Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 07:32:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> >   The problem is that when you say "profiling based on race", you are
> > implying some kind of prejudiced discrimination and abuse based on race.
[...]

> 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.

  A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

  That's kind of my point: We are using different meanings for the term
"profiling". Your meaning assumes discrimination and prejudice. Mine
doesn't. That's the reason for this back-and-forth argument which isn't
really going nowhere.

> 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.

  I know perfectly well that it's such a "hot button" over there. And it's
precisely why I wondered in the beginning whether the opposition to that
law was based on "racial profiling, baaad", or whether it has some logical
reasons. (Again: No need to respond. I'm explaining, not asking.)

> >> 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.

  To what effect? I think I don't understand what "you don't see race"
means. If it means "there are no races", then that's not what I have said.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message