Justine Diamond

[RandBlade]

Dudes and esp. drunk dudes are far more likely to engage in violence and sexual harrassment or even assault compared to sober women. You should be wary, you should view them with great suspicion--or, if you care that much about the safety of your "female staff", bar drinking and dudes from your bar outright.

Again I've not talked about barring anyone who hasn't yet acted inappropriately. But yes if someone has had too much I won't serve them any more. In fact it is illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk ...

As far as I can tell, you have, by turns, attempted to minimize the problem (few bad apples, not very common, nowhere near as bad as what police are subjected to) or claim, in various ways, that the blatant racial disparities are justified (black people are more violent, black people are more likely to be criminals, cops are more at risk from black people, etc). If you have acknowledged that racial disparities are common and persist even when you take plausible alternative explanations into account, you have not done so very clearly, which is why you have been presented with the same arguments over and over again.

More likely you believe that your posts about guns constituted an acknowledgement of the fact that there are great unjustified racial disparities in the US justice system, esp. in police interventions.

I have said time and again that racism is inappropriate and that steps should be taken to address it. Such as increased use of body cams and disciplinary action to remove bad apples from the force even if they stop short of criminal actions.

[Khendraja'aro]

I have done. I would not have used pikey, but gypsy is what they call themselves.

Ex-member, Rand. How do you define that?

Third time you've dodged the question.

[Loki]

I have said time and again that racism is inappropriate and that steps should be taken to address it. Such as increased use of body cams and disciplinary action to remove bad apples from the force even if they stop short of criminal actions.

You explicitly said the police are justified in treating African Americans with more suspicion and be quicker to resort to violence against them.

[RandBlade]

Ex-member, Rand. How do you define that?

Third time you've dodged the question.

Same as any community. What's an ex-Jehova's Witness? Someone who used to be a member of a community but now isn't.

[RandBlade]

You explicitly said the police are justified in treating African Americans with more suspicion and be quicker to resort to violence against them.

Only on aggregate and only because of the actions of African Americans. If those actions weren't happening they wouldn't be justified.

If the Police are looking for an armed and dangerous black man they're not going to be shooting at a random white grandmother that they believe matches the description.

[Aimless]

And so we're back to you ignoring the evidence presented in this thread as well as in the BLM thread.

[RandBlade]

What evidence?

[Lewkowski]

Rand's personal flaws aside, I really don't see how supporting state-sanctioned violence and discrimination against an entire race because that race is disproportionately likely to commit certain kinds of crimes is anything but racism, an attitude that HAS a material impact when held by enough people.

I think you have to look at things realistically and stop viewing things solely through a racial lens.

If you have a community that has the vast majority of crime in a city - should the police spend extra time there? If that community is home to many suspects for multiple as of yet unresolved crimes should more people be stopped and investigated? If that community is 80%+ black that's quickly going to skew data to show 'omg the police a racist!!!' when in fact they are doing intelligent policing.

Regardless of the ethnic makeup of a community I would expect police to do what makes sense.

Similarly if you are flying in from Middle Eastern countries and you fit some of the common profile markers of a terrorist I'd want additional diligence during security screenings. Is that objectionable to you?

[Ominous Gamer]

Similarly if you are flying in from Middle Eastern countries and you fit some of the common profile markers of a terrorist I'd want additional diligence during security screenings. Is that objectionable to you?

Are you talking of the more numerous/active white christian type, or the fear mongered brown with a beard type?

[Aimless]

I would like to refer both of the village idiots to the links to studies of racial bias and the DoJ investigations presented in this thread and the BLM thread so that they do not embarrass themselves or waste time presenting inane arguments that are not borne out by the evidence.

[RandBlade]

Please stop with the straw men or find me anywhere postulating that there is no racial bias

[RandBlade]

Are you talking of the more numerous/active white christian type, or the far mongered brown with a beard type?

The white Christian types you name should be given all due attention yes.

[Ominous Gamer]

[RandBlade]

Who said everyone?

Intelligence should be used to evaluate risks but the notions that either only non whites are a risk, or that everyone equally is, is an utter moron.

The idea that terrorist is a non white thing is just dumb given that whites have caused more terrorism.

[Ominous Gamer]

Who said everyone?

you fit some of the common profile markers of a terrorist

[RandBlade]

I don't see the word everyone in Lewkowski's post.

What are the "common profile markers of a terrorist" would be a much better retort.

[Ominous Gamer]

If ignorance is your tea of choice for today than you must wait for lewk to dig his hole deeper.

[RandBlade]

I'm not defending Lewk I'm talking to you not him. White terrorist groups have been a major problem for decades so it would take an utter moron to think we shouldn't use our intelligence against them. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use our intelligence and should just act randomly.

[RandBlade]

Going back to earlier in the thread I want to reply to some points.

Of course, the point being made is that it's not really "good logic".

Surely that depends upon whether it works or not?

That may be lesson no. 1 in management security training, but it's poor advice in any context that requires a person to develop good, accurate, reliable judgement--such as in law enforcement, medicine, social work, etc.

It's a good job in your world someone handling thousands of pounds of cash and stock - let alone a legal duty to mitigate risks to public safety - has no requirement for good, accurate, reliable judgement.

It causes selective perception and establishes a one-directional calibration mechanism that ultimately risks making your judgement grossly miscalibrated.

Its a risk yes, it also has the potential to make your judgement accurately calibrated. Mine is very accurate from a lot of experience. More than I would like.

In law enforcement, this attitude has severe consequences. When a person such as a police officer is "on guard", he perceives the world in a different way, and he perceives that which has caused him to be on guard in a different way. His wariness alters his perception of anything that may potentially be a threat, and lowers his threshold for acting on the perception of a threat. With time, the inclination to perceive threats--even where there is none--increases, accuracy decreases and the threshold for action is lowered with devastating outcomes for innocent people caught in the crosshairs of officers with systematically corrupted judgement. We see this clearly in the evidence from studies that find that police officers excessively and inappropriately target black and hispanic men, subject them to illegal or just unnecessary searches with a lower hit-rate than among white targets, subject them to greater levels of force even when inappropriate, etc. Lesson no. 1 in management security training needs to be modified if it is to be incorporated into police training.

Indeed I don't disagree. But given that unlike on this side of the pond an American officer who doesn't get "on guard" when he is in grave danger is more likely to end up in the morgue himself then I don't blame him for perceiving threats. Better safe than sorry.

If the perceived danger was false and the evidence was that the perceived risk was unsupported then I would think we have an issue that needs addressing. If the perceived risk is real then it is good to perceive it.

Trusting your instinct is something entirely different than trusting your (good) judgement.

Agreed.

Your instinct will typically tell you that you can expect trouble with someone who looks like someone you had trouble with before. Your good judgement will tell you to keep past experience in mind but treat the person at hand as if he's a tabula rasa. Untill such moment that he isn't an unknown quantity to you any longer.

Which is what I did. I treated him well until after he crossed the line. Once he had crossed the line then I took action.

For the last year and a half I've been living in a minority-majority neighborhood, with all kinds of 'scary looking' people around me most of the time. Yet I tell anybody who bothers to ask me that this must be one of the most welcoming and friendly parts of the entire city of Amsterdam. One of those places where people aren't afraid to wish you a good day even though they don't know you. Or stop to have a little chat about the weather if they actually do know you. A place where big burly black guys in the gym politely ask you if you are using a machine. Simply because that's the way we do things.

Which should factor into your judgement. If these "scary looking" guys are very friendly then why consider them scary?

If on the other hand there was a street in Amsterdam where you had been mugged whenever you walked down it then it would not be unreasonable to be on guard next time you walk down that street - or even try to avoid walking down that street. If the mugger was consistently a white man in a pin striped suit then it may be reasonable to be on guard next time you walk down the street and see a white man in a pin-striped suit. Better safe than sorry.

[Khendraja'aro]

Same as any community. What's an ex-Jehova's Witness? Someone who used to be a member of a community but now isn't.

Riiight. You realize that being an ex-member of JW entails cutting all ties to the organization? That what you want? Someone figuratively making an orphan out of him- or herself?

Nice.

[Flixy]

Riiight. You realize that being an ex-member of JW entails cutting all ties to the organization? That what you want? Someone figuratively making an orphan out of him- or herself?

Nice.

Not to mention you don't lose your accent then.

[RandBlade]

No leaving a community does not entail cutting all ties to the community. Some communities cut all ties with ex-members but I don't respect or encourage that.

[Khendraja'aro]

No leaving a community does not entail cutting all ties to the community. Some communities cut all ties with ex-members but I don't respect or encourage that.

You listed the Jehova's Witnesses as an example. Leaving the JW will lead to the loss of contact with anyone inside the JW.

Don't complain to me if you're using shitty comparisons. Maybe, just maybe, you might consider thinking for more than five meters of gravel road when choosing comparisons.

[RandBlade]

You asked what an ex-member of a community was. I gave an example. That is all.

[Khendraja'aro]

Right. So, how exactly would you recognize that someone is an "ex member"?

[RandBlade]

I don't recall saying I would recognise someone as an ex member.

I believe I did say that ex members would be more likely to see their accents change and soften.

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't recall saying I would recognise someone as an ex member.

I believe I did say that ex members would be more likely to see their accents change and soften.

In order to achieve that they'd need to distance themselves from that group.

Now, why again would they need to do that in your eyes?

[RandBlade]

They wouldn't need to distance themselves from the group, just integrate with the rest of society. Get a house, a job, send their children to school, that sort of thing.

[Khendraja'aro]

That's not "integration", that's called "assimilation".

[RandBlade]

You think children going to school is assimilation?

Fine, assimilate then if that's what you want to call it. Regardless of race, religion, gender, creed, social group, sexual orientation or anything else it is the least I expect of anyone that children get educated.