On Wed, 05 May 2010 13:25:05 -0400, Warp wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps, but I'm trying to explain things.

>   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.

I'm using the standard American English term used in law enforcement 
discussions pertaining to "racial profiling".

ie:

racial profiling n. orig. and chiefly U.S. selection for scrutiny by law 
enforcement based on race or ethnicity rather than on behavioural or 
evidentiary criteria (cf. offender profiling n. at OFFENDER n. 
Compounds); (later, in extended use) discrimination or stereotyping on 
racial or ethnic grounds.

(From the Oxford English Dictionary)

So that should make it clear (hopefully) what definition I'm using in 
this discussion.  Perhaps I assumed you were using the same definition 
since you were using the concept (or seemed to be) when talking about 
profiling based on ethnicity.

>> 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.)

Fair enough.  My mind reading skills are not terribly good, so until this 
point, I had no idea that you had knowledge about it being a hot button 
issue here or the historical reasons for why.

>> >> 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.

To the effect that you don't 'see' race, by which I mean that you 
consider it inconsequential (not that there are no races).

FWIW, I also think it is inconsequential - I try not to make judgments 
based on race, ethnicity, religion, or other such factors.  Sadly, there 
are lots of people around the world who do.  That's just it, though - it 
is inconsequential, so shouldn't be used as a means of determining 
probable cause for the commission of a non-specific crime (by which I 
mean time/location of the commission).

Jim

Post a reply to this message