Comment by fetbaffe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fetbaffe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No solution is perfect and there will always be people who get mistreated by racisms, sexism, prejudice etc. That is unavoidable.

What you have to do is to chose the least worse solution.

So instead of violating a smaller number of peoples rights the US chose to violate everybody's rights with the TSA and the NSA. Even us who is not even living in the US or plan to go there.

The defenders then try to hide behind it with the argument that is fair, because everybody is mistreated. No it isn't. Violating several millions people is far worse than a few thousands. Especially violating peoples rights that can't even remotely be classified as a US person, like me.

And what was the end result of this nonsense US policy? Boston bombings.

Why? Because if you make everyone a suspect that is the same as saying there is no suspects.

In all of these cases, there where signs, but officials chose to ignore them because it is politically incorrect to profile on suspicious behavior and appearance.

So instead of violating a smaller number of peoples rights the US chose to violate everybody's rights

So your argument is, it's better to mistreat a small group of people (to which you presumably don't belong) rather than a large group of people. Seems to me you've bought into the baseline fallacy that deliberately mistreating innocent people is A-OK.

No, I don't think it is ok. I never said that, it's you who are putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that mistreating millions is far worse than mistreating a few thousands.

Understand the difference.

Understand the difference.

Well I don't see a difference. Better that a minority live in the ghetto so that the rest don't have to? Each time you clarify all I see is my original conclusion being confirmed. Perhaps it is you who don't understand the consequences of the policies you are promoting.

Who said anything about a ghetto? You are just assuming too much and making things up because you are full with prejudice against others and other ideas.

First you associated terrorist with muslims (which I never said), that shows in it self that you are profiling, even if you don't admit it. And now you seem to think that profiling will lead to a nazi like world. What? No!

What Marxist has brainwashed you with this nonsense?

Reality is not an all or nothing world, but you however seems to accept the fact of 1) total mass surveillance of everyone 2) which will create a police state 3) in a police state you will get true prejudice (like racism) and no equality before the law 4)that terrorism has won.

It is you who must defend that fact that you need to search old solitaire playing ladies as much as young extreme radicals.

Who said anything about a ghetto?

It is an analogy. I am starting to get the impression that you are a literalist. That's not a helpful tool in this discussion because all you do is outright deny rather than explain how what you've written does not fit the analogies and comparisons.

You could start with explaining how these two statements are meaningfully different:

"better to mistreat a small group of people rather than a large group of people."

"mistreating millions is far worse than mistreating a few thousands."

Explain the difference, don't just declare they are different.

First you associated terrorist with muslims (which I never said),

I stand by my characterization of your use of "politically incorrect" - the only people who use that term with respect to profiling are talking about profiling of minorities. Your follow-up reference to "appearance" and defense of the israeli system's racial profiling of arabs only confirm my initial evaluation.

you who must defend that fact that you need to search old solitaire playing ladies as much as young extreme radicals.

Jihad Jane is 50 years old. Your error is in believing that "profiling" works - that you can know who is an "extreme radical" with any level of certainty. As soon as you create a shortcut through security procedures, that shortcut becomes a vulnerability.

You come with literal accusation. How would like me take them?

It is you who use the word better. Not me. And they are different because better implies that you accept it or think it's good. I don't. The only thing I accept is reality.

Are you some sort of mind reader? "The only people", nonsense. You made up your mind on the first reply and you are sticking to it, even thou things are much more complicated than that.

Once again, it was you who thought of muslims, not me. This is why profiling is politically incorrect because the accusers themselves are stuck in their prejudice. So I say terrorist, you say Muslim and then you accuse me of racism. This is how moronic the Marxist has become.

And once again you assume that profiling is racial profiling because some have been racially profiled i in Israel. But I hope you understand that a few examples does not make that true for all profiling.

Nice that you use Jihad Jane as an example without knowing the facts. Jihad Jane was not an old solitaire playing lady. She converted to Islam and became radicalized. She got caught by her writings by people running the Jawa report blog, blog dedicated to profile islamist terrorists. So profiling worked!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_LaRose

From your answer I take that you would spend time searching the old solitaire playing ladies.

The only thing I accept is reality.

No, you declare your belief as reality and then hide behind that unsupported declaration.

Nice that you use Jihad Jane as an example without knowing the facts. Jihad Jane was not an old solitaire playing lady. She converted to Islam and became radicalized. She got caught by her writings by people running the Jawa report blog, blog dedicated to profile islamist terrorists. So profiling worked!

It's funny you should mention the "Jawa Report" as supporting your "reality" those guys are some of the most bigotted people on the net. Even the name of the website is bigotted - who do you think the "jawas" are? That they occasionally get something right is like saying that because a stopped watch is right twice a day, no one needs a working watch. You keep saying you aren't bigotted but every time you cite something as a defense it turns out to be just another example of bigotry. How many times will you quack before you realize you are a duck?

From your answer I take that you would spend time searching the old solitaire playing ladies.

If I believed in all the hysteria of terrorism, which you have defined as "reality" then yes, I would. If being an old lady playing solitaire is enough to get someone past security with less scrutiny, then terrorists would be stupid not to start playing solitaire, we already know they've got old ladies.

I used Wikipedia as source and in that article Jawa Report was mentioned as original source. I don't follow that blog, I read the Wikipedia article on what happened. I guess in your Marxist mindset, everything is policy statement even when you cite what happened.

It was you talked about Jihad Jane and I look it up. Now you didn't like the answer so now you start calling me a bigot because the Jawa reports are by your accounts bigots. Splendid logic.

Is that all you have? That empty barrel calling everyone else bigots and racists. Truly intellectual and classy.

I guess now you done that we already have fewer terrorist, all by your help. "That racist was stopped, we can stop bombing now."

As little you know about logic same goes for your try to understanding the intelligence business. If all terrorist starting to act like old ladies playing solitaire, we would know because you are already profiling those groups who would do that. Come on dude! Think. Use that part thats called brain and start thinking outside the copy paste answers from Huffpo or wherever you get them.

But if we put your tiny intellectual mindset aside, we can conclude that Jihad Jane was captured by profiling. However you didn't really like that it was done by a bunch of redneck racist. You would preferred if Lars Vilks was actually murder by her. I mean blogging racism is much worse, right?

I used Wikipedia as source and in that article Jawa Report was mentioned as original source. I don't follow that blog,

Your ignorance of your sources does not change anything. The Jawa Report is still wrong 99.99% of the time. Citing them does not prove that profiling works, it proves profiling does not work because the false positive rate is through the roof.

If all terrorist starting to act like old ladies playing solitaire, we would know because you are already profiling those groups who would do that.

You have this unfounded belief that profiling is effective, as if the people trying to evade profiling are dumber than the people doing the profiling - despite one being a bureaucracy and the other being a bunch of loosely-affiliated individuals able complete freedom to change tactics on a dime. Everything you say follows from that. Telling me to "think" doesn't make it any more true, all it does is prove you don't have any facts to support your conclusions. Everything you've cited has been proof to the contrary of your own claims.

You would preferred if Lars Vilks was actually murder by her.

Yes, that's exactly what I wanted. Spelling out how you are wrong, how everything you cite has racist connotations means I am evil. I'm going to take that accusation as proof of unwilling concession on your part and end the discussion here.

Have you ever been to Israel? Israeli style screening would mean interviews for every person flying to the USA. It would be more inconvenient and expensive than even the current TSA.

I does not make sense to interview persons in the US about why they will fly to US, so no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com