3 ms·

I think it's better in the short term, and the long term. Those removed humans have plenty of other opportunities to address their prejudices, and profiling inn

by salvar 8y ago

I think it's better in the short term, and the long term. Those removed humans have plenty of other opportunities to address their prejudices, and profiling innocent shoppers based on their skin color isn't actually necessary.

bfung 8y ago
>Those removed humans have plenty of other opportunities to address their prejudices Where do they have the opportunity to address their prejudices? How can they understand if they never have the chance to talk to the other side, or have the other side be able to engage them? With the automation, the semi-forced interaction is gone. Humans are "lazy" by default and those situations won't happen.
- salvar 8y ago
  > How can they understand if they never have the chance to talk to the other side Are you saying that profiling people in stores is literally the only chance people have to talk to "the other side"? How about they use any other available opportunity for human interaction in any other situation in their lives to address their prejudices?
  - bfung 8y ago
    What are other opportunities where people are semi-forced to interact (that don't normally interact with each other)? How do the other opportunities make the profiler no longer profiling when the situation is out of a store? I am not saying profiling people in stores is the only chance, as the profiling is already a base assumption. I'm saying the automation is taking away more semi-forced interaction point. My premise is that it's bad, as people can only really understand each other when they interact. And most people don't actively interact. The supermarket/shopping place is one place that generally is forced interaction.
    - salvar 8y ago
      Have you considered the cost of the profilee in these cases? What if they don't want to be the subject of a teachable moment for some prejudiced person? Would you tell them that they are wrong?

by salvar 8y ago

bfung 8y ago

>Those removed humans have plenty of other opportunities to address their prejudices Where do they have the opportunity to address their prejudices? How can they understand if they never have the chance to talk to the other side, or have the other side be able to engage them? With the automation, the semi-forced interaction is gone. Humans are "lazy" by default and those situations won't happen.

salvar 8y ago
> How can they understand if they never have the chance to talk to the other side Are you saying that profiling people in stores is literally the only chance people have to talk to "the other side"? How about they use any other available opportunity for human interaction in any other situation in their lives to address their prejudices?
- bfung 8y ago
  What are other opportunities where people are semi-forced to interact (that don't normally interact with each other)? How do the other opportunities make the profiler no longer profiling when the situation is out of a store? I am not saying profiling people in stores is the only chance, as the profiling is already a base assumption. I'm saying the automation is taking away more semi-forced interaction point. My premise is that it's bad, as people can only really understand each other when they interact. And most people don't actively interact. The supermarket/shopping place is one place that generally is forced interaction.
  - salvar 8y ago
    Have you considered the cost of the profilee in these cases? What if they don't want to be the subject of a teachable moment for some prejudiced person? Would you tell them that they are wrong?