Thanks for illustrating Harris' point.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Real Time with Bill Maher : Maajid Nawaz Interview
- Thread starter SirRattleBalls
- Start date
Thanks for illustrating Harris' point.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
IrishNinja
Member
thanks for reading posts like this or really, much of this very page which illustrate exactly why harris has been known as a bigot for a while now
Thanks. I added The Study Quran to my reading list. Unfair to ask of you, but could you pick one book from each of the other authors? Nasr in particular has an intimidating number of works.
Suppose that there is a group of people who are blue, and it is known that 50% of the time they get on a bus, they smuggle on a water gun and shoot the driver incessantly the entire time until they are kicked off. For other people, the probability of this behaviour is negligible.
Then suppose the resources are not available to search every person without increasing the cost of a ticket by 200%. Would it be bigoted to search the blue people for water guns more than others? If it was bigoted, could it be justified?
I think there is a very strong probabilistic argument against racial/religious profiling targeting Muslims. The incidence of terrorist attacks is so low the probability(attacker | looks muslim) is extremely close to zero. So in the probabilistic sense I'm totally against it. It is an easy argument to make and furthermore there is no ethical difficulty in it. Even P(looks muslim | attacker) is probably very low and close to P(looks muslim), which is the statistic most people would use to justify profiling.
But the ethical argument I'm more stuck on because of the hypothetical. Luckily it's so unlikely that it will probably never come up. Is it even worth questioning that case?
For how many of you is the ethical answer obviously "increase the cost of a ticket threefold", or "accept the risk of water guns"? It might make me a bad person but it's not obvious for me. Is this line of reasoning considered a poor philosophical approach? The argument about sacrificing individual liberties for safety comes to mind. But in a sense that argument in this context seems more nuanced, since if you choose the ticket price option, you have maintained the liberty of the blue people but decreased the liberty of everyone including the blue people to utilize the transportation system effectively.
Then suppose the resources are not available to search every person without increasing the cost of a ticket by 200%. Would it be bigoted to search the blue people for water guns more than others? If it was bigoted, could it be justified?
I think there is a very strong probabilistic argument against racial/religious profiling targeting Muslims. The incidence of terrorist attacks is so low the probability(attacker | looks muslim) is extremely close to zero. So in the probabilistic sense I'm totally against it. It is an easy argument to make and furthermore there is no ethical difficulty in it. Even P(looks muslim | attacker) is probably very low and close to P(looks muslim), which is the statistic most people would use to justify profiling.
But the ethical argument I'm more stuck on because of the hypothetical. Luckily it's so unlikely that it will probably never come up. Is it even worth questioning that case?
For how many of you is the ethical answer obviously "increase the cost of a ticket threefold", or "accept the risk of water guns"? It might make me a bad person but it's not obvious for me. Is this line of reasoning considered a poor philosophical approach? The argument about sacrificing individual liberties for safety comes to mind. But in a sense that argument in this context seems more nuanced, since if you choose the ticket price option, you have maintained the liberty of the blue people but decreased the liberty of everyone including the blue people to utilize the transportation system effectively.
Audioboxer
Member
Yes, I definitely think it could be. The crux of that coming from the intent of who says it/who is behind the comments. If Tommy Robinson wanted to make a case for yes, there's an almost certainty I'd refuse to listen as I would know it was coming from a sincere place of hate/discrimination/abuse of power. This is why I think there is nuance against simply calling everyone who appears to think differently than you Tommy Robinson because it's a very poor way to refute an argument if said person isn't actually Tommy Robinson.
Now for the long-running point of contention in this topic, if Harris of Maajid said yes, I'd be likely to at least listen/read in full to understand why they feel that way. That does not mean after listening to whatever they had to say I would agree, but that on seriously complex matters and topics in life I see value in attempting to listen to others who can articulate themselves well and do not appear to be instant walking threats to society.
99.99% of people who go through an airport do so to fly from A to B. Security isn't supposed to exist to punish the many, it's supposed to be there to catch the few. That isn't a passive process, it's an active one. Being passive means being reactionary, and being reactionary is sometimes what leads us to something successfully happening that shouldn't have happened. I'd probably say in modern times I do feel very secure flying, as with everything we've unfortunately had to become reactionary to it's led to additional measures such as shoes coming off, liquid restrictions and we've had metal detectors for a long time (but they're now more advanced/supplemented with body scans). All of this unfortunate necessities because the many have been impacted by the few in some historical events on aeroplanes. It's not just about terrorism though, it's also about day to day legalities of carrying contraband/content across countries. The bigger point there being airport security doesn't just exist to focus on terrorism, but yes it is a large part of it. ISIS may have largely moved onto asking people to ram others with vehicles, or use home-made nail bombs, but one has to speculate if that is because airport security is now soo strict it's almost certain to foil any attempts to take on weapons/explosives to an aircraft?
I've said over these numerous posts very humane things about how I expect staff to behave and do things. I'd say all of that again, and I'd say it to any security whether it be airport, bouncers, traffic cops, venue security, etc. You cannot treat people like shit either by the hierarchical power overstepping bounds and demanding it of staff, or the staff choosing to do so individually. Human rights are entangled closely around matters of security, whether it's hands on or surveillance. Abuses of power, corruption and worse routinely follow alongside various security efforts in life (from police forces to what goes on with airport security).
Profiling, in general, is probably one of the most fiercely debated topics out there. I know why, and yes, it's why I try to be careful and take time to articulate myself. I know some people just want some one liner so they can quote it and throw shade at me, but sorry, you're not going to get that if you want me to seriously try and discuss it. As much as a few of you still might want to post "lol whole lot of nothing", you need to at least accept profound ethical debates have to happen around matters like security because how else do we try and come to best case solutions to the complexities of real life? I've tried to get a few of you to share your own thoughts on profiling, and I'll ask you of that again. What makes you comfortable? What doesn't make you comfortable? What is profiling to you if it's not what I seem to think it is? What are your feelings on current airport security?
HiredN00bs
Member
It may be depending on the motivation and parameters of the profiling.
I'd be curious on what you think of Sam and Maajid's book (pamphlet). I'm listening to it and they mention Ayaan is an apostate and thus a poor emissary to Muslims in the first paragraphs.
theCalamity
Member
You're not going to get much debate about whether or not we should profile people based on race or religion. That's abhorrent and dumb. Because while you're focused on one group, you're ignoring another group. It's better to go off of intelligence gathering and behavior.
And how many terrorists have security stopped suspected terrorists?
EDIT: I don't understand why the conversation is moving from Harris' bigoted views on profiling to more "ethical profiling"
And how many terrorists have security stopped suspected terrorists?
EDIT: I don't understand why the conversation is moving from Harris' bigoted views on profiling to more "ethical profiling"
This is some stupid shit right here. A shame such a buffoon is an idol to so many.
HiredN00bs
Member
I don't think that's how profiling works.
But then again, I'm not a security expert. If that's what it is, then that's a pretty stupid way to go about it.
1) Harris isn't a buffoon. He may be ignorant of certain rhetorical sensibilities or may actually be purposely avoiding them, but he's clearly using a marrow definition of racism that differs from colloquial usage, especially here on NeoGAF
2) I think it's important to specifically not idolize people. I imagine Sam would agree. It always makes me shudder when people hold up Hitchens as some sort of atheist saint, completely oblivious of the dire irony in doing so.
Sure, it's a big blind spot for him and he's not a good speaker on the subject. Sam Harris is a fairly privileged individual. It would behoove him to have more voices from the left regarding race issues and "identity politics". I hope he will.
excelsiorlef
Member
Why of all people would Sam Harris deserve leeway when he calls for racial profiling.
He's got a horrible track record on racial issues.
He's got a horrible track record on racial issues.
theCalamity
Member
When people complain about profiling, that is literally what it is. It is making assumptions about nefarious activities solely based on someone's religion or race.
HiredN00bs
Member
Right, but actual profiling is sizing up individuals to determine whether additional scrutiny is warranted. "Is this person brown" or "are they wearing a head scarf" aren't intelligent ways to do it, and if that's all it is, then we're wasting time and money.
theCalamity
Member
Exactly. But this is what Sam Harris wants.
HiredN00bs
Member
That's not what I've gleaned from listening to him.
theCalamity
Member
In his defense, he's not saying stop everyone who has dark skin, but it's not much of one:
He wants an entire religion profiled solely based on their religion all for some security theater. To be fair, he goes on to say that those who look like him shouldn't be entirely ignored, but I don't find much solace in that.
excelsiorlef
Member
That's even worse. We should profile anyone who lookd muslim.
Anyone who could conceivably look like they might be muslim.
Revolting
This is the same attitude in people who assault Sikhs because they look muslim
Audioboxer
Member
What about your feelings on profiling based on age or gender? Like race, they are characteristics we cannot change. Unlike religion, which we can change. That's not an argument for profiling based on religion, before the chance I get misquoted, simply an observation. An observation that would lead me to think what could arguably make people feel most uncomfortable is profiling that could be carried out based on race/religion. The uncomfortable question here is do you view all profiling traits/characteristics as equally abhorrent, or are you prioritising how uncomfortable you feel? I'll be completely open and honest and say personally if I were to rate between 1~10 feeling uncomfortable with race/religion I'd be up at 9~10. Less so on age/gender. If I'm to assume why I'd guess because I'm far more used to police reports saying a suspect is a man, aged xxx (nearly always young/middle aged). If we're talking terror attacks, it's nearly 99% males. Does that impact my biases to make me subconsciously feel a 70-year-old woman is unlikely to be planning a terror attack? That would be profiling for me to think that? Simply negative-profiling.
Again to be triple-locked sure, what I just said above is NOT me going off and advocating for/condoning anything. I'm trying to ask and present you with uncomfortable questions precisely because that is what happens when you wade into a debate on profiling.
As for the remark on terrorism, I guess you could ask what went wrong with security that it managed to allow terrorists to use aeroplanes as weapons in the past? If it was done before, why couldn't it be done again? Those are questions that get proposed to counter-intelligence and such we have reactionary security measures put in place (shoe searching/liquid restrictions). We're not really supposed to count how many terrorist activities DO happen to say, only a handful, well-done us. The goal is to say the silence and complete lack of terrorist attacks happening IS the consequence of good security.
The odds of ever being caught up in a terrorism based attack in or on an aeroplane are probably going to be like 1 in 20,000,000+. That's not the total point though, it's that even one happening is one too many. It's not an incident caused by an accident (like road car accident statistics when they get brought up to make people feel better ~ you often see people say you're far more likely to die on the road by car).
The more I discuss all of this the more I'm inclined to say I think security is successful as it currently stands. Therefore I'm completely in disagreement with Harris. Or is that an assumption that current day security doesn't already profile? I tried to search on transparency for how airports currently handle profiling and it's largely "100" articles on how Israeli airports do use profiling. There are articles about a supposed SPOT programme that works on points based system(s) to evaluate you... with a lot of criticism they do not work.
I typed up that above reply, then seen you've actually answered some of my hypotheticals with this post. Can I clarify though, do you not call it profiling when it's based around other traits such as age/gender? Or do you mean when people say "profiling" you and others associate that strictly with race/religion?
edit: As we continue to stray from Maajid Nawaz, I tried to quickly google him discussing profiling. I found this from 2010 ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-wgBFoS-Gs I can't say he isn't reasonable in some of his points there about the failings of profiling.
Arkage
Banned
He doesn't say having a black friend is a valid defense against racism. So that's a lie.
Your quotes complain about him choosing a centrist black professors instead of leftist black activists. If your going to claim the political spectrum one lands on is more important than the merits of an argument, while simultaneously claiming that leftist is "pro minorities"and anything else is "pro white," you're already deeply drinking the identity politics coolaid. Which is a hell of a lot easier than actually trying to freely determine which arguments and ideas are most representative of reality.
As for the Implicit Association Test, that has already been debunked on multiple levels due to it being both unreliable in replicating individual results, as well as invalid in predicting actual racist behavior or actions. The left jumped onto the IAT as a holy grail of proving racism without having any actual understanding of sociology, nor of the need for replicability and validity that is required to take the test seriously. Jordan Peterson has covered the topic multiple times.
HiredN00bs
Member
It's more nuanced than that, if you listen to any of his podcast discussion on the matter. He states that he fits the profile for someone that should be scrutinized. Think about how a jihadist might appear when attempting to carry out an attack in a Western setting:
1) They're not going to wear religious garb
2) They're not going to reveal they are Muslim
3) They are likely male
4) They are likely well-dressed
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I don't think it's possible to get an honest answer on profiling from people who know or at least firmly believe that they will never be profiled by enforcement agencies because of their skin color or general appearance, but as long as they don't operate in any capacity that affects the lives of minorities I suppose it's all right.
I applaud those of you willing to continue these conversations.
I applaud those of you willing to continue these conversations.
Arkage
Banned
This has been an evolving position of his. He now more narrowly focuses it upon not wasting time on little kids and old ladies. So his theory is now one of who not to target, rather than who to target. Also, he commonly talks about how Israel does a mix of randomized and targeting profiling, and has largely been successful, and points to that as his ideal system.
HiredN00bs
Member
A lot of Sam's positions evolve, that's part of what makes him a compelling listen, you're going on a journey of evolving thought. He's often lauded being willing to change one's mind in the middle of an open discussion as something to aspire to. He's a liberal intellectual who is just as biased as any other white affluent person, but he doesn't hold to his views religiously, and he often has voices which disagree with his. Could he do better? Sure. But he has a record of demonstrating he will, and he speaks intelligently and eloquently about other subjects.
I've certainly looked at things he's said about race and feminism as being tone deaf and ignorant, and I wish he would bring people who he more strongly disagrees with on the show.
theCalamity
Member
Then why single out a religion?
Not just race or religion, but also sex/gender and even age. As someone who has actually worked in security before, it's better to cast a wide net than to focus on a single demographic because you will then end up missing threats from elsewhere.
It's also better to have it randomized because then suspected terrorists can't develop a somewhat reliable method. If they see young kids or old ladies not being frisked, they will use them.
Audioboxer
Member
I get the part on randomisation, and that it should truly mean random. I did say earlier that should indeed include boys and old ladies. Sam tries to argue that is a waste of time/resources, and while I know resources are limited and you can damn well say time is too in an airport I cannot get behind random not being random. That is like the control measure to any selected searching that does go on, and therefore has to be applied to whoever falls into the net to be searched. Old lady or 8 year old.
On that note though, how do you cast a wide net for selected security? I guess where my head fails to disassociate the concept of profiling is even if you do cast a wide net as you put it, won't you still be active in some forms of profiling? Whether it is based on behavioural symptoms in the moment, or traits such as age, gender or race... You're still going to potentially end up looking for biases to lead you to carry out a search outwith the randomised.
I've had my finger rubbed with a substance in a NY airport when coming back to the UK when I was younger (whilst I was inside a see-through cube which I guessed was a body scan). It wasn't till after and I asked my family what that was about they said it was likely drug testing. I assume for residue on the fingertip? I'd be inclined to say this was random due to me standing with a family and being quite young (late teenager so not like child young). Then again, could it be thought a family could use their own children as drug mules? lol
Unless someone wants to correct me and my families suspicions that testing my finger wasn't about drugs. All I remember was something was rubbed on my index finger I believe it was.
IrishNinja
Member
this is exactly the kinda mess i'd expect a big harris fan to say, to be fair
theCalamity
Member
I meant a wide net in regards to demographics, basically randomization. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Behavioral profiling is okay. That's how it should be done. You listed some earlier, but it can't just be one thing, it has to be a combination of factors. But, like I said earlier, when lay people are talking about profiling, they mean profiling in regards to race or religion or sex/gender. It's why a lot of people have a problem with Harris: he wants to profile based on religion. His views might have "evolved" but I personally doubt it.
Some people would use their kids to hide illicit materials. I don't know how prevalent it is, but it happens. Cocaine hidden in Similac. Weed hidden in a car seat.
HiredN00bs
Member
If you could reliably determine someone was not a Muslim, you could assert they are not a jihadist (but could still be a terrorist of some other stripe). It's not a useful piece of information on its own, but it might be with other information. The probability of threat of jihadist attack would be part of what informs the efficacy of such a parameter in a profile.
Audioboxer
Member
Yeah, I think I agree and behavioural was my stance all along. A bias to be inclined to listen to Harris make a case about old ladies probably was the confusion. While I still can see how it is proposed 80 year old woman are statistically near 0 to commit a terror attack or even be up to something nefarious on a plane, it's looking at the whole situation wrongly. As is any uncomfortable bias in me to focus on statistics about (youthful) males largely being responsible for past acts. I think it's fair to say our airport security as is largely works, and our current concerns are when individuals do abuse and humiliate civilians unfairly.
Still interested to know if my finger being tested was drugs. I'd largely forgotten about that till all this talk about airport security. You make a fair point about parents using kids. I thought that too. Irony there being parents profiling their kids under the guise that kids are unlikely to be packing cocaine on them or in their belongings lol. Precisely a reason randomisation is needed. Criminals and worse will actively engage in profiling as it is to try and exploit what they believe will have LESS of a chance being searched in security (children's toys probably a big one, although that is more about luggage).
theCalamity
Member
But according to what you said earlier, you can't reliably determine if someone was Muslim or not because extremist 1) won't wear religious garb and 2) won't admit that they are. So while the TSA are profiling those who say they are Muslim or wear the garb, these guys are slipping under the radar.
Besides, religion is a poor indicator if someone will be extremist or not.
ClosingADoor
Member
Have those airport checks every stopped anyone in the history of air travel? Just put up the same checks for everyone, and background checks based on behavior. I can understand having heavier checks in some regions due to being closer to conflict zones) but the whole process at airports in the EU and US seems like such a waste. Especially when those terrorists can do just as much damage by blowing themselves up at a train station or the airport entrance or wherever. The extreme focus on airplanes themselves just seems so strange to me.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Law enforcement already profiles people. If there's a serial killer on the loose, they're gonna screen for white males.
Harris' mistake was trying to justify it in an argument to a lay audience.
Harris' mistake was trying to justify it in an argument to a lay audience.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Thanks. I added The Study Quran to my reading list. Unfair to ask of you, but could you pick one book from each of the other authors? Nasr in particular has an intimidating number of works.
Seyyed Hussein Nasr:
Islam and the Modern World (he speak a lot about islamism and revolutionaries ideas)
Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy (amazing if you like philosophy, he is just a great teacher")
Ideals and Realities of Islam (a rather old book, 1966, but a very great one. You won't learn about Islam as from a sociological approach but more about what it means "from the inside)
In the Search of the Sacred (i just love autobiography, and even more in a form of interview, very interesting stuff but more about him and his perspective than about Islam)
He is controversial among muslims because of his ideological background (strong link with Perennialism) but for me he is a very, very good scholar. A unique one. He don't bother about apologetics also.
The Study Quran is really an achievement. It's the only book in english i know who will give you the perspective of various muslims sects on a verse. So you will understand deeply how the Shi'a, the Sunni or somes Sufis understood the Quran.
You have also a number of great essays at the end of the books from very learned scholars on passionating issues such as the fate of non-muslims in the hereafter according the islamic tradition. The general presentation is also top notch.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
(Thanks audioboxer to have responded clearly about this issue)
It's exactly how profiling works. It's whether you take a parameter into the equation, or not.
If you take race or religion, it's racial and religious profiling.
It's also important to point out that terrorists usually shave their beards and will eliminate every sign of muslimness before committing a terrorist attack. Because of bigotry, and religious profiling (which, surprise, is actually enforced) i get double checked almost every time i take a plane. While an actual terrorist would pass. So it's actually detrimental to antiterrorism. But people like Harris can enjoyed their flights. He is just messing around after having clearly saying that we should profile muslims. It's the typical political tricks of saying something and then pretend you didn't says it without really refuting it. So you're base is happy, and your adversaries cannot attack you. If he is against religious/racial profiling, please point out where he said that muslimness and arabness should not be taking into account for profiling. He won't say that and he didn't say that. He want to maintain his bigoted views while maintaining he is not far-right. I'm sure a lot of people from the Left spectrum went to the alt.right (whit supremacy), or to adopt some of it's elements, using Sam Harris as a entrance door.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
So you approve that muslims should be double checked at airports ?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I don't approve anything.
I just mean law enforcement already profiles whether we like it or not.
"Muslim" seems like a rather crappy filter, though. That's 1/5 humans on earth. I'm sure they're more granular than that.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
He is calling for enforcing it, he is not saying that it's already enforced.
Do you think it's acceptable that someone, because he is perceived as a muslim or an arab, should be double checked ?
It's funny that for people who would harshly attack everyone who dare call their idol a bigot, they have a really hard time condemning straight out bigoted views like religious/racial profiling.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
That's why it's a bit silly for him to advocate for it and "die on that hill". They already do it.
Nope. As I said, that's a poor filter. If a rule like that were put in place, I'd think it would be to please right-wing nut jobs more than to actually catch terrorists.
But something like screening for males aged 16-35 from nations with a history of extremism? Sure. And that's what they do.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
So in the first message you're saying that Harris is stupid because they already do it, and in the second you're putting it in the conditional ("If a rule like that were put in place") .
Also, if you think it's a right-wing nutjob thing to do, you should condemn Harris trying to legitimize it instead of saying he is just stupid to try to explain it to the pleb.
Also, if you think it's a right-wing nutjob thing to do, you should condemn Harris trying to legitimize it instead of saying he is just stupid to try to explain it to the pleb.
Harris was trying to legitimize a right wing nut job thing to do, but the bad thing was that everyone was too stupid to get it. lol
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
It's just funny to see the same people screaming and shouting for dozen of page against anyone who would even dare calling Harris a reactionary doing all kind of complexes circumambulations to not call a evident bigoted view (one of the worst you can have, really) for what is it.
It's very telling about the kind of views Sam Harris and the like are promoting under the guise of the critic of religion. It's particularly hilarious to read back those same guys telling us few pages ago that everybody criticizing Harris was doing so only because he "dared" to criticize Islam. Are we living on the same earth ? You can't find a single TV program where Islam is not criticized, but for some reason, it's such impertinent when Sam Harris is spitting those "truths-that-the-left-don't-want-to-hear-about-those-mooslems" on live tv.
The far-right is running the same show with the same methodology on every issues.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
What law enforcement already do is screen for a variety of factors across age, gender, and cultural and national background. In that sense they already tend to pay more attention to young men from Yemen than elderly Korean women. So that's why I say, they're already doing what Harris is advocating for.
The sad truth is that officers looking for terrorists in the early 21st century already are looking more at people who tend to be Muslim than otherwise. It's very unfortunate, but surely this isn't surprising.
In the way you presented it, it seemed to me like you were presenting a situation where Muslims were put in some special exception category where all of them were automatically screened because they were Muslim. As I said, poor filter (that's 1/5th of humanity) and if it were the case, I'd think it were "security theatre".... for right-wingers.
I think Harris was suggesting that screeners consider Islamic cultural identity as a marker. And it's a bit silly because... they do. How do you think they look for ISIS militants? Youthful age. Typically male. And what religious background are they on the look out for? Hmm.. I wonder. As if they don't consider that already.
Just to be clear, I do think it's a silly hill for Harris to die on. I don't greatly agree with his position. At the same time, making arguments like these doesn't really paint a scarlet letter on him to me. It sounds like any random paper written in a criminology class.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
"I don't greatly agree with his position".
Ok so you somewhat agree with it even if you claimed 10 minutes ago that you were against it.
The issue is not if they do it or they don't. It's to support what they are doing or not.
And you obviously do, or at least, you don't bother.
And stop trying to paint it like he was just pointing out what was actually occurring, he is SUPPORTING that it's done in it's way. Just like you do. And also, it's just not nationalities (if it would ever justify) but race. Since the paris terrorist attack were made by french national, the only way to differentiate them is by the color of their skins.
Do you know that police also do racial profiling ? They are more likely to check young afro americans or latino for drugs than white male ? In what sense it's different ? Do you "don't greatly agree" with this also ?
Just for the record, do you consider yourself left-wing ?
Very interesting thread, to say the least. Feel like speaking to some cult followers. There is a clear tension between the need to agree with Harris on his most bigoted positions and to make him look like a progressive.
Ok so you somewhat agree with it even if you claimed 10 minutes ago that you were against it.
The issue is not if they do it or they don't. It's to support what they are doing or not.
And you obviously do, or at least, you don't bother.
And stop trying to paint it like he was just pointing out what was actually occurring, he is SUPPORTING that it's done in it's way. Just like you do. And also, it's just not nationalities (if it would ever justify) but race. Since the paris terrorist attack were made by french national, the only way to differentiate them is by the color of their skins.
Do you know that police also do racial profiling ? They are more likely to check young afro americans or latino for drugs than white male ? In what sense it's different ? Do you "don't greatly agree" with this also ?
Just for the record, do you consider yourself left-wing ?
Very interesting thread, to say the least. Feel like speaking to some cult followers. There is a clear tension between the need to agree with Harris on his most bigoted positions and to make him look like a progressive.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
You're looking at my statement as "half full". It was a "half empty" statement.
My statement means I do not care about Harris points on torture. Anything I've said about profiling is my own view, not in defence of his. I've said that I don't think he's dismissible for his views, but his view is not my view.
When I describe the way that things are done in the state, why would you assume that it is "support"?
Are you just demonizing the concept of profiling, full stop?
Profiling is how police work is done. It's not a dirty concept. It's necessary.
Blacks getting stopped for being black is a mismanagement of profiling. Looking at 1/10th of the American population for crime is poor filtering, just like looking at 1/5 of humanity in the Muslim example.
But when a crime turns up at the police station, the first thing they do is try to determine possible age, sex, and cultural background, and that is not wrong. It's how you narrow the search from the wider population.
You're not really debating in good faith with this statement. If you want to throw around the word "cult", I can think of a certain major religious ideology you could apply the word to. Let's not go there.
My non-openness to your claim of Harris being a bigot does not make me some kind of Harris sycophant. There are plenty of ways in which I think he is wrong and occasionally silly. In the past on GAF I have called him a Socrates-like figure, a guy who asks so many impertinent questions that eventually people want him to drop dead.
I simply don't subscribe to this flippant smearing of people who weigh in on tricky topics. I see this "Harris = bigot" claim as intellectually simplistic and tribalist. A scarlet letter to dismiss people who ask hard questions and don't come to particular PC answers.
As I said before, I reserve the term bigot or islamophobe for people who are actually hateful, derogatory, or simply dismiss people from their community even when they wish to integrate. I've seen actual bigots. I've seen actual racists. People having honest debates about how society should function in a tricky world where terrorism exists are not worthy of being dismissed like hateful monsters.
Yes. I am a left wing liberal. I value deeply the critique of major power structures. And I value freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry into various social topics. That's why I'm here in this thread.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Comparing Sam Harris to Socrates. *cringe intensify*
And for the tenth time, he was not describing police work, he was defending it and call for us to stop criticizing profiling. And of course, if it was not evident, i'm speaking about racial/religious profiling. You know, the fact that if i go to the airport, and you go to the airport, i'm more likely to miss my plane and shamed in front of my family/people. But who cares right ? I'm only a pleb, can't understand those great and important police tools.
Having seen extreme bigot/racist, don't magically protect you for having bigoted/racist views.
Leftist american defending racial/religious profiling, what a time to be alive !
Look! Socrate speaking:
Source
Such impertinence ! Such courage! But i guess, again, you won't "greatly agree" with that.
Nothing an actual bigot would think. I mean, IQ difference between races is just science. Can't understand that, l'll just ask a white friend, i'm far too mixed.
And for the tenth time, he was not describing police work, he was defending it and call for us to stop criticizing profiling. And of course, if it was not evident, i'm speaking about racial/religious profiling. You know, the fact that if i go to the airport, and you go to the airport, i'm more likely to miss my plane and shamed in front of my family/people. But who cares right ? I'm only a pleb, can't understand those great and important police tools.
Having seen extreme bigot/racist, don't magically protect you for having bigoted/racist views.
Leftist american defending racial/religious profiling, what a time to be alive !
Look! Socrate speaking:
Source
Such impertinence ! Such courage! But i guess, again, you won't "greatly agree" with that.
Nothing an actual bigot would think. I mean, IQ difference between races is just science. Can't understand that, l'll just ask a white friend, i'm far too mixed.
While it's easy to call Harris a bigot and dismissing Audioboxer's posts even though he is providing well thought out posts, can you admit if Islam needs reform to meet western societal standards or is it completely compatible with it?
I'm genuinely asking the progressive Muslims on here. I here often about the views towards the LBGT communities, towards apostates, etc. I would love to believe the majority does not have ill will towards such communities.
There's no defending Sam's comments on profiling from me. I think that's the wrong way to go about things. But can we admit if Islam needs reform and if so, what and how?
I'm genuinely asking the progressive Muslims on here. I here often about the views towards the LBGT communities, towards apostates, etc. I would love to believe the majority does not have ill will towards such communities.
There's no defending Sam's comments on profiling from me. I think that's the wrong way to go about things. But can we admit if Islam needs reform and if so, what and how?
unpopularblargh
Member
PZ Myers.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Just read the five last pages, we spoke about islamic reformism a great deal. However, the Bell Curve says that we should wait for Sam Harris to take the great endeavour to reform our religion, or at least provide some guidance.
Honest question, what is there to reform?
Similar threads
- Locked