On Wed, 05 May 2010 07:32:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's because you keep saying "profiling based on race isn't a
>> problem"
> 
>   The problem is that when you say "profiling based on race", you are
> implying some kind of prejudiced discrimination and abuse based on race.
> When I say "profiling based on race" I mean "making statistics based on
> race, and *if* those statistics could be used to do something more
> efficiently, then do it". That doesn't imply discrimination nor racist
> prejudice.
> 
>   You can argue that race can *not* be used as a profiling factor to
> distribute police resources more efficiently. Well, my answer to that
> is: If that's so, then don't use race as a profiling factor, it's that
> simple. My *point* is, however, that *if* race *could* be used to catch
> criminals more efficiently, then it would make sense to do so. (But I do
> understand that many people could get offended by that, so there are
> also practical reasons why it cannot be done.)
> 
>   Personally I don't see race as such a holy element that must be
>   protected
> from such things. It's no different from gender, age or any other
> personal feature.

Perhaps if you lived in or grew up in a country where racism was pretty 
extreme and practiced not just by "normal" people but also by law 
enforcement, your view would be different.  It's not been so long ago 
that in parts of the US, just being black could get you killed by so-
called "vigilante justice" and those who were supposed to actually 
enforce the law would look the other way.

Go do a little reading on Jim Crow laws (which doesn't get into lynchings 
and the like, but is a starting point for understanding why institutional 
use of race as a differentiator is a problem here), for example - then 
maybe you'll understand better why it's such a hot button over here.

>> and then claim - quite counterintuitively, that you don't see race.
> 
>   I have made no such claim. (Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?)
> 
>   What I have claimed is that to me race is exactly as important and
> unimportant as any other personal factor, such as gender, age, shoe size
> or hair color. I don't care about race any more or any less than about
> any of those other things. It's all the same.

Well, I could go back and find where you seemed to be saying that, but I 
don't have the time at the moment to do so.  I could swear, though, that 
you said something to that effect.

>> >> What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Plain and simple. 
>> >> You simply refuse to acknowledge that you play a role in this
>> >> failure to communicate, and that everyone ELSE must be stupid.
>> > 
>> >   See, here we go again. You are putting words in my mouth. Words I
>> >   have
>> > never said. This is your idea of "communication"?
> 
>> Oh FFS, I AM NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
> 
>   You wrote quite directly above, that in my opinion "everyone else must
> be stupid". I have not said nor implied any such thing. If that's not
> putting words in my mouth, then what is?

It's a logical inference (IMO) from the way you write, at least, that's 
how you come across.  You may not *write* those specific words, but when 
you say "why do I feel like I'm repeating myself", you come across as 
implying "god, you're stupid".

Jim

Post a reply to this message