I want you to, because you have the right, I have the right to disengage from you since you are accusing me of being a racist with no fact to back them up(You think you are presenting facts but religions and people are not the same)

 redleger wrote:
Dismissing someone as not worth talking with is not an assault on free speech.

In your own words:

It is a fair point, agree or disagree with it that's fine but it's not racist, and instead of having the conversation about it, saying he is racist is literally the regressive tactic.

You complain about the "regressive left" calling him a racist instead of having the conversation about it, but then you turn around and dismsiss me the same way instead of having the conversation about it. Hypocrisy, thy name is redleger.

you are accusing me of being a racist with no fact to back them up(You think you are presenting facts but religions and people are not the same)

In your own words:

Now if I saw a dude with a black rag over his head, claiming ancestry to mohamed then I would keep one eye open around him.

And seriously, if "I'm not technically racist, I'm just bigoted against Muslims" is the best you have to offer in your defense, well, I think your character (or lack thereof) is well established.