nobody can prove it in because they're probably wrong about it being true.

Another one flies over chez's head.

For those of you not clued in, I actually believe DS in this case; I am absolutely sure this is a totally innocent question and he in fact isn't looking for a way to angleshoot his way into getting some racist policy into effect.

However, the value of these types of questions is extremely minute and it gives actual racists a huge escape hatch when they get caught posting racist baloney. And amazingly a lot of people who seem to otherwise be pretty smart don't seem to understand this AND also happen to have a throbbing hardon for these types of questions, which is a really curious combination.

NRA.

if you really want to find out who DS is talking about, you will have to wait for the release of his upcoming bestseller: The Mathematics of Racism, coming soon to the 2p2 store

Such people probably have a hard time believing that so many people can really believe stuff like that, even knowing that people are mostly pretty amazingly dim. And maybe have a hard seeing what discussion among intelligent adults has to do with such people anyway.

this is a cost benefit analysis and doesn't really work in generalities.

Using a hypothetical case of muslims. if 5% of muslims had terrorist ties or intentions and the the extra scrutiny of leaving their bags in an x-ray screener for a few extra seconds was sufficient to protect other passengers, then sure. thats a small sacrifice the good 95% has to make to protect themselves and the rest of the public.

if 5% of muslims think sharia should one day be the supreme law of all countries on earth, and the consequence was to send all muslims to internment camps, obviously this is terribly wrong and unacceptable

Calm down mate. I know it feels wrong when we happen to agree about something but it's going to happen now and again. And you can't really expect me to be clued in on your views on DS before I'd seen you mention them.

We can disagree a bit now. The question is valuable because the only defense we have against bad profiling is thinking about it correctly. Losing sight of that because of fear of some racist posts is a curious sense of priorities.

Having said that DS might have that point of yours to address because not only is his OP most likely not about Muslims in particular, it's quite possibly not because of a concern about profiling either.

You have a hard time beliving that so many people can believe WHAT "stuff like that"???

And, in case you haven't noticed, this discussion isn't exclusively among intelligent adults. People use this hide-and-seek bull**** in this very forum all the time.

But you already knew that, assuming you're one of the "intelligent adults".

I'm prefectly calm, dude.

There are more effective ways of examining the problems with profiling, and in a shocking coincidence, they don't provide cover for racists.

What I know now and may have known at other times or allow myself to see or not see is in constant fluctuation.

Right, of course, selective acceptance of reality is a vital skill for certain endeavors.

Understanding profiling can always be used as cover for some racist posts, it's no coincidence it's just the nature of profiling. That's why it must be well understood because public policy on profiling is also very open to abuse by racists and that matters far more.

It might even be considered the core of abstract thinking.

It might! Of course, there are other things we could consider as well. And happily, we actually have empirical observations of how people in this forum apply the idea of ignoring inconvenient facts so we can make educated conclusions.

It's not really the point of the mental exercise.

But here's a hypothetical way it could occur. Let's say that funding for gun violence research was increased and this led to the conclusion that 95% of gun owners are harmless and bad things done with guns are only performed by 5% of gun owners, for some definition of "bad things done with guns".

Is it okay to put all gun owners under extra scrutiny in an attempt to curtail the harm done by this 5%? Does this scenario seem plausible to you?

These types of questions have entertainment value. I can't use the internet solely for watching porn.

I like these questions (when done right) and I understand that it gives actual racists plausible deniability at times, which is why it should be okay to call out the more obvious BruceZ-type racism.

Of course, stopping someone who has gotten a lifetime of good use out of a certain way of approaching thinking from doing things that way, even in an environment where they can see problems with it can be tricky.

Especially for people who have no problems employing such techniques in a place like say SMP.

Actually the gun owner controversy is another very good example of the subject of the OP. Not that 5% should be scrutinized. But rather whether gun buyers in general should be made to jump through more hoops to make sure they are not in the 5%.

Notice, by the way that in this case it is liberals who would punish 95% to reduce risk from 5% rather than the conservative pro profiler/quarantiner.

It's possibly a good example because we finally have one where the group seems to object and might still do so if the 5% figure was reached. Lots of less controversial groups like these: driving cars on public roads, operating dangerous machinery, owning lions etc etc

but they all share the trait in that it's universally applied to everyone: everyone has to prove they can drive, own a gun, own a lion etc etc in exactly the same way before they are allowed to do so. It's just as the sanction for failing scrutiny is to not be allowed to do it, we save a lot of time and inconvenience by not worrying about those who don't want to do it anyway. EDIT: and us liberals are very happy with universally applied license requirements.

To make the example work don't we need to consider sub-groups like people who want to own a gun who have characteristic X where 5% of those with characteristic X are much more dangerous to everyone? good contenders for X might be a history of violence or of yelling on the internet.

The current government philosophy sees to be if it a group like

Muslims (terrorism) No
African Americans ( stop and frisk) Maybe
Gun owners (gun control) if we think we can get away with it
People who carry large amounts of cash (civil forfeiture) hell yes free money

Sad fact is most Americans don't care about the taking of rights unless it directly effects them. And they think taking rights that they don't feel the need to have, will stop with those.

interesting list:

harassing people
harassing people
...
straight up theft

I leave off the guns one because it isn't clear exactly your point or how it fits in.

If you actually think gun control laws (at least in America) are attempts to ban all guns, then LOL @ you.

Of that list, it's the one that fits with the others the least

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ba...nt?oid=2147131
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...y-ban-all-guns
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...g-term-process
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001...1654.1217.html
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-la...say-otherwise/


Come again?

Grunching:

If the 5% is able to move with impunity across the population it is the other 95% that would seem to bear the brunt of the responsibility. Tacit acceptance of violence is still acceptance of violence, and if the core of the the group doesn't wish to be affiliated with the 5% that are violent they should devise policies that would limit that groups use of the core population to distribute their violent actions.

Here's the important part you seemed to not understand, LAS, bolded so yo don't miss it again:

gun control laws

Racists can't use this OP as stated. Because it wasn't just that five percent are dangerous. It also stated that this figure was 100 times normal. That perhaps applies to West Africans flying to America, people who own assault rifles, and Muslim extremists, but not to any race.

Also you should realize that I like "these types of questions" regardless of whether they apply to politics or anything else. Thinking about them helps your brain.