Warp wrote:
> No matter how
> clearly I try to put it, it doesn't seem to matter.

As I said, I understand what you're saying. I'm giving you the answer:

> In other words, my question was whether
> people are objecting to the law purely because they have an automatic
> aversion to anything that makes a distinction between races, or whether
> there are *logical* reasons to oppose the law.

There are logical reasons to oppose the law. The number of false negatives 
found by avoiding investigating those who lack feature X is unrelated to the 
number of false positives caused by investigating those who possess feature X.


Do you understand that? Because you still seem to be asking the question, 
instead of going "Oh! I see now!  I no longer have to ask the question, 
because you answered it."

It's not simply because the profile is based on race. It's because no 
profile will work, period, when you're talking about things that aren't 
close to at least 50% of the population having the trait (criminality) 
you're looking for.

>   Well, since I don't think I can express myself more clearly,

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm telling you I understand what 
you're saying. I'm trying to give you an answer to exactly what you asked, 
and you say "Well, I guess nobody understands."

>   My personal opinion is that *if* in some contexts crime could be more
> efficiently stopped by making the distinction, then it would make sense
> to do so.

I completely understand. And I'm telling you "the math shows that there are 
no contexts in which crime could be more efficiently stopped by making the 
distinction," in any case where you don't already know something about the 
specific criminal you seek.  And yet, you still haven't said you understand 
this. Do you?

Even when you use race to find a mugger reported (say) to be a black man, 
you're not using race to decide who to question. You're using location (near 
the time and place of the mugging) to decide who to question and you're 
using race to *eliminate* suspects from questioning. You don't question all 
black men. You question all people *near the crime scene*, *except* for the 
people you know *cannot* be the mugger.  Which is entirely different than 
"focusing your attentions on those of the right profile."

It's like you're saying "If you could safely go free-climbing up rock faces 
while falling-down drunk, I don't see why you shouln't."  Then someone 
points out that safe rock climbing while "falling-down" drunk is 
mathematically impossible, and you complaining about how people hate drunks. :-)

Sure, if it worked, it might be useful. But it doesn't work, so why are we 
insisting? It's not necessarily that people are particularly sensitive about 
it. It's that it doesn't work, it's known not to work, the only reason to 
propose it here is to hassle the brown people, and saying "but if it only 
worked, how much more efficient could we be" tends to set off all the alarm 
bells of all the people so hassled.

Not to goodwin it or anything, but this *is* exactly how the holocaust was 
sold. "Most jews are evil. Oh, maybe the jews *you* know are nice people, 
but trust us, if we round them all up, we'll be better off."

-- 
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:
>   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.

Those are also protected here. ;-)  So right, it's no different.

-- 
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

On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:28:55 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>>   I think that's the core issue in this whole thread.
> 
> Thank you. This was a *clear* explanation.

+1, definitely makes the position clear.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Well, I didn't actually keep my promise. I succumbed into trying to
> explain it, once again, to Darren in a previous post I made today. Let's
> see if it helps this time. If not, then I suppose this is hopeless.)

You had a very clear explanation. The problem seems to be that when people 
say "I understand exactly what you mean. Here is why you're wrong" then your 
response seems to be "you must not understand what I mean."

We (at least I) do actually understand what you're trying to say. But the 
conversation is going:

You:  "If X then Y."

Us: "Never X."

You:  "Yeah, but *if* X, then Y!"

Us: "We understand. But X is never the case. Do you undertand that?"

You: "But all I'm saying is, *if* X, then Y! I'm not saying X. I'm just 
saying If X Then Y. There's no need to be afraid of X. X isn't special."

Us: "No, X isn't special. But X, regardless of which specific X, is never true."

We're trying to figure out why you keep advocating "If X then Y" when X is 
never true, and to figure out if you understand that X cannot now or ever be 
true, regardless of what specific traits you plug into the formula for X.

-- 
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

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In this instance, you've said over and over 
> that you don't see why race shouldn't be used to identify illegals (at 
> least that's what you seem to be saying).

  That's the problem. You only read *part* of what I write, not the whole
thing.

  Maybe if I emphasize it would help: *IF* race could be used as a trait
to catch criminals more efficiently, *THEN* it would make sense to use it.

  When I write that sentence over and over, it seems that you only read
"it makes sense to use race to catch criminals more efficiently".

  There is a difference. If you can't understand the difference, then
I really don't know what else I can do.

  (Well, I have been emphasizing like that many times already, and it isn't
helping, so I'm not very hopeful it will help this time either.)

>  I and others have tried to 
> explain, both in a cultural context and in the context of how US 
> jurisprudence is supposed to work

  Yes, and I have many, many times written sentences along the lines of
"(but I understand why this wouldn't work in practice because eg. people
would get angry)", but once again it doesn't seem to register. Do the
parentheses confuse the meaning or something?

> and you've pretty flatly rejected 
> those explanations instead of saying something like "that's not how it 
> works here, but I can understand why people in the US might feel this way 
> given the history".

  And now you are once again putting words in my mouth. I'm sorry I have
to say that, but it's just true.

  I have never said anything even remotely resembling "that's not how it
works here" when talking about racial profiling.

  What you are doing there is to mix two completely different contexts.
The issue of "can a policeman check someone without probable cause?" was
a completely different line of discussion which had nothing to do with
racial profiling or anything. I did not discuss that in response to the
Arizona law nor to racial profiling, nor anything relating to race.
I discussed it purely on the context of "checking without probable cause"
because that separate issue came up in a post.

  Now you are confusing my "in Finland the police can make sobriety tests
on drivers without the need for probable cause, which is an example where
it's sensible" with a completely different line of discussion of "is racial
profiling to catch criminals acceptable?" They are completely different
contexts.

  And yes, you are not talking about the driver sobriety test here because
you started the paragraph with "you don't see why race shouldn't be used
to identify illegals" and then immediately proceeded in the same paragraph
to say ''I and others have tried to explain, both in a cultural context and
in the context of how US jurisprudence is supposed to work, and you've pretty
flatly rejected those explanations instead of saying something like "that's
not how it works here"...''. So you are mixing up two completely different
things here.

> When you do that, you come across as having an air of superiority - not 
> you personally, but culturally certainly - and it is interpreted as 
> "we're better than you".

  I don't think that "I'm surprised that the police is not allowed to do
random sobriety tests on drivers there" shows an air of superiority.

> You need to understand and acknowledge that there is more than one way to 
> do things in the world, and the way it's done in Finland isn't the way 
> it's done in the US or other countries, and that perhaps there's 
> something you can learn from us.

  What makes you assume that racial profiling is acceptable in Finland?
I have never said such a thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> One item to note: One of the reasons people say "there's no such thing as 
> race" is because "race" is really a mixture of a whole lot of features, and 
> the variation between those features in any particular "race" (regardless of 
> how you cut up the races) is larger than between separate "races".

  AFAIK anthropologists have well-defined meanings for "human races", and
the vast majority of them (well over 50%) don't have a problem with it nor
are advocating getting rid of the concept. For example an anthropologist
can usually easily distinguish from a skull whether it belonged to, eg. a
nordic person or to a central-African person. There are many distinguishing
features. And just because people can have traits of multiple races doesn't
mean that the concept is meaningless.

  Many so-called "multiculturalists" are calling for getting rid of the
whole concept of "race", but this is purely for political and ideological
reasons, not scientifical ones. Personally I see this as some kind of
attempt at orwellian manipulation (like in the novel "1984"): If you
completely ban offending vocabulary, the "criminals" (in this case racists)
won't have any way of expressing their views.

  Some anthropologists might have genuine and well-argumented scientifical
reasons why they are advocating getting rid of the concept, but AFAIK they
are a minority. I'm convinced that most people who do that are doing it for
ideological reasons only.

> > promoting outright banning the entire concept of "race",

> Yes. It's deep down a meaningless term. I've seen twins born of "mixed race" 
> families where one twin looked like he was from finland and the other looked 
> like she was from kenya. Yet they were both born of the same parents. Are 
> they the same race?

  Just because individuals can have mixed traits doesn't make the concept
meaningless.

> Why is Obama "black" but not "japanese"?  I believe even you once pointed 
> out the absurdity there.

  I think that's more a political than a scientifical issue.

> Kenyans are tall, but not all of them, and some British are tall too. I'm 
> sure you know some people born where you are that have dark curly hair.

  Yet an anthropologist can easily distinguish whether a skull belongs to
a Kenyan or a British.

  Why would that be a bad thing? I don't know.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Because profiling based on race assumes guilt rather than innocence.

  Well, there's where we are using different meanings of the word
"profiling". You are using a rather loaded meaning of the word.

> "The person is of hispanic descent, therefore they must (or even are 
> highly likely) to be in the country illegally."

  That's not profiling. That's prejudice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 May 2010 13:00:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In this instance, you've said over and over that you don't see why race
>> shouldn't be used to identify illegals (at least that's what you seem
>> to be saying).
> 
>   That's the problem. You only read *part* of what I write, not the
>   whole
> thing.
> 
>   Maybe if I emphasize it would help: *IF* race could be used as a trait
> to catch criminals more efficiently, *THEN* it would make sense to use
> it.
> 
>   When I write that sentence over and over, it seems that you only read
> "it makes sense to use race to catch criminals more efficiently".

Yes, but you also applied some math (which Darren tried to discuss with 
you but you wouldn't engage in that discussion).  It's not just the two 
sentences, it's the context.  You know context is important, I know that, 
because you have occasionally asserted that people take your statements 
out of context.

So that sentence on its own makes sense; in the context of trying to make 
a mathematical case for then using race as a discriminating factor in 
picking out illegals, you then said "if 90% of illegals are hispanic, 
then use that as a determining factor".  But that 90% (and I think this 
is what Darren was trying to say) is of *illegal immigrants* and not of 
the *total population*, then you may be looking at the illegal immigrant 
population being 5% of the total population.  So does it then make sense 
to pull 95% of the people in an area over because they happen to be 
hispanic when in fact we're looking for a subset of the population that's 
90% of 5% (or 0.45% of the total population)?

>   There is a difference. If you can't understand the difference, then
> I really don't know what else I can do.

See, now, here you seem to be saying "perhaps you're too stupid to 
understand the difference".  I know that you're not, but can you see how 
what you've written could be interpreted as such?

>   (Well, I have been emphasizing like that many times already, and it
>   isn't
> helping, so I'm not very hopeful it will help this time either.)

If "like that" isn't working, then you need a different angle instead of 
continuing to repeat something that you know is not being understood.

>>  I and others have tried to
>> explain, both in a cultural context and in the context of how US
>> jurisprudence is supposed to work
> 
>   Yes, and I have many, many times written sentences along the lines of
> "(but I understand why this wouldn't work in practice because eg. people
> would get angry)", but once again it doesn't seem to register. Do the
> parentheses confuse the meaning or something?

No, actually, in *that* explanation you were clear.  But of course the 
reason people get angry is the important thing to understand, not that 
they get angry.  People get angry because of something, and to get to the 
core of why something's a bad idea, you have to look at why they get 
angry.

>> and you've pretty flatly rejected
>> those explanations instead of saying something like "that's not how it
>> works here, but I can understand why people in the US might feel this
>> way given the history".
> 
>   And now you are once again putting words in my mouth. I'm sorry I have
> to say that, but it's just true.
>
>   I have never said anything even remotely resembling "that's not how it
> works here" when talking about racial profiling.

That was an example of a way to respond, not something that you've said.  
Please reread what I wrote and let me know what's not clear about it, 
because I don't know of another way to say "this type of response would 
be better".
 
>   What you are doing there is to mix two completely different contexts.
> The issue of "can a policeman check someone without probable cause?" was
> a completely different line of discussion which had nothing to do with
> racial profiling or anything. I did not discuss that in response to the
> Arizona law nor to racial profiling, nor anything relating to race. I
> discussed it purely on the context of "checking without probable cause"
> because that separate issue came up in a post.

But the two are related - the Arizona law requires cops to stop someone 
they suspect may be an illegal immigrant.  How are they to know that?  
Based on how they look (not in the law, but something that has been 
stated by people involved in writing the law).

If one makes the argument that one's race provides probable cause because 
statistically illegal immigrants are more likely of a particular race, 
then that does logically lead to a discussion of what constitutes 
probable cause.  One really can't disentangle the ideas because they are 
intimately linked together in the context of the Arizona law and the 
discussion of using race as a factor in deciding to stop someone for 
breaking any law.

Similarly, you couldn't go in and ask for DNA samples from all white 
males because a rape occurred within 5 miles of their location.  You need 
to narrow the field down by establishing more probable cause than "it was 
a white male".  Does that make sense?

>   Now you are confusing my "in Finland the police can make sobriety
>   tests
> on drivers without the need for probable cause, which is an example
> where it's sensible" with a completely different line of discussion of
> "is racial profiling to catch criminals acceptable?" They are completely
> different contexts.

Not really, I didn't think that particular example was germane to the 
discussion, so I discounted it entirely.  Here in the US, sobriety 
checkpoints are set up on certain holidays as well, but the stop isn't 
based on one's race - the troopers operating the checkpoint don't know 
anything about the demographics of the people they're stopping until 
they've been stopped, as Darren said (I believe).  So the situation is 
entirely different and not related to a discussion of the AZ law; at 
least not that I can see.

>   And yes, you are not talking about the driver sobriety test here
>   because
> you started the paragraph with "you don't see why race shouldn't be used
> to identify illegals" and then immediately proceeded in the same
> paragraph to say ''I and others have tried to explain, both in a
> cultural context and in the context of how US jurisprudence is supposed
> to work, and you've pretty flatly rejected those explanations instead of
> saying something like "that's not how it works here"...''. So you are
> mixing up two completely different things here.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.  I didn't bring 
up the driver sobriety test, I was talking about how law (in general) 
works in the US when dealing with suspects (based on my own understanding 
from having talked to lawyers, judges, and law enforcement professionals, 
that is).

>> When you do that, you come across as having an air of superiority - not
>> you personally, but culturally certainly - and it is interpreted as
>> "we're better than you".
> 
>   I don't think that "I'm surprised that the police is not allowed to do
> random sobriety tests on drivers there" shows an air of superiority.

I wasn't talking about this specific item, I honestly don't know where 
you got the idea that I was talking about this.  I was talking in more 
general terms of how you come across in your writing.

>> You need to understand and acknowledge that there is more than one way
>> to do things in the world, and the way it's done in Finland isn't the
>> way it's done in the US or other countries, and that perhaps there's
>> something you can learn from us.
> 
>   What makes you assume that racial profiling is acceptable in Finland?
> I have never said such a thing.

I didn't say that I made such an assumption.  My assumption here is that 
your experience is based on life in Finland, and when talking about the 
law (or anything), your views are coloured by your life's experiences 
(just as they are for the rest of us).  It's important to be aware that 
things (in general) are done differently in different parts of the world 
and to be aware when saying/implying/setting someone up to infer 
(intentionally or not) "our way is better" that other peoples' 
experiences will differ because their background is different.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:51:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> We're trying to figure out why you keep advocating "If X then Y" when X
> is never true, and to figure out if you understand that X cannot now or
> ever be true, regardless of what specific traits you plug into the
> formula for X.

Good clarification. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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