What Exactly Is Wrong With Profiling?

[History]

We see it differently then. As far as seeing race, sure anyone who isn't blind can see a persons race. I don't think that anything should be based on race though. I don't think scholarships should have to be divided up or anything like that, because at the end of the day people are people. So yes I see race, but I don't want to judge people on it. I know good and bad people of all kinds of races, and the color of their skin, while it may help shape their individual identity it has nothing to do with the person being good or bad as most of us would probably agree.

 

So if you want to define profiling as seeing race, then yes we all do it. But, if you want to look at profiling as a system for trying to prevent crimes, I think its crazy. While a cop is looking for people who seem out of place they miss 5 or 6 other crimes happening. There is no profile for crime. Thiefs come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. I'm pretty sure that all races commit murder. I don't think segregated housing exist anymore so how can a cop justify stopping a person of one race who is in a neighborhood prodominantly made up of another? Muslims are not the only terrorist in America. What am I missing?:idunno:

 

I think we see it pretty much the same way. The sentences I bolded are where I think you and I differ. The fact is the 09/11 terrorists plots were conducted by middle eastern muslims. Unfortunately, therefore, people of that origin are going to be deemed suspicious. No different than the Japenese and Germans during and after World War II. Now believe me I wish it weren't that way, but just because I wish it weren't that way doesn't make it so. I have people I know (much older ) that refuse to buy a German or Japanese built cars because they had friends that were killed by our enemies of thos nationalities in WW2.

 

The problem with radical Muslims is that they have vowed to kill all infidels. (any one else that is not a Muslim-now that is profiling) That threat alone is enough to keep me on my toes, and I have friends that are Muslim. I have good friends that hail from Iraq, and Iran. They are not part of the radical sect, but should that radical portion of the religion ever take over, then they could be in danger, and I absolutely would be considered the enemy.

[Run To State]

I think you are the one that can't deal with the 3. So touchy when that is someone says something that does't go along with your way of thinking.

:lol: That made zero sense.

[Run To State]

Muslims are not the only terrorist in America. What am I missing?:idunno:

So, who else flew jets into tall buildings?

 

Now, I agree terrorists come in all colors and religions, but as for the air travel profiling, who fits the profile?

[oldonetechnique]

So, who else flew jets into tall buildings?

 

Now, I agree terrorists come in all colors and religions, but as for the air travel profiling, who fits the profile?

 

I agree, people forget we are at war with two countries right now....In times of war peoples feelings should come last, especially if they are foriegn or resemble the enemy. Sounds mean I know, but I wanna be on the winning team. All these people who have a problem with it, we should let them all sit next to the Middle Eastern guy with the briefcase, I would venture to see that even there mind may wonder at least once.

[Fastbreak]

I treat other posters how they treat me.

I don't recall treating you with anything other than respect, even when I disagree strongly with your opinion. From what I have gathered about you on BGP, you are young (compared to me at least, but so is everyone on BGP) bright, you attempt to come across in a balanced and measured manner, but you are too passionate about certain topics to maintain intellectual indifference. You don’t like to be wrong, you really don’t like anyone pointing out you’re wrong… and you really, really don’t like anyone proving you’re wrong. In summation, you're human and a lot like me in certain ways... :lol:

 

If that’s condescending… sorry. If I’m wrong, feel free to point it out. As regards your interpretation of my position on this topic, I won’t come straight out and say you’re wrong about me. I’ll just say you’re 180 degrees out of phase with the truth.

 

You are attempting through logical manipulation to paint me as either a racist, or as one in favor of perpetuating simple minded racist practices. I could be highly offended by you assertions. I am not because try as you may to twist things around to fit your predetermined assumptions... you are 180 degrees out of phase with the truth… (…at least for anyone willing to read my actual words and accept them for what they are, and not trying to interpret them on multiple syllogistic layers.)

 

1) I have nowhere in this or any other thread advocated "racial profiling" or "profiling based upon one's race and nothing else but one's race. Nowhere... not once… ever. This is akin to stating, “The criminal left fingerprints, we know that everyone has a unique set of fingerprints from birth, therefore, we are on the lookout for someone with fingers.” This is quite literally too dim to be comprehended.

 

2) Just to be clear, I repeat the theme of point #1… Nowhere in this or any other thread have I advocated targeting and interrogating individuals for the singular reason of the color of their skin or their country of origin. Nowhere. I have maintained that this characteristic is a valid component of an overall profile. But nowhere do I suggest that race and race alone is justification enough for special attention. One is clearly based in prejudice and racism, the other is merely a trait no different than hair color, eye color, gender, height, weight, religion, political affiliation, eating habits, addictions, etc.

 

3) I have stated repeatedly and clearly that such a foolhardy practice (racial profiling based upon race and race alone) is not true “profiling”. It is nothing more than racism wrapped in a temporarily less offensive sounding wrapper. It is IMO a sweeping generalization implemented by the ignorant. I have been clear that I think this practice is wrong and I am 100% against it. Your insinuation that I am in some veiled manner asserting this as a legitimate practice that should be perpetuated is disappointing to say the least.

 

4) My attribution of this phenomenon to a lazy and agenda driven media was/is sincere. They have essentially "redefined" (through mindless repetition) the broader and logically defensible term/practice of "profiling" to mean something it is not to a vast majority of the American public… namely "racial profiling" and nothing more than "racial profiling".

 

5) From all appearances, you and several others have bought into the media’s PC portrayal of “profiling” (actually limited to “racial profiling” and nothing more than “racial profiling”) and as a result are so hung up on race and race alone, you either can't see or refuse to accept the larger universe of what genuine “profiling” involves. I have also stated repeatedly that one’s race or ethnicity is only one facet of the legitimate application of profiling.

 

6) Yet again, we are being sucked down to the misguided actions of our lowest common denominator, rather than accepting the highest and best and logically defensible practices of informed professionals. (i.e.- “Race is a component of criminal profiling used by law enforcement to identify criminals, some cops are racists, because some cops are racists the use of profiling permits the perpetuation of discrimination based upon race, therefore all profiling is bad.) Why not insist on solving the actual problem instead of merely medicating the symptoms? Why not insist upon a stronger educational effort among all law enforcement officers and officials with discipline and eventual dismissal for the racist idiots too thick to “get it”? Don’t ban all Harleys simply because a few fools are incapable of safely operating anything bigger or more powerful than a Big Wheel.

 

7) I personally believe you are too smart to fall for this, but for whatever reason, have elected to align your opinions to the prevailing (and very narrow) viewpoint.

 

You've asserted twice that I am "conflating the issues". You seem to accept the rational analysis of a crime (already committed) as a reasonable application of profiling, but refuse to acknowledge the valid use of such tools in combating crimes not yet committed… simply because the most likely race or ethnicity of the most probable perpetrators might be included as a component of the potential perp’s overall profile.

 

This does not follow logically.

 

We are not dealing with crimes already committed and safely tucked into the file cabinet. We are dealing with crimes that we know are going to be committed unless someone, somewhere, somehow finds clues and stops them. We have in many cases been told by the leadership of the intended perpetrators that a specific assault is coming… or have intercepted intel revealing such plans. It is rationally absurd in such situations not to consider race/ethnicity/national origin as A PART of the overall profile.

 

You seem to acquiesce to my contention that it is not racism to state that a Caucasian male with red curly hair, fair freckled skin, green eyes and a scar on his right cheek, most likely of recent Irish origin, driving a late model Volvo, with an apparent predilection for Starbucks lattes and Marlboro Light 100’s is the most probable suspect in a crime already committed… BUT, when we add in the fact that he left a note stating that he is going to commit a similar crime again, in a similar fashion, against the same type of victim very soon… it is somehow “racist” to be on the lookout for individuals that fit that description (profile)???

 

This does not follow logically.

 

For you to continue to distill the practical points I have made regarding the legitimate practice of criminal profiling to nothing more than an excuse to target all black men as guilty until proven innocent, or all men of Middle Eastern descent as guilty until proven innocent, or (fill in the blank) as guilty until proven innocent, is at best an illogical conclusion based upon predetermined assumptions on your part, or an entirely disingenuous assault.

 

You tell me… :thumb:

[marvel]

No, my mind is made up.

I think having to put your race on anything is stupid.

 

But, I understand why they ask for race on standardized test. It is my understanding that they try to eliminate cultural bias by seeing how each group does on the test.

 

So asking for race on a standardized test is an attempt to eliminate racial bias and racial profiling is a way to increase it. So they would be opposites and about as far away from being the same as can be. They both involve race, but one is trying to create equality and the other is trying to take us back to the 1800s. Is that clear enough for you or do I need to slow down and use smaller words?:idunno:

 

Well then understand that cops and federal agents usually use profiling to protect you, your family, my family, and myself. They don't do it to pick on someone. Use some common sense. We and everyone else in this world have and will always use it. Saying that it is trying to take us back into the 1800's is ludacris. If someone commited a crime against you, the cop or whoever is investigating will ALWAYS ask for ethnicity. You know why???? To help investigation. Not because they're racist.

[Run To State]

 

3) I have stated repeatedly and clearly that such a foolhardy practice (racial profiling based upon race and race alone) is not true “profiling”. It is nothing more than racism wrapped in a temporarily less offensive sounding wrapper. It is IMO a sweeping generalization implemented by the ignorant. I have been clear that I think this practice is wrong and I am 100% against it. Your insinuation that I am in some veiled manner asserting this as a legitimate practice that should be perpetuated is disappointing to say the least.

 

:thumb: This is something that I think all of us on here that think profiling is a useful tool totally agrees with. Yet several people have tried their best to paint those of us that agree with profiling as supporting racial profiling as you've just explained it. I don't know why it hasn't sunk in, but I'm hoping it will. :thumb:

[Fastbreak]

:thumb: This is something that I think all of us on here that think profiling is a useful tool totally agrees with. :thumb:

"Useful tools" are abundant... especially in our mainstream media. :lol:

[CatsCatsCats]

So, who else flew jets into tall buildings?

 

Now, I agree terrorists come in all colors and religions, but as for the air travel profiling, who fits the profile?

 

Wow. You're right, Muslims are the only threating group of people who could possibly get on an air plane.

 

Well then understand that cops and federal agents usually use profiling to protect you, your family, my family, and myself. They don't do it to pick on someone. Use some common sense. We and everyone else in this world have and will always use it. Saying that it is trying to take us back into the 1800's is ludacris. If someone commited a crime against you, the cop or whoever is investigating will ALWAYS ask for ethnicity. You know why???? To help investigation. Not because they're racist.

 

Describe racial profiling for me....

[UKMustangFan]

IMO, there is a very large and distinct difference between profiling, used as an effective law enforcement tool, and the inexcusable action of racial profiling. I don't see it as very hard to make the distinction either.

 

Example of racial profiling: A cop sees an African-American driving down a very affluent almost exclusively white neighborhood in the middle of the day and stops and questions his intentions.

 

Example of useful law-enforcement profiling: A cop sees an African-American driving down a very affluent, almost exclusively white neighborhood in the middle of the day in a car that fits the description of one identified in some recent mid-afternoon breakins in the neighborhood. The cop pulls the car over, questions his intentions, determines he isn't the perp, and lets him go on his way.

[acemona]

I agree, people forget we are at war with two countries right now....In times of war peoples feelings should come last, especially if they are foriegn or resemble the enemy. Sounds mean I know, but I wanna be on the winning team. All these people who have a problem with it, we should let them all sit next to the Middle Eastern guy with the briefcase, I would venture to see that even there mind may wonder at least once.

 

We are at war IN two countries right now, not WITH two countries.

[94 Camel]

We are at war IN two countries right now, not WITH two countries.

 

Didn't you make a post last weak about everyone taking things literally?:ohbrother:

[History]

We are at war IN two countries right now, not WITH two countries.

 

And fighting the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty, etc.

[marvel]

Wow. You're right, Muslims are the only threating group of people who could possibly get on an air plane.

 

 

 

Describe racial profiling for me....

I neve3r have mentioned racial profiling.

 

Will you please look at my previous posts. I'm talking about profiling, not profiling someone just soley based on their race, I'm talking about profiling someone that has to do with his/her physical appearance. NOT JUST THEIR SKIN COLOR. please look at the bold.

[Habib]

I don't recall treating you with anything other than respect, even when I disagree strongly with your opinion. From what I have gathered about you on BGP, you are young (compared to me at least, but so is everyone on BGP) bright, you attempt to come across in a balanced and measured manner, but you are too passionate about certain topics to maintain intellectual indifference. You don’t like to be wrong, you really don’t like anyone pointing out you’re wrong… and you really, really don’t like anyone proving you’re wrong. In summation, you're human and a lot like me in certain ways... :lol:

 

If that’s condescending… sorry. If I’m wrong, feel free to point it out. As regards your interpretation of my position on this topic, I won’t come straight out and say you’re wrong about me. I’ll just say you’re 180 degrees out of phase with the truth.

 

If I’m wrong, I don’t mind admitting I’m wrong, especially if it’s proven. However, instead of actually proving anything I think you keep obfuscating the discussion. I distilled my points down to a very simple question concerning a tactic you appeared to endorse, however indirectly “do you consider the practices of El Al to be racial profiling of Arabs, if not, then how is it different than the simple racism of racial profiling?” Yet, I can’t find an answer to that question anywhere in this 1,500 word opus.

 

I also think you have a very perverted definition of the word “respect.” Suffice to say I don’t consider being the recipient of the ad hominem of being a pawn of whatever liberal conspiracy you happen to identify with a particular subject to be part of an honest discussion. But, I’ll leave it and your assessment of me at that.

 

You are attempting through logical manipulation to paint me as either a racist, or as one in favor of perpetuating simple minded racist practices. I could be highly offended by you assertions. I am not because try as you may to twist things around to fit your predetermined assumptions... you are 180 degrees out of phase with the truth… (…at least for anyone willing to read my actual words and accept them for what they are, and not trying to interpret them on multiple syllogistic layers.)

 

I’m simply trying to understand your position. I’ve noted several times that I draw a distinction between two types of profiling, yet you continue to amalgamate them as one in the same. Additionally, when pressed, you move from the specific to the vague in your responses. Although you argue profiling is the oft practiced procedure of searching out specific suspects based on evidence pointing to the culprits, you have advocated profiling in the sense of broad categories of people being more probable to commit crimes (your first example and your vague endorsement of El Al’s profiling) which you continually refuse to clarify. When asked about predicting future behavior in the absence of an identifiable suspect, you keep referring to the accumulation of evidence to find an actual, specific perpetrator. These are not the same. Thus, when questioned about predicting who is more likely to blow up a plane, your response describing the legitimacy of Clarice Starling collecting evidence to find Buffalo Bill does not answer the question.

 

I am not labeling anyone a racist, but I am criticizing a particular practice of creating a calculus to determine the likelihood of criminal activity as being racist in tendency. As you have been ambiguous about these policies, I’m not sure where you stand.

 

1) I have nowhere in this or any other thread advocated "racial profiling" or "profiling based upon one's race and nothing else but one's race. Nowhere... not once… ever. This is akin to stating, “The criminal left fingerprints, we know that everyone has a unique set of fingerprints from birth, therefore, we are on the lookout for someone with fingers.” This is quite literally too dim to be comprehended.

 

You’ve several times tacitly endorsed airline screening for members of a certain race. When asked to explain your meaning or how you understand this to not constitute specific racial profiling you respond in vaguery and assert your repeated condemnation of racism. However noble of you, it doesn’t answer the question or elucidate your position on the matter.

 

2) Just to be clear, I repeat the theme of point #1… Nowhere in this or any other thread have I advocated targeting and interrogating individuals for the singular reason of the color of their skin or their country of origin. Nowhere. I have maintained that this characteristic is a valid component of an overall profile. But nowhere do I suggest that race and race alone is justification enough for special attention. One is clearly based in prejudice and racism, the other is merely a trait no different than hair color, eye color, gender, height, weight, religion, political affiliation, eating habits, addictions, etc.

 

See the above post, as you continue to condemn racial profiling, but aren’t explaining how one is expected to predict the future behavior of random individuals without relying almost entirely or wholly on race.

 

3) I have stated repeatedly and clearly that such a foolhardy practice (racial profiling based upon race and race alone) is not true “profiling”. It is nothing more than racism wrapped in a temporarily less offensive sounding wrapper. It is IMO a sweeping generalization implemented by the ignorant. I have been clear that I think this practice is wrong and I am 100% against it. Your insinuation that I am in some veiled manner asserting this as a legitimate practice that should be perpetuated is disappointing to say the least.

 

I’m insinuating nothing. I’m giving you as much opportunity as possible to explain the distinction between what you consider racism in profiling and assessing the probability of a passenger to blow up a plane.

 

4) My attribution of this phenomenon to a lazy and agenda driven media was/is sincere. They have essentially "redefined" (through mindless repetition) the broader and logically defensible term/practice of "profiling" to mean something it is not to a vast majority of the American public… namely "racial profiling" and nothing more than "racial profiling".

 

Disagreed. But that is beside the point.

 

5) From all appearances, you and several others have bought into the media’s PC portrayal of “profiling” (actually limited to “racial profiling” and nothing more than “racial profiling”) and as a result are so hung up on race and race alone, you either can't see or refuse to accept the larger universe of what genuine “profiling” involves. I have also stated repeatedly that one’s race or ethnicity is only one facet of the legitimate application of profiling.

 

I actually had no intention of participating in this thread as I did not have a dog in the hunt. However, I came to feel there was an unusual conflation of definitions that I wished to see distinguished. Yet, no one has provided a clear explication of the idea of predicting future behavior of unknown individuals based on particular characteristics, despite repeated condemnations of racism. I simply want clarity.

 

6) Yet again, we are being sucked down to the misguided actions of our lowest common denominator, rather than accepting the highest and best and logically defensible practices of informed professionals. (i.e.- “Race is a component of criminal profiling used by law enforcement to identify criminals, some cops are racists, because some cops are racists the use of profiling permits the perpetuation of discrimination based upon race, therefore all profiling is bad.) Why not insist on solving the actual problem instead of merely medicating the symptoms? Why not insist upon a stronger educational effort among all law enforcement officers and officials with discipline and eventual dismissal for the racist idiots too thick to “get it”? Don’t ban all Harleys simply because a few fools are incapable of safely operating anything bigger or more powerful than a Big Wheel.

 

This is a severe misreading of my argument. I’m concerned with the broad and systematic policies being advocated for assessing likelihood of criminal activity, not the possible abuse of searching out a “profile” by crooked police. I’ve made this clear several times. For example, you said “If terrorism was known to be coming from radicals in Scandinavia, NOT giving extra scrutiny to blonde haired, blue eyed, fair skinned individuals from that region and adhering to that set of socio-religious-political beliefs and practices, would be absolutely absurd.” That is a systemic policy, not the abuse of a few bad people.

 

7) I personally believe you are too smart to fall for this, but for whatever reason, have elected to align your opinions to the prevailing (and very narrow) viewpoint.

 

Ok.

 

You've asserted twice that I am "conflating the issues". You seem to accept the rational analysis of a crime (already committed) as a reasonable application of profiling, but refuse to acknowledge the valid use of such tools in combating crimes not yet committed… simply because the most likely race or ethnicity of the most probable perpetrators might be included as a component of the potential perp’s overall profile.

 

This does not follow logically.

 

We are not dealing with crimes already committed and safely tucked into the file cabinet. We are dealing with crimes that we know are going to be committed unless someone, somewhere, somehow finds clues and stops them. We have in many cases been told by the leadership of the intended perpetrators that a specific assault is coming… or have intercepted intel revealing such plans. It is rationally absurd in such situations not to consider race/ethnicity/national origin as A PART of the overall profile.

 

You seem to acquiesce to my contention that it is not racism to state that a Caucasian male with red curly hair, fair freckled skin, green eyes and a scar on his right cheek, most likely of recent Irish origin, driving a late model Volvo, with an apparent predilection for Starbucks lattes and Marlboro Light 100’s is the most probable suspect in a crime already committed… BUT, when we add in the fact that he left a note stating that he is going to commit a similar crime again, in a similar fashion, against the same type of victim very soon… it is somehow “racist” to be on the lookout for individuals that fit that description (profile)???

 

This does not follow logically.

 

Again, this is a willful misreading of my argument. Indeed, my concern is for profiling for crimes that have not yet been committed. However, you’ve now narrowed this to instances where credible intelligence exists on a specific individual, which is not unlike investigating a crime using available evidence, which may include a physical description of the suspect. But this limitation has not been practiced throughout this thread. Many posters have maintained that, in absence of a specific suspect, calculations of possible criminal activity can be made where race is the only or most dominant factor. You advocated in your initial hypothetical that Nordic persons should be subject to stricter monitoring, i.e. all Nordic persons are suspects rather than your recent caveat that the specific suspect is Nordic. You additionally endorsed the El Al security measures, but upon being asked, didn’t explain which aspect you considered profiling, or, rather, how their alleged practice of Arab profiling was not racial profiling. In light of my argument, a simple explanation would be appropriate to bear out your meaning. Whereas, we now have a very lengthy response that continues your employment of ambiguity. In attempting to stop the occurrence of a future crime, where a specific suspect does not exist, which policies are you advocating to “find clues to stop them”? This is very different than having a suspect leave a note of intention to commit a crime in the future as no suspect yet exists.

 

 

For you to continue to distill the practical points I have made regarding the legitimate practice of criminal profiling to nothing more than an excuse to target all black men as guilty until proven innocent, or all men of Middle Eastern descent as guilty until proven innocent, or (fill in the blank) as guilty until proven innocent, is at best an illogical conclusion based upon predetermined assumptions on your part, or an entirely disingenuous assault.

 

Again, this is inaccurate. My concerns are simple: in absence of a specific target, creating a calculus of “most likely offender” is prone to racial discrimination. This is not a criticism of creating a profile for a perpetrator who has committed a crime or threatened to commit a crime in order to find said suspect. From your posts, you would like to expand this beyond specific suspects to a much broader algorithm of assigning probability of committing crime to groups of people based on certain attributes. In your own words, “Using observational and deductive skills to determine the most likely perpetrators of crimes,” or “finding clues to stop them.” Thus, my questions for you are simple: how does one determine who is the most likely persons to commit a crime in the absence of a suspect, and how does this avoid a predominate reliance upon race or ethnicity?