Racial Profiling

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#1
It's not racist to profile based on race as long as it's done with viable statistics or other events backing it. We profile based on gender and age, we profile based on time of day and the type of car being driven, we profile based on if there's children or if there's not. Why can't we profile based on race and/or religion where there is a solid basis to do so?

While it is true that more terrorist attacks have been conceived by non-Muslims to be taken out on US Soil, the truth is there is not always a link to radical Islamic groups such as ISIS or others, even when such a link did exist. Persons can be "non-Islamic terrorists" yet still have been influenced by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups. Furthermore, as shown below, while the rate is much higher among non-Muslim terror attacks, the deaths are about the same. This shows that, even though they may not happen as often, radical Islamic terror attacks tend to be much more deadly when they do.



As one example, my mother and sister recently had to fly, last minute (12 hour advance purchase) cross country to visit my grandmother in hospice. The tickets were purchased for one way, no advance notice, and no checked baggage. These are three red-flags. My mother was subjected to extra screening at 4:00 am at the airport. My adolescent sister was not. This is a prime example of how profiling is supposed to work - add up all of the red flags, determine if someone warrants or does not warrant additional attention. Since age and gender are used, why can race not be used as well?

A second question to be posed is if we are to allow race to be used in determining college admissions, even to the point that someone can be denied admission simply because there was someone of equal or even slightly lower qualification who was a different race, why can we not permit racial profiling?

There are bad people in every bunch. However the vast majority of police and transportation security agents aren't inherently racially biased, and I think that giving them the tool of being able to profile based on race would add to their ability to prevent attacks or attempted attacks on US soil, especially airliners.

For thought:
UK article about the success of racial profiling in use at El Al

Another

HuffPo article regarding giving police enough tools to enable the "human factor" to increase security

Another article from a historically liberally biased media about how secure El Al is

And lastly a 60 Minutes article about it which I will quote below

"The first thing: Where is your suitcase? You are not going to the United States without any suitcase," says Dror. "How, where are you going to spend your time? Are you, are you going to sleep naked in the Central Park? What are you going to do over there without suitcase? So, this is the first question and that (will) raise a lot of red lights."

In fact, the Israelis got a chance to ask Reid a lot of questions, because he flew El Al last summer. They didn't like the look of him, so they checked everything in his bags, and everything he was wearing, and then put an armed sky marshal in the seat right next to him.
Note how an attack was possibly (nobody can know for sure) prevented on an El Al flight by the use of intimidation, interrogation, searching, and marshalling, and most importantly they profiled him based on age, sex, demeanor, and possibly race.

Before she started working at the airport, Rosen was in the Israeli army, in intelligence. She and the people working under her are profilers. That's what they're called. They question passengers, sometimes extensively, to see if they match secret profiles of suspected terrorists.

"Profile" may be a dirty word in the United States. But Sneh's reaction is: "We have to secure our passengers, our airplanes, and words do not scare us. Bombs do."
"Words do not scare us. Bombs do." Personally, I could care less if you're offended by the word or idea of "profiling". Considering its track record in Israel's air travel industry, I strongly prefer potentially subjecting innocent people to a bit extra interrogation (while, by the way causing security times to drop to half an hour or less for others) over having a repeat of 9/11 or the WTC bombing, etc.
 
#2
This is such a good debate. I mean me and @Starlina were talking about this post 4 hours ago and debated. I forgot to press enter to respond. It's something that is difficult to discuss and many I know would simply refuse to do it because it's 'taboo'. When things like theses should be discussed. The libertarian in me says this is wrong, the logical mathematical says this is okay. EL AL's security should be studied as planes are and will always be targeted for terrorism. Russia just suffered an attack such not too long ago with a commercial flight. I don't know how I feel about this. BUT I love it. In real life, reality isn't nice and choices shouldn't be easy.
 
#4
It's not racist to profile based on race as long as it's done with viable statistics or other events backing it.
First off...YES...It is 100% racist to claim that someone from ONE race will cause harm to another based simply on the fact that they share an appearance similar to another person that has caused harm. Especially considering people of all races/religions/genders/etc. have committed heinous crimes, there's no reason at all anyone should be singled out for their physical appearance. How can you not possibly see the flaw in your logic?

Second, you can't profile on a religion because that's not possible to do, unless you had a brain scanner and could see each individual person's religious preference.

"As one example, my mother and sister recently had to fly, last minute (12 hour advance purchase) cross country to visit my grandmother in hospice. The tickets were purchased for one way, no advance notice, and no checked baggage. These are three red-flags. My mother was subjected to extra screening at 4:00 am at the airport. My adolescent sister was not. This is a prime example of how profiling is supposed to work - add up all of the red flags, determine if someone warrants or does not warrant additional attention. Since age and gender are used, why can race not be used as well?"

You're correct that those are 3 red flags, but it's for those reasons that your mother should have been selected, not because of her gender/age/religion/etc. You're throwing off some misogynist vibes here assuming that gender was used as a means of profiling and stating "this is a prime example of how it's supposed to work." Unless you're referring solely to the 3 red flags, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. Now the TSA agent may have noticed that your mother and sister were traveling together and knew that one of them would have to be questioned, so she chose the older passenger to spare your sister the trouble, BUT if you're trying to make claims that profiling is equivalent to safer traveling then this example clearly disproves that. If your sister had ill-intentions, she's just now been given the all clear because she was profiled as an innocent child. You can't assume someone's intentions simply by looking at them.

"A second question to be posed is if we are to allow race to be used in determining college admissions, even to the point that someone can be denied admission simply because there was someone of equal or even slightly lower qualification who was a different race, why can we not permit racial profiling?"

These are two unrelated arguments...One form of profiling is being used to empower students (granted, I don't fully agree with it) while the other is being used to completely demoralize them. You have to put yourself in another's shoes. If white males were the ones being targeted would you feel so strongly about this matter? Would you be willing to spend hours in an interrogation room? Why do you feel that YOU deserve the right to smooth travels while your fellow Americans are stripped of that right?

"However the vast majority of police and transportation security agents aren't inherently racially biased, and I think that giving them the tool of being able to profile based on race would add to their ability to prevent attacks or attempted attacks on US soil, especially airliners."

Well that's false...but that's a whole other can of worms that we're not going to get into.

El Al has a fleet of around 46 planes in service and you're comparing it to the ENTIRE US AIRLINE. Southwest Airlines has around 719 planes in its fleet alone, Delta has around 835, that's only two airlines. I don't believe that's a very fair comparison at all to come to the conclusion that racial profiling works.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...miliated-by-el-al-security-personnel-1.322099
(Note how the only attack happening is on the woman traveling because racially stereotyping is not an accurate way to seek out a threat.)

Another quote from your "60 minute article":
"In fact, the Israelis got a chance to ask Reid a lot of questions, because he flew El Al last summer. They didn't like the look of him, so they checked everything in his bags, and everything he was wearing, and then put an armed sky marshal in the seat right next to him."

"they profiled him based on age, sex, demeanor, and possibly race." They profile strictly on race, you're trying to throw race in there as a "possibility", but they clearly state that it's how they do things. It clearly says so on the first article you posted. However, they racially profiled the shoe bomber, interrogated him, checked his person for suspicious items and still found no substantial evidence to support their claim that he was a terrorist.

It is one thing to "profile" someone because they have a similar appearance to a criminal that is wanted, I have no problem with that. It's another thing to profile an entire group of people simply because they are of the same race/religion as someone who has committed a crime though. We don't hold Christians accountable for the actions of KKK members, even though history shows us that they made up a large majority of klans.

Personally, I think your argument is very self centered. If you were apart of the group to be racially profiled you would be up in arms over the matter. There is no ONE race/religion/gender/etc. that is exempt from causing violence, therefore I see no reason that one group of persons should be a higher target than another. If someone presents a behavior that is deemed questionable, they should be questioned, end of story.
 

morgan

probably sleepy.
#5
First off...YES...It is 100% racist to claim that someone from ONE race will cause harm to another based simply on the fact that they share an appearance similar to another person that has caused harm. Especially considering people of all races/religions/genders/etc. have committed heinous crimes, there's no reason at all anyone should be singled out for their physical appearance. How can you not possibly see the flaw in your logic?

Second, you can't profile on a religion because that's not possible to do, unless you had a brain scanner and could see each individual person's religious preference.

"As one example, my mother and sister recently had to fly, last minute (12 hour advance purchase) cross country to visit my grandmother in hospice. The tickets were purchased for one way, no advance notice, and no checked baggage. These are three red-flags. My mother was subjected to extra screening at 4:00 am at the airport. My adolescent sister was not. This is a prime example of how profiling is supposed to work - add up all of the red flags, determine if someone warrants or does not warrant additional attention. Since age and gender are used, why can race not be used as well?"

You're correct that those are 3 red flags, but it's for those reasons that your mother should have been selected, not because of her gender/age/religion/etc. You're throwing off some misogynist vibes here assuming that gender was used as a means of profiling and stating "this is a prime example of how it's supposed to work." Unless you're referring solely to the 3 red flags, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. Now the TSA agent may have noticed that your mother and sister were traveling together and knew that one of them would have to be questioned, so she chose the older passenger to spare your sister the trouble, BUT if you're trying to make claims that profiling is equivalent to safer traveling then this example clearly disproves that. If your sister had ill-intentions, she's just now been given the all clear because she was profiled as an innocent child. You can't assume someone's intentions simply by looking at them.

"A second question to be posed is if we are to allow race to be used in determining college admissions, even to the point that someone can be denied admission simply because there was someone of equal or even slightly lower qualification who was a different race, why can we not permit racial profiling?"

These are two unrelated arguments...One form of profiling is being used to empower students (granted, I don't fully agree with it) while the other is being used to completely demoralize them. You have to put yourself in another's shoes. If white males were the ones being targeted would you feel so strongly about this matter? Would you be willing to spend hours in an interrogation room? Why do you feel that YOU deserve the right to smooth travels while your fellow Americans are stripped of that right?

"However the vast majority of police and transportation security agents aren't inherently racially biased, and I think that giving them the tool of being able to profile based on race would add to their ability to prevent attacks or attempted attacks on US soil, especially airliners."

Well that's false...but that's a whole other can of worms that we're not going to get into.

El Al has a fleet of around 46 planes in service and you're comparing it to the ENTIRE US AIRLINE. Southwest Airlines has around 719 planes in its fleet alone, Delta has around 835, that's only two airlines. I don't believe that's a very fair comparison at all to come to the conclusion that racial profiling works.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...miliated-by-el-al-security-personnel-1.322099
(Note how the only attack happening is on the woman traveling because racially stereotyping is not an accurate way to seek out a threat.)

Another quote from your "60 minute article":
"In fact, the Israelis got a chance to ask Reid a lot of questions, because he flew El Al last summer. They didn't like the look of him, so they checked everything in his bags, and everything he was wearing, and then put an armed sky marshal in the seat right next to him."

"they profiled him based on age, sex, demeanor, and possibly race." They profile strictly on race, you're trying to throw race in there as a "possibility", but they clearly state that it's how they do things. It clearly says so on the first article you posted. However, they racially profiled the shoe bomber, interrogated him, checked his person for suspicious items and still found no substantial evidence to support their claim that he was a terrorist.

It is one thing to "profile" someone because they have a similar appearance to a criminal that is wanted, I have no problem with that. It's another thing to profile an entire group of people simply because they are of the same race/religion as someone who has committed a crime though. We don't hold Christians accountable for the actions of KKK members, even though history shows us that they made up a large majority of klans.

Personally, I think your argument is very self centered. If you were apart of the group to be racially profiled you would be up in arms over the matter. There is no ONE race/religion/gender/etc. that is exempt from causing violence, therefore I see no reason that one group of persons should be a higher target than another. If someone presents a behavior that is deemed questionable, they should be questioned, end of story.
Hello you are my hero. I have the same thoughts about everything you said.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#6
@Youtherevmk @morgan i don't think you even read my post but picked out bits and pieces and nit-picked at minor discrepancies. i advocate for allowing trained intelligence agents to use religion and/or race as one factor in profiling individuals. if you actually have a reason why it should not be used as a factor when the statistics i presented and the accounts from people on both sides of the profile (profiler and profiled) that are in my post and on the internet, please tell me. if not, please stop nitpicking at things as you say "unrelated" to the core issue in an attempt to make people think you know what you're talking about. thanks.
 
#7
@Youtherevmk @morgan i don't think you even read my post but picked out bits and pieces and nit-picked at minor discrepancies. i advocate for allowing trained intelligence agents to use religion and/or race as one factor in profiling individuals. if you actually have a reason why it should not be used as a factor when the statistics i presented and the accounts from people on both sides of the profile (profiler and profiled) that are in my post and on the internet, please tell me. if not, please stop nitpicking at things as you say "unrelated" to the core issue in an attempt to make people think you know what you're talking about. thanks.
@Whispered, fully read the information I've posted and then think about what you've just typed because I took the time to read, and respond, to almost everything you've posted. If you're not going to be mature and reciprocate the same respect by reading my counter-argument then do not post within the debate thread. My information clearly explains my views and why I disagree with what you've posted.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#8
@Youtherevmk let me quote some of your statements:

"You can't assume someone's intentions simply by looking at them." yet later you say "They profile strictly on race, you're trying to throw race in there as a "possibility", but they clearly state that it's how they do things." then go into talking about a case that you try to relate to racial profiling yet I've found no evidence that he was racially profiled from security to board the flight, the most I've found was that they were suspicious based on his "discheveled appearance" (in addition to the fact he didn't check any bags, and it was a one way flight).

That actually furthers my claims, in that the appearance or race should be allowed to be used as a factor in profiling an individual. In this case, we can't really know if race was involved in the profiling, but we can say for sure it at least did its job of raising suspicion as they held him for a day and forced him to take a later flight.

You then talk about the size of the fleet of airlines, but fail to consider both the number of other airlines' flights in and out of Israel, as well as the fact that 0 terrorist attacks is still 0 terrorist attacks. Furthermore, you fail to consider the fact that, unlike the TSA who's tried (and failed) to stop multiple terrorist attacks, as have agencies in other countries, Israel's airport defense has successfully stopped and thwarted multiple terrorist attacks by using profiling.

You claim that it's false that "a vast majority of... are not inherently racist", yet then conveniently use the excuse that it'd "open a can of worms" to shirk off giving any evidence whatsoever for the implication that "most ... are inherently racist".

"BUT if you're trying to make claims that profiling is equivalent to safer traveling then this example clearly disproves that. If your sister had ill-intentions, she's just now been given the all clear because she was profiled as an innocent child." - when my mother was subjected to enhanced security, do you not think that they were looking for any excuse to pull my sister and do the same? that's the point of profiling, not only to determine who is a threat but to determine who is most likely to have and/or give information about potential threats. Obviously if you can interrogate an adult who would know about both the adult and child's doings, versus interrogating a child who would obviously not know about their parents doings, you'd interrogate the adult and look for anything that would give you the need to further investigate.

"there's no reason at all anyone should be singled out for their physical appearance." - once again, for about the 10th time now (exaggeration), i have to explain that i am not advocating anyone be singled out solely based on race. I am advocating for the use of race as one factor in the profiling of individuals for security purposes. The fact you still have failed to acknowledge that and respond to my arguments appropriately again shows that maybe this conversation will go nowhere.


There. Hope this is enough to tell you that I actually did read your "counter-argument" (which in reality was a bunch of red herrings and other misinterpretations) which really wasn't a counter-argument at all.
 

Myth

Well-Known Member
#9
Well
Race is a man-made concept
We are all humans descending from the exact same ancestors
Some of our ancestors traveled to certain parts of the world and their skin color evolved to become lighter or darker depending on the influence of UV rays

"Race" did not even exist until Columbus came to America


I didnt read anything above but those are my two cents soo take it or leave it
We shouldn't see differences in human beings based on their beliefs or skin color differences. If you do, you've been taught to and we need to unteach that




make america emo again
 

morgan

probably sleepy.
#10
to shirk off giving any evidence whatsoever for the implication that "most ... are inherently racist".
It's late so I'm not super keen on responding to every part of this right now. However, this part I will respond to. Police officers, security agents, and many of us do have implicit bias. Harvard has a bunch of tests you can take and see for yourself. There's not particularly one for "terrorists" that I see but there's a bunch of others that should be enough to prove that while we aren't all racists, we do have biases and preferences, whether we like to admit it or not.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#11
It's late so I'm not super keen on responding to every part of this right now. However, this part I will respond to. Police officers, security agents, and many of us do have implicit bias. Harvard has a bunch of tests you can take and see for yourself. There's not particularly one for "terrorists" that I see but there's a bunch of others that should be enough to prove that while we aren't all racists, we do have biases and preferences, whether we like to admit it or not.
i can understand your view. but if you seriously can't trust the police to do their job without bias then why do we even have police. if as you claim the studies show there is a huuuuge bias present in everyone by default then there's no way to have police that are unbiased. considering how much of a literal can of worms that argument would be, i think it's better to assume that most people are actually either inherently non-biased, biased based on statistics, or biased in a small way that they can professionally not take into account. just like is done by professionals everyday such as pharmacists who have to deal with religious people using herbal treatments, doctors treating someone who has done something they are personally against (a drunk driver, for instance), etc. policemen are professionals and to treat them as if they don't have the tact that other professionals do is just kinda rude in my opinion.

i do thank you for actually providing evidence which i will admit i did not read all of but i will tomorrow.
 
#12
@Youtherevmk let me quote some of your statements:

"You can't assume someone's intentions simply by looking at them." yet later you say "They profile strictly on race, you're trying to throw race in there as a "possibility", but they clearly state that it's how they do things." then go into talking about a case that you try to relate to racial profiling yet I've found no evidence that he was racially profiled from security to board the flight, the most I've found was that they were suspicious based on his "discheveled appearance" (in addition to the fact he didn't check any bags, and it was a one way flight).
You found no evidence of racial profiling in your article titled "UK article about the success of racial profiling in use at El Al"? hmm... Did you try reading the information in the links that you posted?

Direct Quote:
"Which airline is so confident of the security procedures at its main hub airport that it still permits passengers to board with bottles and tubes of liquid brought from home; and which airline uses racial profiling. The answer of course is El Al."

You claim that their suspicions were based on his "disheveled appearance," but that description that you've quoted doesn't appear to be written in the article. Is this a conclusion that you're coming to on your own accord, or have I skimmed over this exact description of the man.

I have the exact quote used in the article here:
"In fact, the Israelis got a chance to ask Reid a lot of questions, because he flew El Al last summer. They didn't like the look of him, so they checked everything in his bags, and everything he was wearing..."

Given the information above, we know for a fact that this airport uses racial profiling as a means of searching passengers, that's your evidence.

"That actually furthers my claims, in that the appearance or race should be allowed to be used as a factor in profiling an individual. In this case, we can't really know if race was involved in the profiling, but we can say for sure it at least did its job of raising suspicion as they held him for a day and forced him to take a later flight."

Either your argument is starting to crumble here, or you have no clue what the term race means. If you're making the claim that he raised suspicion because of his "disheveled appearance" then you're not talking about race. Last time I checked there wasn't a box that said "disheveled" under the race options. You're talking about profiling people based on how they look, period. There's no race/religion/gender/etc. involved. Also, where does it say he was held for a day and forced to take a later flight?

The quote states:
"They didn't like the look of him, so they checked everything in his bags, and everything he was wearing, and then put an armed sky marshal in the seat right next to him."
There is nothing in that article about holding him for a day and forcing him to take a later flight.

"You then talk about the size of the fleet of airlines, but fail to consider both the number of other airlines' flights in and out of Israel, as well as the fact that 0 terrorist attacks is still 0 terrorist attacks. Furthermore, you fail to consider the fact that, unlike the TSA who's tried (and failed) to stop multiple terrorist attacks, as have agencies in other countries, Israel's airport defense has successfully stopped and thwarted multiple terrorist attacks by using profiling."

The fact remains the same, the flights coming in and out of Israel are not at all comparable in size to the thousands of flights occurring daily in the US. You're right 0 terrorist attacks is still 0 terrorist attacks, but it's still not an even comparison by any means. TSA has a blog set in place showcasing the items that they've caught from passengers that could have potentially posed a threat: http://blog.tsa.gov/2016/01/tsa-2015-year-in-review.html

"You claim that it's false that "a vast majority of... are not inherently racist", yet then conveniently use the excuse that it'd "open a can of worms" to shirk off giving any evidence whatsoever for the implication that "most ... are inherently racist".

For starters, the term used was "racially biased," do not try to alter the words. There was no excuse given, this is a separate argument. If you want to debate this, then go waste your time making a separate thread and learn how to properly use quotes next time.

"when my mother was subjected to enhanced security, do you not think that they were looking for any excuse to pull my sister and do the same? that's the point of profiling, not only to determine who is a threat but to determine who is most likely to have and/or give information about potential threats. Obviously if you can interrogate an adult who would know about both the adult and child's doings, versus interrogating a child who would obviously not know about their parents doings, you'd interrogate the adult and look for anything that would give you the need to further investigate."

Either stick with your argument of supporting "RACIAL PROFILING," or don't, stop flipping between profiling and racial profiling. If passenger safety was really the main concern, then both individuals who showed very bizarre behaviors should be questioned. Obviously you would question both individuals to see how their stories relate, what their reasoning for traveling is, any correlating information at all would be helpful instead of only questioning one person.

"once again, for about the 10th time now (exaggeration), i have to explain that i am not advocating anyone be singled out solely based on race. I am advocating for the use of race as one factor in the profiling of individuals for security purposes.The fact you still have failed to acknowledge that and respond to my arguments appropriately again shows that maybe this conversation will go nowhere."

Once again, for about the 200-billionth time now (extreme exaggeration), I have to explain to you that you don't grasp the concept of racial profiling. The fact that you still have failed to acknowledge that I've already acknowledged this, and have failed to respond to my arguments appropriately shows that you don't care about this issue at all.

Your whole argument was opened with this statement "Why can't we profile based on race and/or religion where there is a solid basis to do so?"
I've given you the long answer and I've given you the short answer: There is no ONE RACE/religion/gender/etc. that is exempt from causing violence. You cannot determine someone's danger level by their religion, or their race. Using race, or religion, (even as one factor) is still completely wrong.

Maybe we need to discuss this in baby steps because for some reason you're not grasping this concept and it's really not that complicated.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#13
@Youtherevmk you literally try to push that he was racially profiled, then say that there's no evidence for it, yet admit that it may have stopped him from detonating on the El Al flight.

I'm done having this conversation with you because you've hijacked this thread with emotionally charged arguments, ad hominem attacks, and haven't really contributed anything to the discussion other than misinformation, lies, misquotes, and obviously not reading the responses I've given. Just fyi, I've asked other people and they agree that your responses are, at best, woefully inadequate for a "counter-argument" as you try to claim it is.

Just fyi, "racial profiling" does not mean using race as the only factor in profiling. The fact that you are trying to say I "don't grasp the concept" when it is, in fact, you who seem not to grasp my argument is ridiculous. Maybe you should acknowledge that I do not support profiling someone based solely on their race (hint: they don't do that in Israel either). None of my articles I've cited refer to racial discrimination. There is a huge difference between using race as a factor (like, for example, in college admissions) and using race as the only factor. Racial profiling refers to the first, and it is a subset of profiling in general. It's like, by saying you have a "micro-usb connection" on your phone is that automatically saying that's the absolute only connection you can/ever will have on your phone? no. it's not. that's ridiculously obvious and please go learn grammar.

Have fun with your misinformation and not listening when people try and show you statistics and evidence that you're wrong. That's no way to have a mature debate.
 

morgan

probably sleepy.
#14
if as you claim the studies show there is a huuuuge bias present in everyone by default then there's no way to have police that are unbiased.
Actually implicit biases can be unlearned. I can't remember off the top of my head but there's a police department somewhere on the Northeast/Canadian border that is training their officers to unlearn them. So there is a way, but it takes training and acknowledging that these biases exist.
considering how much of a literal can of worms that argument would be
I was just providing evidence because you said he provided an excuse when in reality he didn't. I'm sure you see that now though because you both admitted that a discussion on this topic would open a can of worms.
you've hijacked this thread
This is slightly off-topic but this might not be the best wording to use in a debate about racial profiling and airlines.
Just fyi, "racial profiling" does not mean using race as the only factor in profiling.
The simple definition is that it's the basis for suspicion. It's true that other factors may be involved but the term "racial profiling" generally means that race is the main factor involved.
that's ridiculously obvious and please go learn grammar.
Grammar isn't really the issue here. It's that you two seem to have different definitions of racial profiling.
Have fun with your misinformation and not listening when people try and show you statistics and evidence that you're wrong. That's no way to have a mature debate.
Getting angry or annoyed because someone has a different opinion from you and is trying to share it on something you posted as a topic for debate is a bit silly, don't you think? This is a tricky issue, there's no clear-cut "right" or "wrong" like it seems that you think there is.

If available to you I highly suggest you take some type or criminal justice course that looks at minorities in the criminal justice system and at issues such as racial profiling. You might not agree with everything you hear in there but you'll be presented with valid statistics that support what we are trying to communicate to you.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#15
@morgan again you actually provide evidence. my counter is this: if, as you show, it is possible to train people to unlearn even their implicit biases, why can we not trust them, if provided the training, to use race as one of many factors in profiling individuals without being biased?

also, i have taken courses on it, and while i'm not disagreeing that there are a number of racist police officers, and many more with small biases, i am also of the opinion that, if trained properly such as in Israel they are, they can be trusted to use race when necessary to help determine if a person is a threat.

yeah i agree it was a bad word choice but i didn't intend for it to be meant to be anything double meaning at all. just was using the word i've used and seen used on forums to describe the thing i was trying to describe.

on the subject of "definition", we can look at the wikipedia article here where there are a "narrow" and a "broad" definition given. i hope it is obvious by now that i am advocating 100% for the broad, and 100% against the narrow definition. now having said that, i think it is very important to be able to look into the articles presented by everyone here to determine in what light the article is referring to it. that is something that @Youtherevmk has failed to acknowledge (two different definitions) and take into account, assuming that every time "racial profiling" is used anywhere in any media it means "discrimination based on race".

lastly, @morgan again, i'm not saying there's a clear cut right/wrong, but i wholly disagree with the style of debate being had here where youtherevmk is refusing to acknowledge that there are two definitions, refusing to acknowledge and respond directly to my arguments (or when they do it is with emotionally charged statements or red herrings that lead away from my claims), etc. as i hope you can see morgan i'm more than happy to have this debate with you because you actually are having a debate with me on it. if you'd rather take our discussion to pm so i can focus on your arguments and not have to attempt to respond to the "counter-arguments" that are really just ranting and attempting to say i'm a bad person for my view which he doesn't even understand in the slightest since he's shown he doesn't know what i believe, feel free to pm me.[DOUBLEPOST=1470760778][/DOUBLEPOST]just as an example here to make certain people understand my position. here's a statistic i found: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/de...2k11NSDUHSummNatFindings/NSDUHresults2011.htm




although there is not a statistically significant difference in most years between whites and blacks, there is a statistically significant difference between those two groups and hispanics or asians. based on this statistic, i would support using race as one factor in a trained policeman's determination if someone is a risk for or has potentially used illicit drugs in the past month. obviously it will not be the only factor. if someones car reeks of marijuana, obviously it doesn't matter if they're white, black, asian, latino, martian, ellen degeneres, etc. they've used illicit drugs. likewise, just because someone is asian would not mean they did not use illicit drugs. but statistics like these, in the hands of trained officers, can help screen out innocent people from being interrogated unnecessarily.
 
Last edited:
#16
It's not racist to profile based on race as long as it's done with viable statistics or other events backing it. We profile based on gender and age, we profile based on time of day and the type of car being driven, we profile based on if there's children or if there's not. Why can't we profile based on race and/or religion where there is a solid basis to do so?

While it is true that more terrorist attacks have been conceived by non-Muslims to be taken out on US Soil, the truth is there is not always a link to radical Islamic groups such as ISIS or others, even when such a link did exist. Persons can be "non-Islamic terrorists" yet still have been influenced by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups. Furthermore, as shown below, while the rate is much higher among non-Muslim terror attacks, the deaths are about the same. This shows that, even though they may not happen as often, radical Islamic terror attacks tend to be much more deadly when they do.



As one example, my mother and sister recently had to fly, last minute (12 hour advance purchase) cross country to visit my grandmother in hospice. The tickets were purchased for one way, no advance notice, and no checked baggage. These are three red-flags. My mother was subjected to extra screening at 4:00 am at the airport. My adolescent sister was not. This is a prime example of how profiling is supposed to work - add up all of the red flags, determine if someone warrants or does not warrant additional attention. Since age and gender are used, why can race not be used as well?

A second question to be posed is if we are to allow race to be used in determining college admissions, even to the point that someone can be denied admission simply because there was someone of equal or even slightly lower qualification who was a different race, why can we not permit racial profiling?

There are bad people in every bunch. However the vast majority of police and transportation security agents aren't inherently racially biased, and I think that giving them the tool of being able to profile based on race would add to their ability to prevent attacks or attempted attacks on US soil, especially airliners.

For thought:
UK article about the success of racial profiling in use at El Al

Another

HuffPo article regarding giving police enough tools to enable the "human factor" to increase security

Another article from a historically liberally biased media about how secure El Al is

And lastly a 60 Minutes article about it which I will quote below



Note how an attack was possibly (nobody can know for sure) prevented on an El Al flight by the use of intimidation, interrogation, searching, and marshalling, and most importantly they profiled him based on age, sex, demeanor, and possibly race.



"Words do not scare us. Bombs do." Personally, I could care less if you're offended by the word or idea of "profiling". Considering its track record in Israel's air travel industry, I strongly prefer potentially subjecting innocent people to a bit extra interrogation (while, by the way causing security times to drop to half an hour or less for others) over having a repeat of 9/11 or the WTC bombing, etc.
Interesting topic.

I agree race can be used as a factor to profile someone. However, I have to disagree that racial profiling would be of much use as a predominant tool to prevent attacks. Individual traveler's history based on data analytics or facts/statistics regarding their education, financial, and work standing can speak volumes of who they are and used to project the possibility of whether or not they would attack. Factor in the typical security physical safeguard checks of luggage and the traveler, and more of signs of odd behavior help as known. What may be more of a useful tool for police officers and TSA agents is becoming educated about the cognitive behavioral works of humans - certain mannerisms, how they act/speak can definitely help them read another's demeanor or simply understand another person better. May be more in the psychology which makes it difficult to make using racial profiling a predominant tool for TSA agents or police officers to ascertain a suspect. As racial profiling may just lead to a wild goose chase wasting money and time just for the chance that this person based on their race may be a terrorist. A more cognitive behavioral/sociocultural aware police officers and TSA workers may pose as an alternative suggestion to help catch attackers as well as enhancing the screening process of who's allowed to travel and gather Intel, note statistical red flags on suspicious individuals. I think that's more FBI work to protect against terrorist attacks, my suggestion of that type of knowing who and how people work based on data, related events, facts, and gut intuition is probably how they do it. If only there were a surefire way to catch attackers, but the world is complex and imperfect *shrug* Think the best tool we have is technology and our minds combined.

Just my quick thoughts, hope that made sense. Feel free to rebut, or ask for clarification as I'm open to criticism. Hope it seemed I understood the point you wished to get across/support. Would be a much better structured debate contribution/response theory if I had time to do a little more research :thumbsup:
 
#17
@Youtherevmk you literally try to push that he was racially profiled, then say that there's no evidence for it, yet admit that it may have stopped him from detonating on the El Al flight.
On the contrary, I literally gave you the direct quote from the article you provided with the evidence for why I believe he was racially profiled. I'll provide it again right here: "Which airline is so confident of the security procedures at its main hub airport that it still permits passengers to board with bottles and tubes of liquid brought from home; and which airline uses RACIAL PROFILING. The answer of course is El Al."
*dances around the quote to draw even more attention to it* :Dance:

@Youtherevmk yet admit that it may have stopped him from detonating on the El Al flight.
??? I never admitted to it stopping him from "detonating" on the flight, stop putting words in my mouth. He didn't have any explosives on him at all, or they would have found them when they did their extensive search on him prior to boarding.

I'm honestly bewildered by your naivety. You are the most pathetic excuse of a troll I've ever encountered.

@YoutherevmkI'm done having this conversation with you because you've hijacked this thread with emotionally charged arguments, ad hominem attacks, and haven't really contributed anything to the discussion other than misinformation, lies, misquotes, and obviously not reading the responses I've given. Just fyi, I've asked other people and they agree that your responses are, at best, woefully inadequate for a "counter-argument" as you try to claim it is.
Sad to admit it, but I've read every single word that you've typed in this thread.

If you're going to say that I've lied, misquoted, or have not read your responses you better have evidence to back those claims.

I've provided evidence of you misquoting multiple times now...and here it is again...

Misquote #1
This sentence is from your first post:


My response:


Your response that was misquoted:

In this sentence racist and racially biased are not interchangeable terms, and it's also not a quote if you don't use the same words.

Misquote/Lie #2
This sentence is from your fourth post:
"I've found no evidence that he was racially profiled from security to board the flight, the most I've found was that they were suspicious based on his "discheveled appearance."

Actual quote from the article in which you've cited incorrectly:
"In fact, the Israelis got a chance to ask Reid a lot of questions, because he flew El Al last summer. They didn't like the look of him, so they checked everything in his bags, and everything he was wearing..."

And you spelled disheveled wrong, focus on your own grammar before trying to correct mine.

@Youtherevmk Just fyi, I've asked other people and they agree that your responses are, at best, woefully inadequate for a "counter-argument" as you try to claim it is.
Tell your mom and dad I could care less about their opinions when their son can barely form a cohesive thought. Maybe they should be stepping in to speak on your behalf.

@Youtherevmk None of my articles I've cited refer to racial discrimination.
This is the article you cited with the url reading:
UK article about the success of racial profiling in use at El Al

This is the definition of racial profiling:

This is the definition of discrimination:

By racially profiling a group of people as being more dangerous than another you are discriminating against them.

Let me ask you this, what race/religion would fall under your "watch list"?

It's like, by saying you have a "micro-usb connection" on your phone is that automatically saying that's the absolute only connection you can/ever will have on your phone?
You criticize my grammar and then write this sentence. This makes 0 sense.

@YoutherevmkHave fun with your misinformation and not listening when people try and show you statistics and evidence that you're wrong. That's no way to have a mature debate.
Me waiting for those "statistics and evidence" that I'm wrong, for a debate that really has no "right, or wrong" answer:


All your statistics have done is prove my point that there are bad people of every race/religion doing just as much damage, just because you've highlighted one line in red doesn't justify that you can use race as a factor in assuming someone's danger level.


You've still yet to answer my question, even after I've answered everything you've listed. If white males were the ones being targeted would you feel so strongly about this matter? Would you be willing to spend hours in an interrogation room? Why do you feel that YOU deserve the right to smooth travels while your fellow Americans are stripped of that right?
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#18
@Youtherevmk You literally resorted to personally attacking me and then my family members (my mom and dad, who in fact I haven't asked about this post)? Low.

You're connecting the fact that the "airline uses racial profiling" to that it was used in this specific case. That's a logical fallacy right there. Furthermore, you still fail to admit that there are two common definitions of racial profiling and that I am only advocating the broad definition as I just presented. Maybe if you'd accept this as a fact then you'd realize why all your "counter-arguments" against the narrow definition don't mean anything in this post, as this post is, has always been, and obviously so, against the narrow definition of racial discrimination and for the broad definition.

I've admitted that I misquoted myself. Jeez. Sorry. Didn't know it was a bad thing to interchange "racially biased" and "racist", as they are basically interchangeable nowadays because anyone with any sort of possibly negative racial bias is labeled a racist. Again, it's beside the point, as it's off the point of the argument and quite frankly looks like you are just grasping at straws to make me look like I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything, while you aren't actually refuting any of my arguments.

The quote on disheveled appearance was from further research I was doing on the topic, and was taken from Wikipedia's account, supported by a CNN article which I will link. Although the CNN article never uses the word disheveled directly, I think you fail to realize that the only use of quotation marks is not to directly quote something, but to either draw attention to a pseudo-phrase, or something that is not known to be fact. Think air quotes in writing, and yes, they are grammatically correct.

I have repeatedly said that you are taking one definition of "racial profiling" and failing to acknowledge the other, just as common definition. I have already linked to that, but here it is again: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/raceprof.pdf beginning on page 5 it discusses the two definitions.

And to answer your question, yeah, if police thought I was a threat, I'd be willing to spend hours in interrogation if it meant they had a higher probability of being able to catch a real threat. Although, when you think about it, using my example regarding illicit drug use, the only logical outcome of adding factors to be used (race, etc.) in profiling individuals before subjecting them to interrogation is that less people will be subjected who do not meet a profile of a criminal.

My statistics are in the first post. Every single post after that I've asked you to respond to them. Thanks for continuing to not.

Nobody is being targeted except criminals, terrorists, etc. That's the whole point - if someone looks, acts, and talks like a criminal, they probably are. If someone doesn't look like a criminal, talk like a criminal, walk like a criminal, etc., they probably aren't. The fact that it works at the Ben Gurion Int'l Airport proves it. Sometimes the best element in the defense isn't a computer, it isn't a watch list, it isn't a background check, it's a human who stops someone and has a conversation with them to determine their intentions. That's in the articles I linked, interviews with both people who conduct these mini-conversations at TLV, and those who have been subjected to them. If you are legitimately just an innocent traveler, you should pass the mini-conversation and be let in the airport grounds, you should get into the airport, you shouldn't have problems getting ticketed, and then security is a breeze. All because you are innocent.

Yeah that's something I've forgotten to bring up (more than a passing glance). Security at TLV? Takes 10-20 minutes even at peak times, because most of the security screening was done beforehand, and in a manner that can pass many people through in a heartbeat while holding suspicious persons back for enhanced security measures. By increasing security times on those who are suspicious, they actually decrease the security times for people who are innocent.

Honestly I don't know if you actually want terrorists to be able to attack our airliners or what. I don't think you do, but I don't see how you wouldn't want to (with training) give the FBI the tools to police our airports properly.
 
#20
In my opinion I think that it is wrong to justify the "dangerous" persons solely based on their race, age, religion, etc. It is profiling someone when that occurs. Interrogating someone on their race something that no one can change, just so that all the passengers feel safe is ignorant on the airline employees part. What if a white woman had something that would be harmful, but they let her through just because she looked safe. I think this is very ignorant if the employees were to judge on race/age. Have you ever been interrogated based on your race, age and/or religion, if not then you haven't experienced how much of an annoyance it will be to spend hours being interrogated while others are safe to ride solely on profiling (from the interrogated people's point of view). If this happened to me I would feel upset that someone would think that I am a danger to my fellow passengers and I would be angry that they are interrogating me on something that I can't help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top