5 ms·
Tossing in my own anecdotal experience: I worked in Loss Prevention (plain clothes security) for a major midwest retail chain, within 10 miles of a major metrop
by andrew_ 8y ago
Tossing in my own anecdotal experience: I worked in Loss Prevention (plain clothes security) for a major midwest retail chain, within 10 miles of a major metropolitan city for several years. We absolutely profiled customers. The catch is that we profiled teenagers of the Caucasian persuasion. Why? Because they were the folks most likely to try and lift goods. Folks wearing unnecessarily baggy clothing (think more than three layers, wildly oversized), obviously tweaking individuals, and people constantly changing direction or looking behind them were obvious targets - but far in the minority of people that were followed or apprehended. For me personally, the people who could be considered a minority made up maybe 10% of my total apprehensions.
It'll be different everywhere but not every retail store, and not every retail employee, fits the narrative of the article.
- pentae 8y agoOf course, if you'd swapped out the word "Caucasian" for "African American" your post would be downvoted and you'd be called a racist. But because we're DEFINITELY not racist mentioning you targeted white people is totally fine in 2018.
- mishurov 8y agoThe left nowadays have loads tools for witch hunt at their disposal: racism, metoo, homophobia, transphobia, etc. The Freedom of Speech 2018th Edition.
- cbg0 8y agoAs long as this is andrew_'s personal experience, I don't see why I'd call him a racist regardless of the race he profiled the most. He even goes on to explain that there's a good reason for targeting white teenagers: they were the most likely to steal something, so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Now if andrew_ had started generalizing, like you are doing, then I could see him getting called a racist and getting downvoted.
- nielsole 8y agoRacial profiling is being criticized despite being effective. There is an argument to be made that you shouldn't be treated differently based on the color of your skin. In fact it is e.g. in the German constitution. http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-german-court-forbids-police-checks-based-on-skin-color-a-864455.html http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-g...
- cbg0 8y ago> Racial profiling is being criticized despite being effective. You got anything to back up this blanket statement?
- arrrg 8y agoHow and why do you have to back it up? It’s just a type of argument that is actually quite common with its basic idea being that just because something is effective, doesn’t mean it’s right or just to do. Transferred to racial profiling the argument is this: Even if racial profiling is effective, employing it is still ethically indefensible and plain wrong. Put another way: Even if we agree on a goal (e.g. catching more criminals) that doesn’t mean that any effective way to achieve or improve that is then suddenly appropriate. The German constitutional court does make this argument explicitly (even though I’m not sure any police officers actually respect that – but at least those affected can now somewhat defend themselves).
- cbg0 8y ago> How and why do you have to back it up? With arguments, and to support your point of view. Maybe I wasn't clear. I wanted some real evidence that racial profiling is effective (as well as how effective it is), I wasn't looking to get into an argument about the morality of the issue.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoHere's an article explaining the counterproductiveness of "watch lists", but that doesn't map directly to the shoplifting scenario. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-profiling-terrorism-statistics/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-profiling-...
- retsibsi 8y agoI'm annoyed by some of the same things as you, but you shouldn't pretend there's not an important difference here. Racially profiling against a disadvantaged minority group with a history of appalling treatment at the hands of the majority is one thing; doing the same to members of a group with none of those characteristics is another. It's pretty obvious why one might be significantly more hurtful, offensive, controversial, etc. than the other -- and it has little to do with the (dumb, offensive) 'fuck white men' stuff you seem to be reacting to.
- mattigames 8y agoSo what you are saying is that profiling against a group with a history of appalling treatment at the hands of the majority is one thing, but doing the same with a different profiling is wrong, because clothing is clearly a choice but skin color is clearly not; despite being white boys raised among hundreds of people with the same clothing preference we should expect such young men to go against their surroundings and pick any other forms of clothing in order to be worthy of not being pre-judged right?
- matt4077 8y agoNo, they're not saying that. Although there's a bit of merit to the idea, and it's part of the justification for choice of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws. Here's two more arguments: - When such profiling is actually a contradiction of the traditional, racist stereotypes, it is far easier to believe that it's actually the result of learned experience, and therefore part of an honest attempt to be effective. - It's far less of a burden to be confronted by "unusual" stereotyping. For practical reasons, because, say, one employer not hiring you because they don't like redheads is far less of a threat to your career than a significant number thinking your gender or skin color disqualify. And, more importantly, it will cause less psychological harm. To illustrate: I'm 6 feet tall; Once, for reasons I still don't understand, someone tried to insult me as being short. Such incongruities are more likely to cause bewilderment than anger or sadness.
- isoskeles 8y ago
- talltimtom 8y agoIf you care to actually read the post he’s not saying he was targeting white people because of race. He is saying they target people due to suspicious behavior and then gives you a lay down of the race of those targeted. It’s not an account of someone being racist against Caucasian a and everyone being fine with that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- salvar 8y agoMaybe not the specific narrative of the article, but surely whatever the profiling looks like the narrative of "In Amazon Go, you're not profiled based on your looks" fits.
- fvdessen 8y agoEither you don't profile at all, or you profile with something that correlates with looks, which will seem like profiling on looks.
- salvar 8y agoSure, but my point is that interpreting the narrative of the article to only apply to black people, and not other types of profiling in shops, is pretty unfair.
- fggdgvcdderr 8y agoI think there won't be any progress in the racism discussion, until there is an acknowledgement that profiling to some degree is normal and acceptable. People should still be treated with dignity and presumed innocent until proven guilty. But you can not ask people who have had bad experiences to pretend they didn't happen. As an extreme example that "the left" might be able to emphatize with: imagine a woman who has been raped. Should we blame her, if she acts more careful around men in the future?
- paulie_a 8y agoWas the eldery a significant group? This is anecdotal but I've consistently heard from cops and even a couple of police chiefs that theft is pretty common in that demographic.
- andrew_ 8y agoOddly enough apprehensions in the 70+ age group most often revolved around produce. Typically the story we got was that they were bored or just felt like doing something "exciting" rather than anything to do with cost. Those apprehensions were typically under $5 USD so it was the proverbial slap on the wrist.