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

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

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> 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".

  I misread "instead of saying something like" as "instead you are saying
something like", which lead to the confusion.

  (I suppose I'm getting a taste of my own medicine here, as I taunted
Darren about him confusing "outlandish" with "outrageous", and now I misread
something and reacted based on that...)

  (And btw, that's not how it works here either. Things like racial
profiling *are* touchy subjects here as well and sources of heated
discussions, especially nowadays.)

> I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.  I didn't bring 
> up the driver sobriety test

  It was the only thing that I have written that resembled the "that's not
how it works here", so I assumed you were referring to that. Of course this
assumption was based on the misreading of your post.

> 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.

  Well, Finland isn't too different from the US in that if you are too
loud about these things, you will very easily get labelled as a racist.
This has escalated a lot during the last few years when the discussion
about liberal immigration and its possible problems have been brought up
more and more.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 May 2010 13:16:36 -0400, Warp wrote:

> 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.

See the post I just wrote with the OED definition of racial profiling.  
That's the definition I'm using.

>> "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.

Yes, it is - but making the decision to make the stop based on ethnicity 
and statistical probabilities *is* profiling.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 May 2010 13:40:43 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> 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".
> 
>   I misread "instead of saying something like" as "instead you are
>   saying
> something like", which lead to the confusion.

Fair enough. :-)  I thought that might be the case.

>   (I suppose I'm getting a taste of my own medicine here, as I taunted
> Darren about him confusing "outlandish" with "outrageous", and now I
> misread something and reacted based on that...)
> 
>   (And btw, that's not how it works here either. Things like racial
> profiling *are* touchy subjects here as well and sources of heated
> discussions, especially nowadays.)

I thought that was probably the case (I have a good friend in Aaland and 
he and I have discussed this in the past), but it's always good to have 
confirmation.  I would honestly have been surprised if it weren't a 
touchy subject.

>> I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.  I didn't
>> bring up the driver sobriety test
> 
>   It was the only thing that I have written that resembled the "that's
>   not
> how it works here", so I assumed you were referring to that. Of course
> this assumption was based on the misreading of your post.

Fair enough.

>> 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.
> 
>   Well, Finland isn't too different from the US in that if you are too
> loud about these things, you will very easily get labelled as a racist.
> This has escalated a lot during the last few years when the discussion
> about liberal immigration and its possible problems have been brought up
> more and more.

So, tell me a little bit about the issues there in Finland - I don't read 
a lot of news from Finland, so I wasn't aware there was an escalation 
regarding immigration laws there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > 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.

  I didn't ask what those logical reasons are because they have been
presented countless times already in this thread. I think I said that
in the paragraph above, but you left that part out.

> Do you understand that?

  I have said countless times in this thread that I do understand why the
law wouldn't work.

> Because you still seem to be asking the question

  Even though I *explicitly* say that I'm not?

> instead of going "Oh! I see now!  I no longer have to ask the question, 
> because you answered it."

  How many times do I have to write "but I understand why it wouldn't work
in practice" before it sinks in?

  (And how many times do I have to write that it doesn't change my original
point?)

> >   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?

  No.

  Firstly, I don't see how the math says that.

  Secondly, it was not my point. My point *still* is "if it could make a
difference, it would make sense to use it".

> 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."

  You talk like using a profile is mutually exclusive with using other clues.

  If your clues have narrowed down the list of suspects to 100 people, 50
males and 50 females, and your profile says that the criminal is most likely
a male (for example, in rape cases it's pretty unlikely for the criminal to
be female), you reduced your list from 100 to 50.

  For some reason you seem to think that "using a profile" means "discard
all other evidence and *only* use the profile" (in some past post you even
explicitly talked about profiles *increasing* the amount of subjects, which
at the time I didn't understand at all because it made no sense, but now I
think you were implying "using a profile *and* discarding all other clues").
I don't understand where you are getting that. It's certainly not something
I have said nor implied.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message