4 ms·

I'm always curious on where we draw the line for these subjects. Lets say for the sake of argument there is a key tell that is very effective for spotting a vi

I'm always curious on where we draw the line for these subjects. Lets say for the sake of argument there is a key tell that is very effective for spotting a violent criminal. Do we have to ignore that tell if it falls into a sketchy subject matter like race or religion? Likewise, what if there is a "key tell" that someone is not a violent criminal. Do we have to ignore it if it falls into a sketchy subject matter like race or religion? To be clear, i am not implying that Muslims are that "key tell", statistically they're far from it simply due to the number of them. It was just a question, unrelated to Islam. Personally, i don't care what the "tells" are, race or religion. I think they're all valid. I simply disagree that the tells are effective enough to warrant questioning someones religion at all. Seems like more of the super expensive and famously ineffective TSA safety theater.

komali2 10y ago
Problem is, there are no "tells," particular of a religious orientation.
- notheguyouthink 10y ago
  I think there are. Eg, i feel pretty justified in assuming and acting on (ie, walking away from them lol) anyone from the west bureau baptist church. I have yet to see a rational, non-hatefilled comment come out of WBBC (not sure what acronym they go by). So why do i have to strictly assume innocence? If they start bombing or hijacking planes next week, can we not ban them from flying? It seems quite reasonable. I'm not saying we hang them all, because they have not all been proven violent, but it's a small sect with extremism and clear patterns. Can we not use this information? Do we have to ignore it?
  - imglorp 10y ago
    On that note, there really have been a number of white Christian terrorists coming from the Carolinas. It's a valid discussion. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/robert_lewis_dear_is_one_of_many_religious_extremists_bred_in_north_carolina.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    Your example of a "tell" is quite narrowly defined. Yes, in fact it would make more sense to exclude WBBC rather than all Christians, but how do you identify members?
    - notheguyouthink 10y ago
      Well, as i mentioned in my post, you don't (at least, you don't by questioning them at TSA). It's too silly of a thing to even ask, as it's easily avoided by the would-be terrorist. ie, as i said: > Seems like more of the super expensive and famously ineffective TSA safety theater.
      - komali2 10y ago
        Before I left South Carolina they passed a law requiring terrorists to register as such. Theater is the right word.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    PS: It's Westboro, not West Bureau. Acronym is WBC.
    - notheguyouthink 10y ago
      Appreciate that, i thought that looked wrong haha.
  - tehwebguy 10y ago
    Sure, let's start with the most violent group: men
    - notheguyouthink 10y ago
      How is that relevant? I was speaking of a group of ~40[1] christians that identify as a collective and are world renown for hate speech. That is the exact opposite of a generalized large population like Christians, Muslims or "Men". [1]: Number posted by someone else here in this thread. Point is, small group, tiny, specific.
      - tehwebguy 10y ago
        It's not, just like the WBC example isn't IMO. You're talking about something like 40 people that meet together all the time (I'm guessing way more than just on Sundays), many of which are a part of the same family. Maybe I misunderstood the point though!
  - pfooti 10y ago
    The problem is one of false positives and prior probabilities. (also, it's westboro and wbc). There's like 40 people in the wbc. Even if you have a 100% false positive rate and just include everybody, that's 40 people. Plus, if we know they're bombing things we know who they are. We don't know who potential attackers on the US are, besides the counterfactual media narrative that they may be Brown. Relatedly. As a white dude, I often assert my rights to avoid the pornoscanner and opt out. Once in a while get sent to secondary screening, because my shaving soap seems to have a similar gas chromatography spectrum to an explosive. They swipe me down, swipe down the soap container, and then the machine turns red and beeps. Further investigation ensues, and I am released. They never treat me as a potential terrorist. That's probably because they know these machines are pretty terrible, and that the false positive rate is huuuge. But if I were? If this was indeed a dangerous substance and I a dangerous human? Well, the first time, they left me unsupervised in the same cubicle where they were storing their walkietalkies on a charging rack. Unsupervised, beyond just "stay there". Seriously. They know it's a false positive and it's treated very lightly - again, I'm a White dude with no obvious marginalizing markers. So yeah. If by "tell", you're talking about pulling aside everyone who "seems Muslim" (obligatory discussion of how Sikhs are often the target of hate crime from people who think they are Muslim because of their headwear here), you're pulling aside just under 1/3rd of the worlds' population. You can't use that information because it's literally useless. The further complication here is that white nationalist terrorists are just as dangerous as non-white ones, but this administration is focusing on non-white terrorism to the exclusion of everything else.
    - notheguyouthink 10y ago
      > If by "tell", you're talking about pulling aside everyone who "seems Muslim" (obligatory discussion of how Sikhs are often the target of hate crime from people who think they are Muslim because of their headwear here), you're pulling aside just under 1/3rd of the worlds' population. You can't use that information because it's literally useless. To be clear, i most certainly did not mean that. In fact, i feel like i said everything i could to explain i mean exactly the opposite of that. I also mention, as you mentioned, that statistically Muslim means nothing. This is a touchy subject, so please try to "if you meant"s in my mouth. I'm sure you meant no harm, but .. you know how these discussions can get :)

komali2 10y ago

Problem is, there are no "tells," particular of a religious orientation.

notheguyouthink 10y ago
I think there are. Eg, i feel pretty justified in assuming and acting on (ie, walking away from them lol) anyone from the west bureau baptist church. I have yet to see a rational, non-hatefilled comment come out of WBBC (not sure what acronym they go by). So why do i have to strictly assume innocence? If they start bombing or hijacking planes next week, can we not ban them from flying? It seems quite reasonable. I'm not saying we hang them all, because they have not all been proven violent, but it's a small sect with extremism and clear patterns. Can we not use this information? Do we have to ignore it?
- imglorp 10y ago
  On that note, there really have been a number of white Christian terrorists coming from the Carolinas. It's a valid discussion. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/robert_lewis_dear_is_one_of_many_religious_extremists_bred_in_north_carolina.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- alphabettsy 10y ago
  Your example of a "tell" is quite narrowly defined. Yes, in fact it would make more sense to exclude WBBC rather than all Christians, but how do you identify members?
  - notheguyouthink 10y ago
    Well, as i mentioned in my post, you don't (at least, you don't by questioning them at TSA). It's too silly of a thing to even ask, as it's easily avoided by the would-be terrorist. ie, as i said: > Seems like more of the super expensive and famously ineffective TSA safety theater.
    - komali2 10y ago
      Before I left South Carolina they passed a law requiring terrorists to register as such. Theater is the right word.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  PS: It's Westboro, not West Bureau. Acronym is WBC.
  - notheguyouthink 10y ago
    Appreciate that, i thought that looked wrong haha.
- tehwebguy 10y ago
  Sure, let's start with the most violent group: men
  - notheguyouthink 10y ago
    How is that relevant? I was speaking of a group of ~40[1] christians that identify as a collective and are world renown for hate speech. That is the exact opposite of a generalized large population like Christians, Muslims or "Men". [1]: Number posted by someone else here in this thread. Point is, small group, tiny, specific.
    - tehwebguy 10y ago
      It's not, just like the WBC example isn't IMO. You're talking about something like 40 people that meet together all the time (I'm guessing way more than just on Sundays), many of which are a part of the same family. Maybe I misunderstood the point though!
- pfooti 10y ago
  The problem is one of false positives and prior probabilities. (also, it's westboro and wbc). There's like 40 people in the wbc. Even if you have a 100% false positive rate and just include everybody, that's 40 people. Plus, if we know they're bombing things we know who they are. We don't know who potential attackers on the US are, besides the counterfactual media narrative that they may be Brown. Relatedly. As a white dude, I often assert my rights to avoid the pornoscanner and opt out. Once in a while get sent to secondary screening, because my shaving soap seems to have a similar gas chromatography spectrum to an explosive. They swipe me down, swipe down the soap container, and then the machine turns red and beeps. Further investigation ensues, and I am released. They never treat me as a potential terrorist. That's probably because they know these machines are pretty terrible, and that the false positive rate is huuuge. But if I were? If this was indeed a dangerous substance and I a dangerous human? Well, the first time, they left me unsupervised in the same cubicle where they were storing their walkietalkies on a charging rack. Unsupervised, beyond just "stay there". Seriously. They know it's a false positive and it's treated very lightly - again, I'm a White dude with no obvious marginalizing markers. So yeah. If by "tell", you're talking about pulling aside everyone who "seems Muslim" (obligatory discussion of how Sikhs are often the target of hate crime from people who think they are Muslim because of their headwear here), you're pulling aside just under 1/3rd of the worlds' population. You can't use that information because it's literally useless. The further complication here is that white nationalist terrorists are just as dangerous as non-white ones, but this administration is focusing on non-white terrorism to the exclusion of everything else.
  - notheguyouthink 10y ago
    > If by "tell", you're talking about pulling aside everyone who "seems Muslim" (obligatory discussion of how Sikhs are often the target of hate crime from people who think they are Muslim because of their headwear here), you're pulling aside just under 1/3rd of the worlds' population. You can't use that information because it's literally useless. To be clear, i most certainly did not mean that. In fact, i feel like i said everything i could to explain i mean exactly the opposite of that. I also mention, as you mentioned, that statistically Muslim means nothing. This is a touchy subject, so please try to "if you meant"s in my mouth. I'm sure you meant no harm, but .. you know how these discussions can get :)