The tolerance canard

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
14,911
Reaction score
3,171
Location
Michigan
Since the terrorists who attack us ARE Muslim is it not "natural" for people to then be looking at Muslims as potential attackers?

Fear is natural and reasonable.

Acting on that fear is another subject. While fear is an appropriate feeling to have, actions should be based upon knowledge and not simply fears.

Is that not what Mr. Williams was implying? It seems like natural human preservationist instinct.

What Juan Williams was stating was quite reasonable. I thought NPR was way out of line to dismiss him for those statements.

Juan Williams did not, however, advocate that Muslims be prohibited from dressing in traditional garb, that they be denied seats on airplanes, or that we should dislike Muslims because the sight of things which remind us of the terrorists who attacked us makes us afraid. Fear is normal. What is important is what we do when we feel fear.

Let's try a hypothetical. Say you're walking away from a crowd of people and you get hit on the head with a thrown rock. You turn towards the crowd and demand to know who threw it. No one answers. So you get some pals together and you attack the crowd with violence. After all, if they are innocent, they should turn over the guilty party, otherwise it's clear they sympathize with the guilty party.

The problem, of course, is that very few in the crowd may know who threw the rock. The rest may not even know a rock was thrown, let alone who threw it. By holding them all responsible and attacking them, you may force them to defend themselves. To you, this 'proves' that they are guilty. But any reasonable person would defend themselves when attacked, especially if they are innocent. As well, the innocent people in the crowd may find themselves on the side of the guilty parties, just to avoid being attacked by you and your friends. Not only that, but you may not catch the guilty parties; they may slink away and leave you fighting with the people in the crowd who had nothing to do with the rock-throwing. You and your friends may even lose; in which case the rock-throwers have managed to leverage their low-risk / high-reward hidden strategy into the complete destruction of you and your friends. In other words, you did their work for them.

Does this sound at all familiar? Sure, I'd be looking with fear at that crowd. After all, a rock came from someone in that crowd, and it hurt me. There could be another rock thrown at me at any moment. I doubt I'd turn my back on them, that's for sure. But I would think it advantageous to try to find out who threw the rock by other means. Who is standing near rocks on the ground? Who has dirty hands? Who has a criminal history of throwing rocks or being members of groups who throw rocks? Once I found out who threw the rock, I'd take steps to remove them as a threat to me ever again. Fear of the entire crowd? Yes. Advocate attacking - or even hating - the entire crowd just because I didn't know who specifically threw the rock? Counter-productive at best, dangerous at worst. Certainly not an intelligent response, natural or not.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
14,911
Reaction score
3,171
Location
Michigan
There is a reason police departments use profiling, it works more often than not.

What does a Muslim look like?

What does a terrorist look like?

Profiling works great when you know what you are looking for and nothing else could match that description.

Otherwise it leads to the risk of misidentification of both the guilty and the innocent.

Any terrorist who looks like Osama bin Ladin can shave, cut their hair, dress in a suit or jeans and t-shirts and they still look like terrorists to you? You might recall that even if we're talking about ONLY Muslims, there are 1.5 billion of them around the planet. Every shade of skin, color of hair, and both occidental and asian eyes folds.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
What does a Muslim look like?

What does a terrorist look like?

Profiling works great when you know what you are looking for and nothing else could match that description.

Otherwise it leads to the risk of misidentification of both the guilty and the innocent.

I agree with you *but* Profiling isn't always based on Appearance.

If you are looking for someone who can bypass sophisticated alarms and complex locking mechanisms, you might start looking at all the local Locksmiths and Alarm Installation techs. That is a form of educational profiling.

If you are looking for an abortion clinic bomber, you might start looking at conservative Christians, using the idea of religious profiling.

If you are looking for a thief who leaves behind Caifanes cassettes, you might start looking for a Hispanic criminal... using racial profiling.

In all of the above cases, you could still be wrong. But it IS profiling and also a logical place to start looking in any of those crimes. And those examples aren't necessarily based on appearance. (Racial profiling most often is, it's true.)
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
Juan Williams did not, however, advocate that Muslims be prohibited from dressing in traditional garb, that they be denied seats on airplanes, or that we should dislike Muslims because the sight of things which remind us of the terrorists who attacked us makes us afraid.

Who here has advocated that?
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
Racial Profiling is the logical way to focus investigatory resources. People hear "racial profiling" and knee jerk into thinking that means "lets pull over that (or ALL) black guy because he just HAS to be up to something". Thats not really what RP is all about. And avoiding the topic by strip searching the 90 yo Polish American great grandmother at the airport is plain stupidity.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
14,911
Reaction score
3,171
Location
Michigan
Racial Profiling is the logical way to focus investigatory resources. People hear "racial profiling" and knee jerk into thinking that means "lets pull over that (or ALL) black guy because he just HAS to be up to something". Thats not really what RP is all about. And avoiding the topic by strip searching the 90 yo Polish American great grandmother at the airport is plain stupidity.

What will you say when we stop doing random searches, concentrate on people of Middle Eastern appearance, and the next attack comes from someone who doesn't have a Middle Eastern appearance?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2006/10/sec-061011-fbi01.htm

Racial profiling is logical only when your enemy is guaranteed to meet that profile. If they know you are looking only at a particular race or skin color, and they can send operatives of a different race or skin color instead, what do you think they will do?
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
14,911
Reaction score
3,171
Location
Michigan
Who here has advocated that?

I believe Don said:

"Since the terrorists who attack us ARE Muslim is it not "natural" for people to then be looking at Muslims as potential attackers? Is that not what Mr. Williams was implying? It seems like natural human preservationist instinct."

I replied that fear is natural. It would be quite natural to associate traditional Islamic dress with the terrorists who have been in the news wearing it. Looking at Muslims (or blacks, Jews, etc) as 'potential attackers' is not natural, and not, IMHO, what Mr. Williams was implying. Don was, though.

Saying something like "I admit that I feel uneasy when I am in a bad part of town and I see a rough-looking black man walk purposefully towards me with an angry expression on his face" is not the same as saying "it is natural to look at Blacks as potential attackers." Don wants those two disparate statements to be the same. They're not.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
You lost me there. I think thats exactly what Williams and Gates were implying. If they are not looked at as possible "attackers" what is there to be afraid of?? And since when is "being afraid" or "looking at someone as a potential attacker" considered "taking action" a la making them not wear traditional garb? People are going to be afraid of a religion that is in the spotlight for having people that yell Allahu Akbar!! and detonate/shoot. That goes with a particular religion. It's these terrorists who are painting their religion in a certain light. Terrorists in far larger numbers, and far better funded/organized than the odd Xtian clinic bomber that tends to be tossed out in comparison. Thats just the facts and there is going to be a response to it. I hope that the reaction is simply "unease" vs something that goes against our American values. I honestly do. My grandparents generation put Japanese Americans in internment camps. I don't think we will ever get to that point and that shows progress IMO.
 
Last edited:

WC_lun

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
82
Location
Kansas City MO
Perhaps, you can take a few moments and explain...

Easy enough. NPR didn't do what they did to protect Muslims. They did what they did to protect thier image, like most companies would. i think it it was some other comany that did this, based upon his previous interaction with the company that he worked for and then his coments, most of the people sqwauking about this wouldn't be. However, it is NPR and so the right is going to use them as a whipping boy. I honestly don't know if his comments were serious enough to warrant firing. I can understand why he got fired though. I also think it is the company's decision and it is based upon verifiable actions by the employee.

I also love how you tried to put words in my mouth by saying he was a bastard while referencing my comments. Notice I never called him a bastard? That he made an ignorant and bigoted comment, yeah. Seems that is going around a lot lately. Never did I denigrate his parentage though.
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Easy enough. NPR didn't do what they did to protect Muslims. They did what they did to protect thier image, like most companies would. i think it it was some other comany that did this, based upon his previous interaction with the company that he worked for and then his coments, most of the people sqwauking about this wouldn't be. However, it is NPR and so the right is going to use them as a whipping boy. I honestly don't know if his comments were serious enough to warrant firing. I can understand why he got fired though. I also think it is the company's decision and it is based upon verifiable actions by the employee.

I also love how you tried to put words in my mouth by saying he was a bastard while referencing my comments. Notice I never called him a bastard? That he made an ignorant and bigoted comment, yeah. Seems that is going around a lot lately. Never did I denigrate his parentage though.
The bastard I referred to, is JESSE JACKSON. Thanks for showing you don't read the linked information, though... :p
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
Racial profiling is logical only when your enemy is guaranteed to meet that profile. If they know you are looking only at a particular race or skin color, and they can send operatives of a different race or skin color instead, what do you think they will do?

Not guaranteed, but likely.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
14,911
Reaction score
3,171
Location
Michigan
That he made an ignorant and bigoted comment, yeah.

I don't think Juan Williams made an ignorant or bigoted comment. I listen to NPR somewhat regularly, even though I am a conservative, and I generally enjoy it. I have enjoyed listening to Juan Williams on NPR. Never heard him on FOX, as I don't watch TV news or news commentary shouting heads. However, I find nothing wrong with his comments from what I've read.

I think NPR should not have fired him, but I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it. He appears to have landed on his feet, and life goes on. NPR does what they do; they're a left-wing bastion, just as FOX is a right-wing bastion. I will still listen to NPR on the radio in the mornings sometimes. I'll still occasionally complain about their left-wing slant on things, but oh well.
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
theo2.jpg
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
134
Juan Williams said on national TV...blah blah blah

NPR has already apologized a couple times for this poor decision. Once for how they handled it and a second time that they did it during fundraising.

Mr. Williams was fired for appearing on Fox. It was that simple. The narrow minded bigots at NPR couldn't stand the thought of having their own 'black man' on Fox. I don't really care for Fox and rarely watch it, but some very powerful people have an intense hatred for Fox. NPR have many politically like minded folks that are key financial contributors and NPR has established that they will fire if a financial contributor doesn't like the story. Before it was MoMA and D'Arcy. This time it may be the Open Society Institute and Williams. NPR won't bite the hands that feed them, but they will roll over and play fetch.

Anyway, on the O'Reilly program Mr. Williams admitted a personal discomfort (you call it bigotry). He went on to say, and this is often purposefully left out of the reporting on the controversy, that his discomfort isn't rational and that of course not all Muslims are terrorists. Woah! What a bigot!!!!

NPR missed a great opportunity where they could really delve into this topic and find out why so many people, including many liberally minded people like Mr. Williams have this discomfort. They already know that the government and media share the blame for the discomfort. We have a lazy, but sensational media regurgitating whatever the government officials and politicians give them. Because NPR are part of the media, and get a significant source of their financing from the government/politicans, they don't really want that.

It was the ministry of truth that fabricated the "MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO!!!", when it was neither. It was also the media that made the "KORAN BURNING!!!!" by one guy in Florida an international superstory. Fortunately, we will be put out of our misery soon as "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE KILLS US ALL!!!"
 

Grenadier

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
10,826
Reaction score
617
Is there hypocrisy on NPR's part? Of course. After all, they still have Nina Totenberg on board, who publicly relished the idea that a conservative politican's grandchildren would get AIDS.

In this case, though, I would think that it's more of an appeasement gesture to one of their biggest funders (the convicted felon, George Soros), who gave them close to 2 million dollars.

In the end, though, Juan Williams is going to come out ahead, with even more exposure, and his career will greatly benefit from the sympathy from both sides of the aisle.
 

Latest Discussions

Top