< 1 >
Posted: 1 year ago by 2manyusernames:
Can someone please explain why when racial or other type of profiling is done against middle-easteners, muslims, african-americans, etc, etc the media and a minority percentage of the population goes absolutely ape-s**t.
They scream, they protest, they try extortion, they intimidate, they create all sorts of havoc, oftentimes even resorting to physical damage.
HOWEVER when racial or other type of profiling is done against people such as serial killers where the percentages show the most likely perp is a white male, the media and the public puts the profilers on a pedestal. They turn those profilers into SuperHeroes with movies, books, television series, etc being made about their methods and how wonderful it is.
Why is this?
The situations are the same.
The profilers are basing on percentages.
As an example:
Sure not all muslim air travelers are terrorists. Sure 99.999% of the muslim air travelers are innocent people.
Sure not all terrorists are muslims. Some might be any nationality, race, age, etc.
However the fact remains that 100% of the terror attacks on US airlines for the last 20 years have been muslims.
Not equally,
Not all white males are serial killers.
99.999% of white males are innocent people who have no intention of killing a half-dozen women.
Sure not all serial killers are white males. Some killers might be any nationality, race, age, gender, etc.
However the fact remains that the majority of serial killers are white males.
It isn't just serial killers either. It can be any crime. Arson, counterfiting, etc, etc. When the profile is one group, it is revered and practially worshiped.
When it is other groups, there are those who want to burn the profiler at the stake and I'm not talking in effigy.
Score: [-] 118 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by gratheo:
Very well said, 2many. I agree with you about the inconsistency of the media in regards to racial profiling and their attitudes towards profilers. It becomes unsettling when people here in North America , upon being told I lived in a Muslim-majority country for 14 years, exclaim that I must have been lucky not to have died by then. Cue the half-hour explanation of why they are wrong.
Score: [-] 72 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by Maven:
I agree, but the disconnect is the simple fact that even knowing that white males are more likely to be serial killers, a disproportionate number of white males aren't pulled over/invesitaged/followed by mall security/hovered over by airline security/turned in by a neighbor of a different race without there being something OTHER than race as a factor.
Score: [-] 63 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by sparklyeyedgal181:
You're talking about the difference between "racial profile" and "criminal profiling."
Racial profiling is seeing a Muslim and thinking "TERRORIST!"
Criminal profiling is seeing a terrorist and thinking "MUSLIM!"
We profile criminals from past examples. It the norms of those that commit those crimes. It's generally based on statistical evidence.
If 99.999% of all studied serial killer were lonely, quiet, white males, it's not wrong to assume the next serial killer we're looking for fits that profile. And of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and criminal profilers know that. Profiles are meant as guidelines, not absolute doctrine.
Score: [-] 92 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
Not sure I'll answer this to your satisfaction, statistically, and put the way you present it that seems unfair. You need to extrapolate out one more degree.
When "terrorists" are publicly profiled, by say the average airport security scanner guy, they are not looking for a specific individual (i.e., they don't have it narrowed down that far). Whereas, an FBI profiler will narrow it down to education level, job type, sometimes even whether the person wears glasses or not. They will narrow it down to income level or whether this person is a loner or probably married or just the average guy. Then even after they develop this profile they don't just go and round-up every single white male that fits this category hoping to net the culprit in the process. The profile for a serial killer may start with "probably a white male" but it doesn't stop there as it does with terrorist "probably a Muslim". The latter tends to breed vigilantism against any Muslim since there's no specifics.
Score: [-] 85 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by 2manyusernames:
Thanks, some very intelligent and thought-provoking responses.
Score: [-] 73 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by steelshooter:
« 2manyusernames :
The situations are the same.
The profilers are basing on percentages. First, let me say that I believe in using profiling for security. Since terrorists tend to share a common set of traits and those traits should be used to warrant a second look by security persons. Strip searching the 90-year-old woman to keep searches "random" is a waste of time and an effort to get politicians re-elected, not an attempt to keep me safe.
OK, now to your comparison. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME! Two big differences:
- One has the purpose of grouping individuals together, the other the goal of separating an individual from the background.
- One has a huge racial component, in the other race is less important than other factors (unless it is unexpected based on the situation).
It just so happens that terrorists against the US are of a small number of racial groups. If we were to make the profile as British law enforcement 20 years ago, race would be less distinguishing than religious affiliation and point of origin. So what raises protest is that "Profiling" now is generally confused with "Racism". Many of them have a point, we have had a history persecution based on "Racial Profiling". This is the part that causes all the ruckus.
But the biggest difference is what the purpose of the profile is:
- In the case of terrorists, we have a set of characteristics which a large number of terrorists share. If we use these traits to single out an individual we have made a determination about the possible acts this person may commit based on a profile. We are treating a known individual based on what we know about the worst members of an arbitrary group to which he belongs.
- In the case of a serial killer, we are doing exactly the opposite. We are not creating a profile of the "average serial killer" and trying to find someone that matches. We are trying to create a profile of a person based on specific acts they have already committed. This profile is tailored to an individual and is used to help determine what this person may do next. Possibly, it may provide corroboration once a suspect is identified. We are treating an unknown individual based on what we do know about him.
The only way they would be the same would be if we created a profile of a serial killer that said he was a left-handed, white male, and then proceeded to "question" every left-handed white male we could find. Regardless of any other factors.
Score: [-] 54 [+].
< 1 >