4 ms·

> I'm just so shocked by how... normal it's gotten. I mean, i think in concept it's perfectly fine. If we started banning a small sect of insanely violent Chri

> I'm just so shocked by how... normal it's gotten. I mean, i think in concept it's perfectly fine. If we started banning a small sect of insanely violent Christians i don't think it would be wrong, nor do i think people would cry racism / xenophobia. My issue is that in the above example we're not banning all Christians, we're banning that small sect. Likewise, we're not focusing on banning a small sect of Muslims (which /may/ be perfectly reasonable), we're banning them all. .. And there's just so damn many of them, it's banning vastly more innocents than guiltys.. the net has been cast far too wide. Ignoring Muslims for a moment, why can't we ban a crazy sect of christians who have shown massively violent/hateful trends? Are we not just banning an obvious pattern of human behavior? Does their skin color or religion really matter that much?

Klathmon 10y ago
Well personally I feel that using religion as a "flag" in something like that is still wrong. Now that might be my "mid 20's white male never been directly affected by any kind of terrorist attack" talking, but I just feel that the risk for abuse is too great. In the US we have laws that make it harder for the police and the government to take action. We deliberately tie our own hands with things like laws against unreasonable searching, against being forced to incriminate yourself, and more. We have many times in our history let very bad people walk free because of these restrictions we have placed on ourselves, and personally I believe that to be the right choice. Now things are different when you are talking about non-citizens, but at the end of the day I think we should strive to that same kind of standard. Don't use things like religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other things like it as a basis for "flagging" someone. If they are violent, then disallow them based on that. If they surround themselves with violent extremists, then disallow them because of that. If they publicly speak about how they want to hurt americans, then disallow them because of that. But don't group someone from the same religion in with them. Yes, that means that it will be harder to "secure our borders" and yes i'm sure that means that bad people will get through at some point, and yes I know that those bad people could very well do a lot of harm. But I really truly believe that more good than harm will come from it simply from the amount of good people that will be coming into the country compared to the bad.
- the_d00d 10y ago
  > Now things are different when you are talking about non-citizens, but at the end of the day I think we should strive to that same kind of standard. Don't use things like religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other things like it as a basis for "flagging" someone. Don't forget age. Remember, this is America and we are all just consumers. You just ruled out the 5 most obvious things that differentiate one consumer from the next. I guess it's OK in marketing. > If they are violent, then disallow them based on that. OK... This falls in the no shit category, but what if they happen to say they aren't violent and have a fake passport, or ID? > If they surround themselves with violent extremists, then disallow them because of that. What if they were carrying a clean phone and computer? > If they publicly speak about how they want to hurt americans, then disallow them because of that. Fair...But what of they claim to be someone else? > But don't group someone from the same religion in with them. Whether it is a human, an animal, a statistical model, or a machine learning model some sort of reduction must occur in order to have any chance comprehension. Deliberately ignoring a significant feature is a form of bias too. > Yes, that means that it will be harder to "secure our borders" and yes i'm sure that means that bad people will get through at some point, and yes I know that those bad people could very well do a lot of harm. But I really truly believe that more good than harm will come from it simply from the amount of good people that will be coming into the country compared to the bad. This is legit and a totally reasonable statement. Next time just open and close with this. Skip the do's and don'ts of fair practices at security checkpoints.

Klathmon 10y ago

Well personally I feel that using religion as a "flag" in something like that is still wrong. Now that might be my "mid 20's white male never been directly affected by any kind of terrorist attack" talking, but I just feel that the risk for abuse is too great. In the US we have laws that make it harder for the police and the government to take action. We deliberately tie our own hands with things like laws against unreasonable searching, against being forced to incriminate yourself, and more. We have many times in our history let very bad people walk free because of these restrictions we have placed on ourselves, and personally I believe that to be the right choice. Now things are different when you are talking about non-citizens, but at the end of the day I think we should strive to that same kind of standard. Don't use things like religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other things like it as a basis for "flagging" someone. If they are violent, then disallow them based on that. If they surround themselves with violent extremists, then disallow them because of that. If they publicly speak about how they want to hurt americans, then disallow them because of that. But don't group someone from the same religion in with them. Yes, that means that it will be harder to "secure our borders" and yes i'm sure that means that bad people will get through at some point, and yes I know that those bad people could very well do a lot of harm. But I really truly believe that more good than harm will come from it simply from the amount of good people that will be coming into the country compared to the bad.

the_d00d 10y ago
> Now things are different when you are talking about non-citizens, but at the end of the day I think we should strive to that same kind of standard. Don't use things like religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other things like it as a basis for "flagging" someone. Don't forget age. Remember, this is America and we are all just consumers. You just ruled out the 5 most obvious things that differentiate one consumer from the next. I guess it's OK in marketing. > If they are violent, then disallow them based on that. OK... This falls in the no shit category, but what if they happen to say they aren't violent and have a fake passport, or ID? > If they surround themselves with violent extremists, then disallow them because of that. What if they were carrying a clean phone and computer? > If they publicly speak about how they want to hurt americans, then disallow them because of that. Fair...But what of they claim to be someone else? > But don't group someone from the same religion in with them. Whether it is a human, an animal, a statistical model, or a machine learning model some sort of reduction must occur in order to have any chance comprehension. Deliberately ignoring a significant feature is a form of bias too. > Yes, that means that it will be harder to "secure our borders" and yes i'm sure that means that bad people will get through at some point, and yes I know that those bad people could very well do a lot of harm. But I really truly believe that more good than harm will come from it simply from the amount of good people that will be coming into the country compared to the bad. This is legit and a totally reasonable statement. Next time just open and close with this. Skip the do's and don'ts of fair practices at security checkpoints.