Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
> > distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
> > Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
> > what I'm writing.

> OK. Why would you even use ethnicity as an example, and reject or ignore 
> other examples?

  Why does it matter what was used as an example? What does it matter if it
was ethnicity, weight or show size? Ethnicity happened to be part of the
original discussion.

  I'm not rejecting nor ignoring other examples. I have *given* other
examples, such as profiling based on gender or vehicle type. Of course
you dismissed those examples as invalid, and are now claiming that I'm
"rejecting or ignoring other examples".

  I think your problem is that you are too obsessed with ethnicity. Whenever
someone talks about ethnicity, it must always be "racism".

> And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing 
> feature, which happens to be probable cause?

  And why would you invent arguments I have neved presented?

> That's why I'm confused.

  It certainly seems so.

> And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just 
> using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood 
> they'll behave in a certain way.

  "Racism" is exclusively used as a negative and derogatory term. There are
no neutral uses in practice.

> >> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
> >> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
> >> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
> > 
> >   What the fuck are you talking about?

> Sorry. You said "outlandish", not "outrageous."

  Yes, "outlandish" as in "strange", something which confuses because it
seems so out-of-place. In this case referring to an argument which seems
so detached that it's hard to understand how it's connected to anything.

> >   And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
> > do with anything?

> I quote:  (You posted at 4:58 by my clock, to help you find it.)

>  > > And you still didn't answer whether you'd agree that it might be more
>  > > efficient to target people in churches than people who look central
>  > > american. :-)

>  >  I found it so incoherent and outlandish that I didn't know what to say.
>  > Maybe that's what you were after.

  Sorry, I fail to see any outrage there.

> Why did you say that targeting people in churches is outlandish and 
> incoherent even if most illegals are christian, while it's perfectly 
> reasonable to target ethnicities if most illegals are of a particular ethnicity?

  I didn't say that "targeting people in churches is outlandish and
incoherent". I said that your question was so strange that I had hard
time understanding its connection to anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling
> >   based
> > on how someone looks like?
> > 
> >   I really think this is political correctness getting in the way of
> > criminal investigation.

> No, but being brown isn't a crime.  What about that do you not understand?

  I didn't say being brown is a crime, nor did I anywhere even imply that.

  I don't understand your response.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   So if you go to a grocery store and use your credit card to buy
> >   something
> > and they want to check your ID to make sure you are the real owner of
> > the card, are they presuming you guilty until you prove you are not? Or
> > is this simply a security measure which, on the grand scale, benefits
> > you as well as everybody else?
> > 
> >   If you enter the country and at the airport they check your baggage
> >   using
> > an X-ray machine, are they presuming you guilty? Or is this just a
> > security measure?
> > 
> >   If a police officer asks for your ID to check that you have the right
> >   to
> > live in the country, is he presuming you guilty, or is it just a
> > security measure?

> He's presuming you're guilty, because he has to have probable cause to 
> pull you over to ask if you're legally in the country.  Being brown isn't 
> sufficient.

  Well, that was kind of my point: If the store clerk is not assuming your
guilt, nor is the guard at the airport, what makes a policeman checking
someone's ID different?

> >   You make it sound like in that last case the situation is different,
> >   for
> > some reason.

> It is.  You fail to see it or understand it.

  I suppose you are right: I fail to see the difference.

> >> Based. On. Skin. Colour.
> > 
> >   Why are people so damn obsessed with skin color? Criminal profiling
> >   does
> > not have anything to do with racism. Skin color is just one feature
> > which can be used for profiling.

> Not in the US, not legally.  That's the point.

  You mean that in the US the police can construct criminal profiles on
everything else *except* skin color? Hair color is ok, as well as eye
color, the color of clothes... but not skin color?

  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but if that really is so, it seems
like a real hindrance to police work, in the name of political correctness.

> >   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
> > to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
> > the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
> > concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
> > Nobody is crying sexism because of that.

> Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.

  You mean there are people who are complaining about the police investigating
only males in rape cases?

> >   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
> > profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
> > ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
> > feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
> > toilet. Sheesh.

> You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs, 
> ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors.  Just like you can't use 
> those to make hiring decisions.

  Ok, I think we are using a different meaning of the word "profiling".
It's possible I have understood the term wrongly.

  I have heard about criminal profilers on the police force who try to
get a picture of what kind of person the criminal might be based on the
available clues, and this can include things like ethnicity (such as
for example "serial killers are typically white middle-aged males"),
but maybe that's just in TV series and movies?

  If making a criminal profile based on ethnicity is illegal, does that
mean that the police cannot say things like "serial killers are typically
white males"?

> Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly 
> to provide proof that you're here legally.  Including in the middle of 
> the night, just for safety's sake.

  I assume you are exaggerating. I have hard time believing there are
enough policemen to do that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> No, it's not about offending people, it's about the fact that in the US 
> the constitution specifically prohibits the police from pulling people 
> over "just because".

  Well, then it's different here, as I have mentioned with the traffic
police.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:39:47 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   I said that if the vast majority of illegal immigrants can be
> >   distinguished
> > by how they look, it makes sense to concentrate more on those people
> > than on people who are much less likely to be illegal immigrants.

> And yet you don't think that this is racist.  Amazing.

  I suppose you could technically call it "racism", AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES
ALREADY.

  I fear that you are projecting your notions of how "racist people" behave
and what they think on me, for the sole reason that I dared to mention
ethnicity as something which could be used for illegal immigration
statistics. As ironic as that may sound, I call that prejudice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I fear that you are projecting your notions of how "racist people" behave
> and what they think on me, for the sole reason that I dared to mention
> ethnicity as something which could be used for illegal immigration
> statistics. As ironic as that may sound, I call that prejudice.

  Btw, do you know what I find both interesting and sad?

  I consider myself to be the exact opposite of a racist in the sense that
I *couldn't care less* about "race" or skin color or anything. To me it's
exactly as important and irrelevant as hair color, eye color, height, weight
or whatever. If I meet someone, or see someone working on a store, or
whatever, skin color and ethnicity is completely irrelevant to me. I couldn't
care less. At most it can be a curiosity like someone with a strange hair
color or a big nose: Curious, but irrelevant.

  I suppose one could also call me *insensitive* in this respect of not
caring. To me talking about people's ethnicities is exactly as relevant or
irrelevant (depending on context) as talking about their nationality,
gender, age, education, shoe size or favorite food. It matters exactly
as much, no more, no less. I have absolutely no qualms about using
ethnicity as a point of some argument, as I would use anything else, such
as gender, age, religion or political affiliation. I don't care. To me it's
all the same.

  So what's so interesting and sad about this? That if you really, truly
don't care about ethnicity and consider it exactly as important or unimportant
as anything else, and have no qualms in talking about it, be it positively
or negatively, you are usually considered a racist, and all kind of prejudices
about what you really think are assumed of you.

  If people want to call me insensitive, then I suppose that's fair. I suppose
I *am* insensitive because I just don't care. But calling me racist just
because I don't care is plain stupid (not to mention insulting). People who
call me racist are prejudiced, which is kind of ironic.

  But that's the modern western culture today. Either you are a devoted
anti-racism activist, or a white-power supremacist. There is no middle
ground. Especially there is no "I don't care" option.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Well, that was kind of my point: If the store clerk is not assuming your
> guilt, nor is the guard at the airport, what makes a policeman checking
> someone's ID different?

Because it's not your behavior triggering it.

If you don't want the clerk to see your ID, pay cash or walk away.

If you don't want your bags inspected, don't take bags on the plane, or 
don't take a bag at all.

How do you avoid having the policeman ask for proof of legal residence? And 
do you get to walk away if he asks and you refuse?

I can't believe you're not seeing the difference here.

>> Not in the US, not legally.  That's the point.
> 
>   You mean that in the US the police can construct criminal profiles on
> everything else *except* skin color? Hair color is ok, as well as eye
> color, the color of clothes... but not skin color?

No.  Features irrelevant to the commission of crimes aren't to be used to 
stop people.

Note that there's a difference between profiling in the "serial killers are 
more often white males" case than in the "pull over white males and ask if 
they killed someone" case.  The difference is that in the first, you're 
*reducing* the number of innocent people you bother, and in the second 
you're *increasing* the number of innocent people you bother.

>   Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but if that really is so, it seems
> like a real hindrance to police work, in the name of political correctness.

No, in the name of reducing racism.

>>>   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
>>> to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
>>> the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
>>> concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
>>> Nobody is crying sexism because of that.
> 
>> Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.
> 
>   You mean there are people who are complaining about the police investigating
> only males in rape cases?
> 
>>>   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
>>> profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
>>> ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
>>> feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
>>> toilet. Sheesh.
> 
>> You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs, 
>> ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors.  Just like you can't use 
>> those to make hiring decisions.
> 
>   Ok, I think we are using a different meaning of the word "profiling".
> It's possible I have understood the term wrongly.
> 
>   I have heard about criminal profilers on the police force who try to
> get a picture of what kind of person the criminal might be based on the
> available clues, and this can include things like ethnicity (such as
> for example "serial killers are typically white middle-aged males"),
> but maybe that's just in TV series and movies?
> 
>   If making a criminal profile based on ethnicity is illegal, does that
> mean that the police cannot say things like "serial killers are typically
> white males"?
> 
>> Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly 
>> to provide proof that you're here legally.  Including in the middle of 
>> the night, just for safety's sake.
> 
>   I assume you are exaggerating. I have hard time believing there are
> enough policemen to do that.
> 


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You said
>>>   Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
>>> the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
>>> of them by how they look.
> 
>> This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans 
>> in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to 
>> catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican, 
>> while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you 
>> investigate all the europeans.
> 
>   I find it amusing how you manage to both claim that the math says it's
> not possible to use statistics to catch illegals more efficiently *and*
> then you present how you can, in fact, use statistics to catch them more
> efficiently.

No, I'm saying that the math you presented is flawed.  One more time:

You can't use the math of proportions of different subgroups of illegals to 
target which unknowns you question. You must use different proportions of 
subgroups of illegals relative to subgroups of legals.  Once you do that, 
there's no reason to favor one particular way of splitting the total 
population into subgroups over another way of splitting the total population 
into subgroups.

>   But at least you admitted that my math was not flawed, although a bit
> indirectly. "This is factually incorrect if ..." means "that example is
> correct, but if you have this another situation, you need a different
> formula".

Except that the different formula applies to things other than ethnicity. 
There are huge numbers of correlations you can make, and not knowing which 
is accurate will cause you to fail to apply the math right.

>   Bottom line is, it's just like I said earlier: You are taking my simple
> example, showing that the same formula does not work on a more complex
> situation (and even giving a more working replacement), and then somehow
> arguing that the math is showing that statistics can *not* be used for
> this purpose. Still a non-sequitur.

Except I also gave you the *best* formula, which is to *not* check randomly, 
but rather check based on the statistical relationships with the *best* 
power to make policing more efficient. And you equated that with giving up 
completely.

>> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?
>   Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?

Outrageous and outlandish have very similar meanings here. I simply 
misremembered which word you used.

>   Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
> somewhere.

Now who is picking nits?

>> Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common 
>> (usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.
> 
>   And who is making such assumptions here?

Every example of policing people for illegal immigration has spoken about 
ethnicity.

Had you simply said "police should use statistical models to figure out 
which possible suspect is most likely breaking the law and concentrate on 
those," I would have said "They already do. It's called Probably Cause. And 
the current law in Arizona is targeted at preventing police from doing that."

>>>   One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
>>> curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
>>> look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok. 
> 
>> We're not talking about that here.
> 
>   Making ancillary comments on things is not allowed?

I'm just trying to prevent confusion.

>>> I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
>>> *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
>>> purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".
> 
>> Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that 
>> leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal 
>> aliens."
> 
>   At least you somehow admit understanding what I'm writing. 

But that wasn't what you were writing before. If this was what you were 
writing in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing, if you agreed that 
"people of a certain group" are "people for whom you have probable cause."

Otherwise, it's prejudice, and if based on genetics/ethnicity, racism.

>> It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against 
>> citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving 
>> ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)
> 
>   Well, I suppose citizens get what they want, even if it wouldn't always be
> on their best interest.

Given the history of *this* country, I'm pretty sure it's in *our* best 
interests.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Why does it matter what was used as an example? What does it matter if it
> was ethnicity, weight or show size? Ethnicity happened to be part of the
> original discussion.

All of those examples have nothing to do with whether you're in the country 
legally.

>   I think your problem is that you are too obsessed with ethnicity. Whenever
> someone talks about ethnicity, it must always be "racism".

Not at all.

>> And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing 
>> feature, which happens to be probable cause?
> 
>   And why would you invent arguments I have neved presented?

OK. At this point, you're again not answering the questions that would clear 
up the confusion, so have a good one.

>> And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just 
>> using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood 
>> they'll behave in a certain way.
> 
>   "Racism" is exclusively used as a negative and derogatory term. There are
> no neutral uses in practice.

Yet you're suggesting exactly that there are neutral and even beneficial 
uses of the *act* of racism.

>>>> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
>>>> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
>>>> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
>>>   What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
>> Sorry. You said "outlandish", not "outrageous."
> 
>   Yes, "outlandish" as in "strange", something which confuses because it
> seems so out-of-place. In this case referring to an argument which seems
> so detached that it's hard to understand how it's connected to anything.

It seemed pretty obvious to me.

First, you suggest that if many illegals are of a particular ethnicity, then 
police should concentrate on that enthnicity when doing checks of illegals. 
I ask whether, if many illegals are of a particular religion, police should 
concentrate on that religion when doing checks for illegals. You refer to 
that as "so detached it's hard to understand how it's connected."

Often, around racists (and not to imply you are one), their racism seems 
perfectly normal and rational, just like around religious people their 
prejudices against other religions seem perfectly normal and rational. When 
one substitutes something other than "race" into the same formula, the 
racist will say "Why in the world do you think that's anything similar?"

>> Why did you say that targeting people in churches is outlandish and 
>> incoherent even if most illegals are christian, while it's perfectly 
>> reasonable to target ethnicities if most illegals are of a particular ethnicity?
> 
>   I didn't say that "targeting people in churches is outlandish and
> incoherent". I said that your question was so strange that I had hard
> time understanding its connection to anything.

My question was about targeting people in churches.

OK, I think I'm done here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Once you do that, there's no reason to favor one particular way of 
> splitting the total population into subgroups over another way of 
> splitting the total population into subgroups.

Oh, and the only reason to favor using ethnicity over (say) religion, the 
kind of house you live in, the kind of job you work at, etc, is that it's 
easy to look at someone and see their ethnicity, and not so easy to look and 
see their religion, the size of their house, etc.

Which is why people who *are* racists think it's perfectly reasonable to 
base laws on that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message